@yutt. not sure what your reading comprehension score was but it looks low. I said I agree with the no booth babe rule. But I don't agree with arbitrarily kicking one and not the others.
@zerzhul. Ive been around long enough to know what the community wants and again it wasn't a "Why let cosplayers in" statement. You either enforce the rule for all or none. Singling out one who's outfit was no worse off than most cosplayers (ok I saw the pink one, that was a bit much) and booting her but not the others is hypocritical.
It's not because Khoo and the rest of the crew don't want to see it, but because I and most of the community don't want to. I'm a male gamer and I'm pretty tired of the way women are treated at conventions (not to mention in game). PAX is fucking great because my wife and I can go together and not deal with models wearing next to nothing trying to hawk their shit. Instead we get people who are at least somewhat knowledgeable, and no one is uncomfortable or, you know.. objectified.
People decided her clothes were too much (or little) for their tastes, and the group decided to ask her to change or leave based on those complaints. Totally reasonable. Should other reps have received the same complaints? Maybe, but they didn't, so that's that.
I don't have a strong opinion about what happened because I don't feel like 2nd and 3rd hand descriptions are likely to have all the relevant details. Usually things like this get a bit scrambled in the retelling. However, I think people are combining two issues here.
1 - PAX as a community has decided booth babes are a bad idea. Cool.
2 - Some people complained about this cosplayer/promoter as a booth babe and she was asked to leave.
(1) could be valid without (2) being valid. (1) could be a law passed by Congress/Parliament/whatever, but (2) could be an invalid application of that law. Unfortunately, I don't know that there's a strong definition of (1) or a thorough process for deciding whether someone is "guilty" of (1). Some people complaining isn't a reasonable method, because just because the community has decided that a line exists doesn't mean that for some number of people that line might be more restrictive than the community in general. So application becomes a bit arbitrary.
Apparently Jessica Nigri was allowed to wear her original costume day 1 (I believe I saw her as well, and neither my wife nor I was offended or thought it was out of line). If her day 2 costume was out of line by some criteria, its at least somewhat reasonable that she be disallowed unilaterally by Enforcers or Khoo or whomever. I think the thing that will get more people angry is that she wasn't allowed to wear a day1 costume. Rule enforcement that is arbitrary (as something based on criteria such as "too skimpy" often will be) and inconsistently will annoy people.
This is like the federal goverment's definition of indecency.. "I know it when I see it". There were a few cosplay ladies walking around wearing less, and some, that I think just grabbed the "Sexy (whatever)" costume from Hot Topic.
It's not necessarily about a "family friendly" atmosphere. The booth babe policy is what it is because of community survey. The community at large decided that they did not want to be pandered to via booth babes, and now things are what they are. Also, this specific issue is due to the fact that she was being paid to pimp a game, which makes her subject to the policy. Cosplayers are not under the same policy since the community did not vote to ban skimpy unpaid cosplay. It's not hypocritical because it's not about being "family friendly" or "politically correct"; it's about saying that attendees do not want to be sold things on the show floor using sexual exploitation.
This is a perfect, brief distillation of the history and policy. I bet it will not be listened to by people who already decided that they wanted to see her in her skintight suit, but this is good.
--
Last year in addition the the Duke Nukem Girls, there were also about 25 girls at the Sprint Booth, all dressed alike. They were defended for being Sprint employees, though the 3 or 4 men at the booth wore shirts and khakis, and the girls wore tight shirts, push up bras and skinny jean style pants. Though supposedly employees, they would refer you to the men if you asked questions, and all they were doing was getting people to fill out raffle cards.
This is not entirely about appearance; any of the girls could have been unnoticeable on the street. This has to do, in part, with some often dismissed (in the video game industry) issues with misogyny (and in the case of Sprint, a pretty patriarchal set up) and sexualization of pretty much anything.
That some examples of it were not caught this year does not mean that the ones that were flagged were flagged inappropriately.
S.
