One more in my sporadic series of posts on the codes of conduct of various conventions. This time it’s LACon V, the 2026 Worldcon in Los Angeles. Its code isn’t so bad that it would have kept me from attending if I’d really wanted to, but it has enough problems that I changed my mind about getting a “virtual membership.” Here’s a look at some of its good and bad points.

First concern: “Discrimination (based on but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, or physical/mental disability) will not be tolerated.” Discrimination on these grounds by businesses, support organizations, and other public-facing groups is a bad thing, except when it’s necessary to their function (for example, Catholic churches can discriminate in favor of Catholics when hiring priests). Individuals can’t be held to the same standard. People often prefer the company of their own kind, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they aren’t obnoxious. Heterosexuals mostly would rather date heterosexuals, and homosexuals usually prefer other homosexuals. Affinity groups often meet at cons. This kind of rule can only be applied sporadically. Hopefully it will be invoked only when people get nasty about their preferences, but it could be used on anyone.

“Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated. If someone tells you no or asks you to leave them alone, you are expected to cease your interaction with them immediately. Because people may feel uncomfortable saying no or asking you to leave them alone, the absence of no is not sufficient to assume consent. Only yes means yes.” This mixes two different points. First we’re told that we should leave people alone if they say no. That’s reasonable, but then it immediately says that the absence of “no” isn’t sufficient. Does that mean explicit consent is required for every interaction? It creates pressure to formalize everything. Do people have to keep to themselves completely to be safe? Again, there won’t and can’t be complete enforcement, but the rule could be used on anyone.

It gets worse with the specific items that are called harassment. “Deliberate misgendering / deadnaming of people or continued misgendering / deadnaming after being corrected.” This applies a one-size-fits-all rule to trans people. Some people consider their previously manifested sex to be “dead” and want no reference made to it. Their choice should be respected. Others treat their transition differently. I know a fannish musician who treats his previous female identity as another person and has made an album combining her recordings with his new ones; he’s “deadnamed” himself. Some others wrote songs which they like to have credited under their previous names. Their choices should be respected.

“Comments that belittle or demean others” are deemed harassment. This is the same rule Balticon used in a nasty way. It will be quite an interesting convention if you can’t say anything bad about Donald Trump.

“Attempts to weaponize this Code of Conduct” violate the code of conduct. What counts as “weaponizing”? Does it mean anything more than using it in a way someone doesn’t like?

“Advocating for or encouraging any of the above behaviors.” I guess I’ve engaged in “harassment” by writing this.

The “anti-racism statement” is a mixed bag, but it doesn’t have specific prohibitions on members, so it’s out of scope for this discussion.

Will the bad parts of this code cause trouble for innocent people at LACon? No one knows. Sometimes senseless provisions get thrown in as boilerplate and never get fixed. It’s possible that if I registered for online participation and a WSFS membership, someone might point to this article and claim it’s “demeaning,” “harassment,” or “advocating for [prohibited] behaviors.” It’s more common, though, for cons to have badly written codes of conduct than to use them to punish people arbitrarily. Even so, their presence can be intimidating. A few bigoted organizations have taken action against Israelis and their supporters, so the risk is there.

Bottom line: If I were going, I wouldn’t skip the con because of this code of conduct, but I consider it enough of a negative that I’m foregoing the virtual membership.