- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
I took the time to sit down and watch all of Pedro/Bomb Voyage's stream he made right as he was getting kicked out of Further Confusion (it's archived in this post) so the rest of you don't have to. I'll summarize what I saw, and then give my thoughts.
A brief exchange follows (slightly paraphrased):
Pedro asks if the issue is the inflatable gun or being barred from the party. He states that he was in Lucky’s room the previous night without problems and is confused about the sudden change. The staff tells Pedro it’s none of his business and that they don’t have to let him into the party if they don’t want to. Pedro reiterates his confusion, pointing out that he spoke with Lucky and thought everything was resolved before being called to con ops.
The staff alleges that Pedro filmed people without consent and posted it to Twitter, which Pedro denies. When staff notes he is currently recording, Pedro says it’s for his safety.
Pedro repeatedly asks what he did wrong and requests proof. The staff asserts the inflatable gun violated policy, reiterating they could revoke his badge at any time. Pedro insists he complied with the rules by immediately deflating the gun after receiving a complaint. The staff accuses Pedro of “playing a game” by complying quickly but suggests, without evidence, that he may have brought the gun out again later. They decide to pull his badge.
Pedro protests, claiming this sets a bad precedent for cosplayers and calling the situation unfair. He highlights what he perceives as selective enforcement, comparing his situation to attendees engaging in other controversial behavior.
The staff shifted the reasoning again, stating they had concerns about Pedro due to a past incident at FWA involving a different gun. Pedro counters that the FWA gun wasn’t his and had been approved by staff (the gun belonged to someone else and staff okayed that prop beforehand). The staff remains firm and revokes his badge.
Pedro continues questioning why he is being removed, pointing out inconsistencies in the staff’s statements. He notes they initially seemed okay with his recording, as they waved at his camera earlier. Staff then claim the recording itself is grounds for removal, contradicting their earlier responses.
Pedro leaves his badge on the table, filming himself as he comments on the situation. In the background, someone from con ops appears to be addressing an overdose in the lobby. Pedro remarks on the perceived prioritization of his case over the overdose incident.
When asked if he is banned or just being removed, staff say he can appeal, implying a ban is in place. Pedro requests an immediate refund, which staff begin processing while warning him not to film the screen. Pedro complies but continues expressing his frustrations, calling the situation discriminatory and unreasonable.
After receiving his refund, Pedro is escorted out. Outside, a passerby shouts, “Quit your drama,” while another remarks that the situation seems unfair. Pedro continues discussing the events with his viewers as he walks to what appears to be his Airbnb. The remainder of the video primarily consists of Pedro ranting about the ban to his audience and a few other passersby.
I'll be honest: I don't have a strong opinion about Pedro one way or the other. However, FurCon looks bad in this situation, especially if the actual reason was the fourth one. When you openly screw someone over by planning to ban them, waiting until they arrive (after spending the time and money to get there), and then banning them, it says far more about you than it does about the person you banned.
That being said, it's clear that FurCon knows they messed up because not only have they just started mass-blocking people who complained, but they've gone back and disabled the ability to reply to every single tweet from the last month on their Twitter account. Their Bluesky account still seems to be accepting public replies, but their posts over there get maybe one-tenth of the viewership so maybe that's why they didn't go into damage control over there..
Summary of the Video
The video begins with Pedro speaking to a staff member, explaining that he was avoiding a party he wasn’t invited to and insisting he never approached it. The staff relays that someone at the party didn’t want Pedro there because, according to them, there were two adjacent parties, and if Pedro were allowed into one, it would grant him access to the “Adventure Crew” party. Pedro asks why he isn’t allowed and whether he did something wrong. The staff responds that they simply don’t like him.A brief exchange follows (slightly paraphrased):
- Pedro: “I talked to Lucky, and he said everything’s fine—there’s no issue.”
- Staff: “I don’t believe you.”
- Pedro: “Talk to him yourself.”
- Staff: “I’m not going to. Do not go near that party.”
- Pedro: “I’m not trying to be rude, but you’re being rude to me. I don’t even know what I did wrong. Why do you think cons allow me to attend without issue? I’ve done nothing wrong.”