(I only saw one person all weekend that I thought was inappropriately dressed; she was wearing white underwear and a white bra that had marabou on it (also if she is reading this, next time check your costume under a couple types of light. Because I could see your ladyparts and I looked at you for about 2 seconds as we passed in the hall). While I am certain it was cosplay of a character I did not recognize, No Costume is Still No Costume.)
There was a booth with a bunch of girls in teal shirts and yoga pants that I saw this year. I forget what exhibitor it was. That was probably the only one that caught my eye and made me think of the "booth babes".
How is it ok if a con goer is cosplaying in a revealing outfit, but you then introduce paying a woman to wear said custome and its not ok? How is this objectifying women? Is someone holding a gun to this girl's head, forcing her to wear this costume? NO. She is doing this because she wants to do this, nothing less, nothing more. How is it that wearing a costume like this is wrong, but you could go to the Double Dragon Neon booth (which was not IDing anyone) and practically beat the crap out of S&M, leather clad, lets just say blessed, women who have more bounce in them than a basketball. How is it that the majority of the female characters in Street Fighter Vs. Tekken wear clothes that, in real life, would require tape and industrial strength body glue, to stay on and is not considered objectifying women, and again this game required no ID. The majority of any Japanese RPG or Fighter games have girls that dress two shades shy of prostitutes, but yet, when they are localized for the US market, are rarely ever changed. WB had the Vita port of Mortal Kombat playable, where again, scantily clad women either beat the crap out of men or are beat upon, and end up being very bloody at the end, yet, still, no ID required. Most parents have no problem with any of the above, but let any woman dress as any of these characters in real life and, OH MY GOD!!!, we have to protect little Johnny's eyes. He could be scarred for life!!!!
The bottom line, if PAX wants to be so politically correct, they should enforce banning any costume that could objectify women. They should force any game company that has characters that objectify women to enforce game IDing or put them in an adults only section. I don't know about you, but I don't want PAX or anyone else becoming my moral enforcement police. That's my decision and my decision ONLY. If you don't like something, either go to another booth, or hey, here's an idea, JUST LEAVE!!!!
I only saw one person I thought was legitimately inappropriately dressed -- there was a girl on the expo floor on Friday (who I believe was an attendee, actually?) in no particular costume, but with shorts that exposed a non-insignificant chunk of her ass.
Other than that, this year was great in that regard. Some good clean fun etc.
The bottom line, if PAX wants to be so politically correct, they should enforce banning any costume that could objectify women. They should force any game company that has characters that objectify women to enforce game IDing or put them in an adults only section. I don't know about you, but I don't want PAX or anyone else becoming my moral enforcement police. That's my decision and my decision ONLY. If you don't like something, either go to another booth, or hey, here's an idea, JUST LEAVE!!!!
They do not want to be politically correct. They want to do what the PAX community has decided they wanted. You say, "I don't know about you," but you do in fact know about a general community 'you', which has decided they do not want booth babes. Often it was not even a moral enforcement police thing, but the fact that booth babes often were uninformed about product, and are there to appeal to a type of game fan that PAX attendees on the whole decided they did not want to be pegged as. That you choose not to take that into account, and/or fight against that prevailing community preference because it happens not to be yours is, of course, your own choice.
This is a fascinating discussion. As with many like it, I find the line between opposing objectification and slut-shaming to be quite blurry.
Work is work, after all, and if you've put a lot of effort into your body and are a woman who has chosen not to be concerned about such issues then I believe it's a woman's right to do whatever she pleases. The requirement of someone having to KNOW something about the games they're promoting is, of course, completely valid in theory but occurs to me as completely unenforceable.
Regarding the actual incident, I guess my only opinion is that I feel simultaneously awful that this woman has now become the point of discussions and scrutiny that she didn't ask for AND grateful that, as a model, this controversy could help her career. Someone mentions she has upskirt shots on her web site - so what? If she's not selling them at PAX it's ridiculous to mention it. At the same time, it brought someone to her website even if it is to subtly denigrate her life choices. The conflict bears out pretty clearly in that dichotomy.
