#ponies exposition

Yes, I went to Ponies Exposition (PoniExpo) in Phoenix the weekend before last. I had an alright time personally and, well...it wasn't a complete disaster.

Despite the staff by and large working admirably to make this happen, it's clear that there were several things that went wrong. This convention has a lot of work to do if it wants to come back in the future.

First, some general thoughts on convention feedback and criticism:

I have very little experience in staffing conventions so please take what I say with a large grain of salt. I also recognize that there can be reasonable differences of opinion, so I won't fault the convention if it decides to take a different path from what I would like in certain areas. I'm just laying out my personal opinions to hopefully try to improve this convention.

A common "meta-issue" that has come up is whether people who didn't attend the convention should be allowed to provide feedback on it. Arguably, if someone hasn't actually attended an event, then it's easier to rely on speculation and misinformation rather than hard facts. And even when online posts and second-hand information aren't outright false, they can miss important nuances. All this means that feedback and criticism from non-attendees may turn out to be not constructive, so some skepticism is warranted. But even so, blindly dismissing such feedback with, "You weren't there so you don't know what you're talking about," without any thought is, quite frankly, rude and condescending. This is especially true when the people providing feedback are those who have experience in running conventions (and so may be able to spot potential problems from the outside), or those who witness aspects of the convention that are open to non-attendees (like social media).

Another common refrain I've come across is, "It's their first year." Yes, this is true, and so it may be reasonable to expect some problems that a more established convention wouldn't have. But using this as a shield against criticism is entirely backward. Acknowledging that it's the first year means acknowledging that there will be problems, so this should be an invitation to criticism. The convention should take this first year as an opportunity to learn, not as a way to ignore problems.

Finally, I think it's important to keep in mind what "constructive criticism" actually means. I think some people confuse "constructive" and "civil." While constructive criticism should generally be delivered in a civil matter, civil criticism isn't necessarily constructive. Constructive criticism is criticism that helps improve something, so ideally it should include specific suggestions or solutions to problems. Pointing out problems without offering solutions can be constructive, but only when they are not already known or they are known but persist. (I will admit that some of what I say is not strictly constructive under this definition, because I'm pointing out some problems that are already known and are being worked on. But I'll mention them anyway to serve as a record of what happened at this convention so hopefully these problems don't come up again.)

Okay, now let's get into the actual feedback:

This did not seem like an outright scam. I'm mentioning this because some people do believe that this was a scam, given that there have been previous attempts to start a brony/pony convention in Phoenix under different names. Both times that I'm aware of, the organizers deleted the convention's entire online presence before it got off the ground, and I will say that I did find that suspicious. But this did seem like a genuine attempt to put on a convention, and there's no indication that the organizers are simply running away with attendees' money.

Appointing new chairs is a good start. With all due respect, I think the new chairs are better equipped to take on this challenge. The staff has been fairly quiet after the convention, but from what I've seen I think this convention has a chance of coming back under this new leadership.

Announcements were inconsistent. There was only one announcement on the Discord server before the convention, and, while the Twitter account seemed active, some important information wasn't communicated there. Ideally, all important information should be announced to all forms of online presence, including the website (in a "News" or "Announcements" section). Online presence should also be kept up to date: There's also a Facebook page linked from the website but it seems to have been taken down. (Either the Facebook page should be restored or it should be removed from the website.)

Related to the previous, schedule changes weren't communicated consistently. In addition to announcing major changes, I suggest having a schedule available on the website (separate from the conbook), so any last-minute changes can be reflected in the schedule. I assume Wordpress has a schedule plugin or something to enable this, but if that's not feasible, Google Sheets lets you "publish" spreadsheets so people can view it in a nice format. (Note: This is different from just sharing the normal link to the spreadsheet.)

Registration had a few different issues. When I went to pick up my badge on Saturday morning, registration opened late, and materials (like the badge sleeves) were missing. From what I witnessed, there weren't any checks to make sure that the person picking up the badge was the actual registrant, nor was there anything to verify that the registration was real in the first place. I could be wrong here and maybe there were more checks than I realized, but it seemed like it would have been easy for someone to sneak a badge without paying. Ideally, everything should be ready to go before registration opens, and registrations should be checked to make sure every attendee is legitimate. (Since the convention is using a third-party ticket system, I assume there is some way to check in attendees within the system, or at the very least a way to create a list of all registrants and check them off manually.)

Certain staff acted in a hostile manner towards critics. This is simply unacceptable, and I believe this forms a major part of the convention's current negative reputation. People with legitimate criticism were kicked or banned from the Discord server, or received hostile responses on Twitter. At one point, a channel in the Discord server dedicated to feedback was completely wiped, forcing people to repeat their comments. It's true that some critics were a bit harsh in their remarks, but the reaction needs to match the action. If someone is derailing the conversation, then the first response should generally be a warning, not a kick or ban. To be fair, things do seem to be getting better in this regard, but it's been pretty quiet since the convention ended so it may be a bit hard to tell. I'll be watching this. (Before someone else mentions it, yes, there were actually two instances of the feedback channel being wiped, but the second one was by a troll due to improper permissions, which was another problem, but not relevant to this point.)

The COVID-19 policy was not enforced well, if at all. I certainly hope that COVID-19 safety measures won't be needed for this convention next year, but nevertheless this may hint at a bigger issue regarding communication among staff. Before the convention I got three different responses from three different staff members about how it would be enforced, and at the convention it didn't seem to be enforced at all. (I heard from someone that this policy was dropped at the last minute, but I was never informed of this directly and I don't think it was announced publicly at all. Also, I've already expressed my opinion on a convention changing such a policy shortly before it happens.) I don't want to get into a debate about what the policy should have been for this convention; my point is that, once a policy is set, all staff should be on the same page. This applies to other important policies as well, including, for example, the anti-harrassment policy.

The conbook could be improved. One thing in particular that bothered me was how the venue map was printed: The two pages were back to back rather than side by side, which made it hard to navigate between the two ends of the venue. Also related to maps, the area guide should have a north-facing arrow, especially given that west was up in this particular map. These are both minor issues; overall, the conbook seems decent.

The convention has a negative reputation to overcome. I could tell that some people were wary of coming to this convention, and I'm sure the actual convention only reinforced that for a lot of them. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but before I personally even consider coming back, the convention is going to have to make it clear that there are significant improvements.

All this is based on what I've witnessed personally. There are also posts from others that go into other important issues:

Twitter thread by Button (attendee and chair of another pony convention)

Twitter thread by Sophie Scruggs (one of the guests of honor)

Twitter thread by Retro (longtime convention staffer) about the conbook

(I may add more of these posts in the future.)