Pedro asks if the issue is the inflatable gun or being barred from the party. He states that he was in Lucky’s room the previous night without problems and is confused about the sudden change. The staff tells Pedro it’s none of his business and that they don’t have to let him into the party if they don’t want to. Pedro reiterates his confusion, pointing out that he spoke with Lucky and thought everything was resolved before being called to con ops.
The staff alleges that Pedro filmed people without consent and posted it to Twitter, which Pedro denies. When staff notes he is currently recording, Pedro says it’s for his safety.
Pedro repeatedly asks what he did wrong and requests proof. The staff asserts the inflatable gun violated policy, reiterating they could revoke his badge at any time. Pedro insists he complied with the rules by immediately deflating the gun after receiving a complaint. The staff accuses Pedro of “playing a game” by complying quickly but suggests, without evidence, that he may have brought the gun out again later. They decide to pull his badge.
Pedro protests, claiming this sets a bad precedent for cosplayers and calling the situation unfair. He highlights what he perceives as selective enforcement, comparing his situation to attendees engaging in other controversial behavior.
The staff shifted the reasoning again, stating they had concerns about Pedro due to a past incident at FWA involving a different gun. Pedro counters that the FWA gun wasn’t his and had been approved by staff (the gun belonged to someone else and staff okayed that prop beforehand). The staff remains firm and revokes his badge.
Pedro continues questioning why he is being removed, pointing out inconsistencies in the staff’s statements. He notes they initially seemed okay with his recording, as they waved at his camera earlier. Staff then claim the recording itself is grounds for removal, contradicting their earlier responses.
Pedro leaves his badge on the table, filming himself as he comments on the situation. In the background, someone from con ops appears to be addressing an overdose in the lobby. Pedro remarks on the perceived prioritization of his case over the overdose incident.
When asked if he is banned or just being removed, staff say he can appeal, implying a ban is in place. Pedro requests an immediate refund, which staff begin processing while warning him not to film the screen. Pedro complies but continues expressing his frustrations, calling the situation discriminatory and unreasonable.
After receiving his refund, Pedro is escorted out. Outside, a passerby shouts, “Quit your drama,” while another remarks that the situation seems unfair. Pedro continues discussing the events with his viewers as he walks to what appears to be his Airbnb. The remainder of the video primarily consists of Pedro ranting about the ban to his audience and a few other passersby.
My thoughts and analysis
After watching this twice, one notable aspect that stood out was the lack of a clear reason provided by the staff for banning Pedro. They cited four different reasons for the ban but did not seem to settle on a definitive one. Regardless of which of the reasons they ultimately decided to use, none of them seem particularly logical.- If FurCon claims they banned Pedro due to his behavior at a party, both Pedro and the staff acknowledge knowing "Lucky," the person who reportedly filed the complaint. It is concerning that no apparent effort was made to obtain Lucky's side of the story before deciding on the ban.
- If the ban was related to the inflatable gun Pedro was holding, it seems inconsistent to delay action. If simply holding the gun was considered a bannable offense, it raises questions about why the decision to ban him was not made immediately instead of waiting over a day.
- If he was banned for recording staff without their consent, that still doesn’t clarify why he was pulled aside in the first place.
- If the decision was based on Pedro's behavior at other conventions, the situation could have been avoided by preemptively barring him from registering. Instead, the process led to him traveling to the event, investing time and money, only to be banned on-site under circumstances that suggest the staff waited for an opportunity to justify their decision.
I'll be honest: I don't have a strong opinion about Pedro one way or the other. However, FurCon looks bad in this situation, especially if the actual reason was the fourth one. When you openly screw someone over by planning to ban them, waiting until they arrive (after spending the time and money to get there), and then banning them, it says far more about you than it does about the person you banned.
That being said, it's clear that FurCon knows they messed up because not only have they just started mass-blocking people who complained, but they've gone back and disabled the ability to reply to every single tweet from the last month on their Twitter account. Their Bluesky account still seems to be accepting public replies, but their posts over there get maybe one-tenth of the viewership so maybe that's why they didn't go into damage control over there..