I don't know S about F at the end of the day, but it occurs to me that the response was a little misguided though well-intentioned. I do NOT know that I would feel that way if I was her though. I'd be interested in knowing how SHE feels about what happened.
To be fair, though, this is my first year...and while there were some great panels about gender issues in gaming, I certainly didn't go assuming that an event of that scope even has a CHANCE of successfully policing the ever-changing landscape of what ways women and are not allowed to dress (as decided, of course, by what is most likely a bunch of d00ds)
I guess the only other point I'd mention is that a wider array of body types being represented might make this discussion a bit different...but that is more of a critique of the industry as a whole than it is to the organizers of this event, who I can imagine are trying very difficult to balance the desires of women who DO want to participate in stuff like HAVING A JOB THAT MATCHES THEIR SKILLS AND INTERESTS "against" the interests of well-intentioned (and, incidentally, CORRECT) feminists who are concerned about the effect that promoting appearance over perceived substance can have.
I'd be interested in knowing how SHE feels about what happened.
This is how I feel about the entire situation. If she was cool with it, then no big deal. If she feels otherwise, I'd like to have her give her take and we can debate from there.
Otherwise we're just going off of sensationalist gaming journalism sites, and arguing the same debate we've had for the past few years. I don't like booth babes. (Nor would I care for booth beefcake, or whatever the male version is called) I'm not particularly fond of the "loopholes" that several companies are trying to pull as well. But I'll let the community make the call there, as I don't care to make waves. (Not unless I feel that my PAX is being made worse by someone who is causing the Expo hall to grind to a stop, because everyone wants pictures with that individual.)
There aretwo problems people have with booth babes: 1) That it degrades the industry to hire a person to be pure eye candy just to sell a game. Whether this is wrong or not is subjective, and so I won't say a lot. There ARE lines of taste though. The girls at Steel Battalion were, as I recall, attractive but it was tasteful. The uniforms were good, pretty authentic, even afterwards ( one of them asked a question ahead of me at the Khoo & A, and to my shame I admit I was enthralled). So, there is hiring someone to help and they are a bit of eye candy, then there's close to being a stripper.
2) It clogs up traffic, and personally, this bothers me more than the first because its an objective, practical concern. PAX is crowded, and I accept that as a con its gonna happen. But for this incident particular, there was a point Jeesica was doing photos at the game display. People lined up to individually take shots with her, and it created hellacious traffic.
Now, yes, lines were everywhere and other booths caused excesive traffic (Borderlands 2? Civ? Looking at you...). But that was over the game. That was geeks like the rest of us, held in our shared thrall of gaming. The crowd was tight, but while basking in the warm glow of, as a concept, "Why We Are There". During Jessica's pictures, that corner of the show floor was impassable. No rolling to see distance, no fatigue from rough terrain, flat out unable to get through. And why? To see someone in a skimpy suit?
Yes, women like Jessics are amazing beatuies and we SHOULD celsbrate that kind of cosplay because it proves that we nerds come in all shapes and sizes. But it shoukd not interfere with being able to see what you want.
I've seen that kind of boob-induced blockade once before... the Duke Nukem booth. Notice that both booths asked to leave caused traffi issues?
Do the rules need to be clarified? Maybe, I havent read the text. But there HAS to be a policy against "Hey nerd! Come to our booth, we have boobs" for logistics reasons as well as any ethical concetns
The skirt on the first one could have been a bit longer. I believe the rules are 4" above the knee or lower. I saw the same thing at that paintball booth. Girls with short jeans were there one day. Next they had stockings on which is perfectly fine and didn't diminish the presentation.
Cosplayers who are paying attendees I believe are fine with violating this rule, since they are not paid to promote anything and our there because they want to be.
Cosplayers who are payed by exhibitors, no matter how knowledgeable about games, it must be asked to leave or cover up.
Hm. I'm sure someone's discussed before the idea of having a separate section for M titles, and, in that section, giving a bit more autonomy to the models and the companies that wish to employ them?
Could be a logistical nightmare, but would also allow for the M room to get pretty wild while protecting the people who wish to avoid that sort of dynamic from it.
wow there is a lot of intelligent discourse occurring in this thread about the ever-present question of babes of the booth.
personally they weird me out a bit. I talked to a few last year and the job they have seems to suck. It's cool that Jessica is a fan and not really just a corporate shill but I saw some attendees interacting with her, touching her, being extremely fucking weird. It bothered me to even see that, knuckleheads saying shit like "you're really hot". I guess that's what she's going for but I dunno...I feel really weird about them.
There is absolutely nothing confusing, difficult, or controversial about having the vendors attending exercise a degree of professionalism and decorum.
Is this really a discussion that is happening? Do you guys show up for work with your scrotum hanging loose and procede to debate HR whether that is appropriate?
Why not just go to Hooters instead of PAX if that's what you're looking for?
There is absolutely nothing confusing, difficult, or controversial about having the vendors attending exercise a degree of professionalism and decorum?
Is this really a discussion that is happening? Do you guys show up for work with your scrotum hanging loose and procede to debate HR whether that is appropriate?
For those who were attending and stopped by the Lollipop Chainsaw booth, Jessica Nigri was the cosplayer who was promoting the game.
Now on friday, she wore a more or less typical cheerleading uniform with a bare midriff (skimpy, yes, but there are REAL uniforms that are skimpier than what she was wearing). Saturday, she wore a much more revealing costume and was asked to change. Ok. She changed back to the original costume, and then was told that was also "too revealing"? That's, if anything, hypocritical PAX. Stick to your guns.
Considering what she was wearing (which is actually a pretty common cut of High School Cheerleading uniform), I really think the "no booth girls" thing is being taken too far here. We can have disembodied heads and mutilated corpses in games like House of the Dead 4 for all to see, games such as Far Cry and other shooters broadcasting on large monitors, but apparently something I can see if I go to a high school football game is over the line?
Seriously, I think she deserves an apology.
There's been a lot of good discussion on this thread about if booth babes are cool vs. not and what your various definitions are for 'too skimpy'. That's all well and fine and of course opinions will differ.
I think the key point and completely valid argument here is that her costume was fine on Friday and not fine on Saturday. That's the part to me that is wrong and what she deserves an apology for.
One would assume that PAX officials walked the floor before the doors opened on Friday morning to make sure everything was safe, working, in order, etc. One would also assume they saw her and didn't bat an eyelash and her outfit was fine.
Based on official statements, it would seem that the action was taken regarding the unacceptability of her second Saturday outfit (which happened to be the same as the acceptable Friday outfit) from attendee complaints. Being reactionary and off the cuff like that on the part of management doesn't sit well. Does that mean we can technically complain about anything and get an immediate correction? I doubt it.
A more proper and acceptable response from PAX officials to the complaining attendees should have been something like "We apologize you find this level of attire uncomfortable, but we made a point to visually review the staff of all our exhibitors before the convention began. Based on criteria we've defined, we don't believe this attire violates the level of appropriateness that has been established. If you disagree, here's how you can contact management to express your dissatisfaction and we'll do our best to refine the criteria for subsequent conventions, reflecting the preferences of our attendees."
And, for the record, I personally felt her Friday cheerleading outfit was fine and pretty in line with most community standards of 'decency'. The pink one is debatable (of course I loved it but could understand why parents would be concerned).
I really wonder if a lot of the attendee complaints wouldn't have been as prevalent if she didn't look so good in the outfit and it wasn't just an issue of the outfit itself. That's a whole can of worms. Or, as others have pointed out, were most of the complaints from the (incorrect) perception she was a 'booth babe' and hired just because she was attractive?
There is absolutely nothing confusing, difficult, or controversial about having the vendors attending exercise a degree of professionalism and decorum.
Is this really a discussion that is happening? Do you guys show up for work with your scrotum hanging loose and procede to debate HR whether that is appropriate?
Why not just go to Hooters instead of PAX if that's what you're looking for?
Personally I'm just curious about how a convention that included the theme swears of "pussycrumbs" and "sluthorse", converses about dick wolves, etc can really be morally outraged at anything. I sat next to what appeared to be a 10-12 year old kid in the main theater while music that constantly had swears it in rang over the audience, I stood in the exhibit hall watching demos, some projected onto large screens or intricate displays (alienware's ring of video for one) showed video game people being shot and tons of blood. I had no problem with this, but if we are going to be outraged, then we should outraged. Again I have no problem with any of this, I come to the convention knowing it's there, and enjoy it.
That having been said if booth babes are banned, then booth babes are banned. Had she comes as just a generic cos-player instead of a being paid booth babe and the Con asked her to change/leave then I'd be more upset.
I'm a parent and I wouldn't be concerned with my son seeing the pink outfit on a cosplayer walking around the place. Nipples don't give kids nightmares so girls walking around flaunting whatever they want is fine - he goes to the beach, he knows girls have boobs.
However, that has no place in a booth at PAX because we as a community have said so. Period. It's not a family friendly thing, it's not a public decency thing - it's simply that we as a Penny Arcade community spoke and said we want all genders to feel comfortable at PAX. I don't see where it's up for debate - we chose this atmosphere and I think that our female members appreciate it. Having seen footage of e3 I'm extremely glad we have the rule in place. Without it, every booth would be half dressed women looking bored, having their pictures taken by horny guys.
Edit: And she doesn't deserve an apology from PAX, she deserves it from her employer who didn't take the time to research PAXs policies or forward a pic of the costume to PAX ahead of time. After Duke Nukem last year there's no way that pink outfit would fly.
I give the PAX community a lot of credit on most occassions. I like to think a large majority of us are intelligent, self-sufficient individuals, who can discern whether a game has any level of quality, regardless of what the girl in front of the booth is wearing. I also believe that there was a similar situation with the Duke Nukem girls last year, who also wore extremely risque outfits, yet they were allowed to stay.
They were allowed to stay, I believe, because they were also in the game.
The issue here is the obvious hypocrisy of Mr. Khoo, and Reed. In a direct quote from Kotaku, he says:
"Ultimately the costume policy is designed to keep the show family friendly, as we see a good number of parents being their young children to the show," Khoo said.
Maybe next year, then, all demos should take place behind closed doors. 9 year old children can't be exposed to cleavage [by exhibitors, don't even get me started on the cosplayers] but Spec Ops can have screens outside their booth showing extremely graphic trailers, as can Max Payne 3, and... oh. EVERY OTHER TRIPLE A TITLE.
I'm indifferent on the issue of booth babes, because I can largely disregard them. I'm not 12 anymore and don't go OMG BOOBZ everytime someone has a slightly revealing outfit - if it's canonical, why the fuck not? I'm just pleading for some consistency to the policies that Penny Arcade has.
PAX East 2012 Checklist: [x] 3 Day Pass [x] Time off Work [x] Flight [x] Hotel
There is absolutely nothing confusing, difficult, or controversial about having the vendors attending exercise a degree of professionalism and decorum.
Is this really a discussion that is happening? Do you guys show up for work with your scrotum hanging loose and procede to debate HR whether that is appropriate?
Good joke, but I don't think it's a good analogy I work IT for a Real Estate Database company...when you log into our product, it is decidedly scantily-clad women/men free (sadly - this is a design suggestion I made but it was ignored). So when we do Real Estate Database conventions, all our Marketing department dresses appropriately FOR THEIR INDUSTRY...in our case, business formal. However, if your product is a piece of commercial art which includes such depictions, it occurs to me that some grey area is introduced at the very least.
Besides, the problem isn't with the women acting inappropriately by...you know, existing...it's with the fact that the attendees act like awful morons when presented with the reality of a (conventionally) beautiful woman. To me that isn't the company OR their employee's fault. This naturally segues into the awful fact that if a woman COULD tell men "you're not acting right, let's take a quick picture and you stop hitting on me now k?" (or even better, dudes didn't suck) without being mocked by ALMOST EVERY OTHER MAN EVER and considered bad at their job, we wouldn't be in this position. That's obviously far beyond the scope of this convo, but I'm compelled to mention it since so many people have mentioned traffic and inappropriate behaviour as a reason for opposing these women doing their jobs.
If the woman was dressed "appropriately", but crowds were forming based on how attractive she was, would she be asked to leave? I'd say no...or at least there's no indication of that being the case. That we are in the habit of feeling like it's our right to decide what a woman wears beyond that, to me, is very shaky ground ethically...esp. considering the other things people have mentioned (beheadings? Fine. Explicit language? No stress. Implied sexual violence? All over the place. Overt sexual themes? In abundance.)
All that said, there's always the fact that "but them's the rules, how and whenever we choose to enforce 'em!" is an ABSOLUTELY valid approach. Heh.
I don't see where it's up for debate - we chose this atmosphere and I think that our female members appreciate it.
I'm certain some do, and some don't. I'm new, so I don't know if "the community" in this case includes only people here in the forums (the sheer size of the event suggests that couldn't POSSIBLY include every female) or if there was a greater question asked to "the community" as a hole. I apologize for my ignorance, but the only thing I know about anything in life anymore is that no _________ group of people feels __________ way about anything, really.
Of course, if companies either chose or were required to have male eye candy in even proportion with their female eye candy things would be a bit different...but again, that's talking about a land somewhere a few million parsecs away, if even. Ha.
Edit: And she doesn't deserve an apology from PAX, she deserves it from her employer who didn't take the time to research PAXs policies or forward a pic of the costume to PAX ahead of time. After Duke Nukem last year there's no way that pink outfit would fly.
I'd just like to clarify, as several people here seem to be trying to represent the PAX community as being against booth babes and claiming the majority decision in the favor of their particular opinion.
Over 80% of the respondents in a poll put forward by Penny Arcade said that the person in question "needs to be trained/educated about the product." So for the record, most of the community are ok with a female in the booth promoting the game so long as they would belong there completely aside from their sex or appearance. I don't think anyone can claim Jessica does not meet this qualification.
Please everyone, try to follow Wheaton's Rule. I think the biggest breakdown here is not Jessica or the handling by the PAX staff, but the conduct of PAX community members in regards to this. From the people that complained in the first place, to people that wrote about it on the internet, to some of the comments on this thread on both sides. People just aren't trying to understand other people's viewpoints or open any kind of meaningful dialogue.
"In Europe, it's not America."
Scott Kurtz, The Morning After, Aug 31 - 2010
There is absolutely nothing confusing, difficult, or controversial about having the vendors attending exercise a degree of professionalism and decorum.
Is this really a discussion that is happening? Do you guys show up for work with your scrotum hanging loose and procede to debate HR whether that is appropriate?
Why not just go to Hooters instead of PAX if that's what you're looking for?
Really? It was the girls job to accurately represent and portray the character from the game; which she did flawlessly. It is not her's or WB's fault that irresponsible parents bring there children to a convention where violence and sex is advocated. I believe there is a Sesame Place for that right around the corner in PA for that good ol' family fun.
But if we're going to go by the rule of "They need to be knowledgable about the product", what's stopping companies from hiring booth babes and just have them memorize some paragraph long spiel about the game they're promoting? To me it's got to be an all or nothing type deal. The majority of nerds fetishize the idea of a hot nerd girl dressed in these costumes, in spite of the fact that they're an extreme minority, so no duh these same guys are going to lose their shit at a convention filled with them. The reality is that although there are plenty of female attendees at PAX, it is for the most part a sausage fest, so you're either going to embrace that or you're not, there's not much middle ground.
It seems that many people don't understand. The policy isn't in place to censor sexuality or "protect the children". The policy is in place so that PAX doesn't become an irrelevant joke like E3 has become where the marketing becomes more important than the con.
Cosplayers wonder around the con, and don't really cause congestion in any single area for long periods of time. In addition, each "Booth Babe" attending means one less fan who would be attending. That alone is reason for banning them.
The only reason people are up in arms about this particular incident is because she is a well known cosplayer with a fanbase. If this had been some random model, nobody would have cared. I agree that Jessica should be at the con as an attendee, but since she was working for WB to promote their game, at that point she ceased being a cosplayer, a part of the community which this con celebrates as part of the culture, and became a "Booth Babe", a promotional tool to sell games. As such, what she wore should be subject to the policy laid out.
I think the situation was handled as it should have been, and I fully support the policy.
I think the situation was handled as it should have been, and I fully support the policy.
If this is the case then explain the Firefall woman's exposed left butt cheek. She showed more of a private area of her body then Jessica ever did during all three days of PAX. I am not looking to argue..I am just confused as to why the rule was not rightfully implemented to all "booth babes" present. Don't get me wrong..I had an amazing time at PAX..just confused how one is acceptable and the other is not.
But if we're going to go by the rule of "They need to be knowledgable about the product", what's stopping companies from hiring booth babes and just have them memorize some paragraph long spiel about the game they're promoting?
It's very simple. You talk to them like a human being and determine what they know about it, feel about it, and why they're passionate about it. That's how the person acts that most people at PAX want to be.
That is why this entire incident makes me sad, it's very UNPAX. It's people ignoring Wheaton's Law. If you can't talk to people and have a conversation, it's not PAX. Tattling on naughty shorts, calling people hypocrites, calling down shame on passionate people doing things in innocence, those are things that make me sad.
"In Europe, it's not America."
Scott Kurtz, The Morning After, Aug 31 - 2010
As this goes on, I still can't believe the hypocrisy of the Pax East creators. Like said several posts above, "Oh, we have to make this family friendly." OK, then you allow games on the floor, that can be played by anyone, that basically portray women as nothing but meat, or have the intelligence of a rock. You allow music to be played at the beginning of almost every panel that include swear words that would make my parents pass out. You allow people to cosplay in decidedly un-family friendly costumes (wether it be violent or sexual) and justify it by saying "Oh, they're not being paid, so it's ok." This is definitely becoming a severely two faced situation. You can't continue to claim the "Family Friendly" angle and still let any of the above happen. And for whomever said above that this was a community decision, well, I know I didn't get a vote about this.
You know what else is funny about this? I'm a gay male, and female boobage/skin doesn't bother me in the least. These women are hired to portray characters from a game. It's not like any of them just decided out of the blue that, hey, it'd be cool to wear a costume that pushes their cleavage up to their chins, and contains just enough clothe to cover their vaginal area! For the most part, most all of these character costumes were designed by horny MALE game designers that are doing nothing but catering to an adolescent male demographic. The games that include this stuff are mostly rated M, but you know that these titles are going to eventually be in the hands of any male kid between the ages of 8 and 16.
Hmmm, yeh, I really believe Pax wants its events to be family friendly, but let's forget that almost every AAA title displayed on the floor does something, even in the slightest way, to demote or degrade women, or contains enough violence that if it were a movie, it would be rated X.
One last thing, if you have a hot body, be it male or female, and you want to show it off, go right ahead. You are not being degrading towards your sex. Unless it is deemed pornography, you have every right. What you don't have a right to do is make a decision for me as to what is considered decent or not. Jerry and Mike, you should stick to creating comics/games and stop trying to spearhead a gaming moral majority.
The issue here is the obvious hypocrisy of Mr. Khoo, and Reed. In a direct quote from Kotaku, he says:
"Ultimately the costume policy is designed to keep the show family friendly, as we see a good number of parents being their young children to the show," Khoo said.
Maybe next year, then, all demos should take place behind closed doors. 9 year old children can't be exposed to cleavage [by exhibitors, don't even get me started on the cosplayers] but Spec Ops can have screens outside their booth showing extremely graphic trailers, as can Max Payne 3, and... oh. EVERY OTHER TRIPLE A TITLE.
This. What a joke to call a revealing outfit "not family friendly" but wall-to-wall carnage and violence is OK.
It seems that many people don't understand. The policy isn't in place to censor sexuality or "protect the children". The policy is in place so that PAX doesn't become an irrelevant joke like E3 has become where the marketing becomes more important than the con.
Doesn't seem like that's the intention from the above Khoo quotation. From here it looks like the old American "sex bad, violence good" backwards morality.
And she doesn't deserve an apology from PAX, she deserves it from her employer who didn't take the time to research PAXs policies or forward a pic of the costume to PAX ahead of time.
Amen. WB hired Jessica, and was thus responsible for informing her of the PAX-specific attire guidelines for exhibitors. Since she makes her own costumes and has attended many different conventions, the guidelines for what is specifically allowable at PAX for exhibitors should have been clearly reviewed with her by her employer.
There's nothing unusual or hypocritical about establishing one set of guidelines for exhibitor attire, and another set for cosplay attendees. Yutt, thespian, Rorus Raz, shadowfire, themyscriya, lindsey lohan, sausage and other posters have articulated the genesis and intent of these community guidelines much better than I could, and make excellent arguments in their support. Exhibitors who encourage or enable their employees to flout or narrowly skirt these guidelines do so at their own risk, and are disrespecting the PAX community standards in pursuit of their own commercial advantage.
There's also nothing hypocritical about a parent allowing his/her children to play M games and admire sometimes-skimpy cosplay, and still appreciating the PAX standards regarding exhibitor employee attire. My children are mature enough to understand that video games are make-believe and also to appreciate the imagination and effort that went into creating the terrific costumes the cosplaying attendees wore. I don't think anyone here, parent or not, is afraid that the sight of bare skin is going to scorch our delicate little retinas -- but I'm not enthusiastic about yet more rampant use of exposed flesh to sell me stuff.
I did not happen to find Jessica's cheerleader outfit unseemly (and she seemed to be enthusiastic and quite nice), but will leave that judgement to those monitoring the PAX exhibitor guidelines. I'm not familiar with other conventions, but I found the exhibitor employees at PAX (including the attractively-attired attractive women) to be consistently well-informed and friendly. If that's the happy result of PAX's policy, I'm all the more for it.
There is absolutely nothing confusing, difficult, or controversial about having the vendors attending exercise a degree of professionalism and decorum?
Is this really a discussion that is happening? Do you guys show up for work with your scrotum hanging loose and procede to debate HR whether that is appropriate?
I lol'ed.
I also lol'd. But when I realized that means I can't hire these guys to hawk my game "Banana Ninja" at PAX 2013, I cried.
The only reason people are up in arms about this particular incident is because she is a well known cosplayer with a fanbase. If this had been some random model, nobody would have cared.
I would have, because my view of this doesn't consider such things at all. "The community" isn't one that I'm, necessarily, a part of. It's full of wondeful people, of course, that I HOPE will let me into their lives and find value in mine...but I've never been to any conventions that were about anything that wasn't purely IT-related or related to the real estate industry (which is...really exciting stuff let me tell ya).
I probably haven't explicitly stated my view yet, because it's not fully formed, but I see the policy as pretty much preventing certain women from being able to get a job that would otherwise be available to them. Since the problem is not their behaviour (i.e. we're not talking about sex trade here), it can only be their appearance. And that appearance has only ever been a problem because they are women...but having scantily clad women makes other women feel (rightfully) uncomfortable...and I think it's safe to say that if I were in charge of making the rules my head would be ready to explode.
I agree that Jessica should be at the con as an attendee, but since she was working for WB to promote their game, at that point she ceased being a cosplayer, a part of the community which this con celebrates as part of the culture, and became a "Booth Babe", a promotional tool to sell games. As such, what she wore should be subject to the policy laid out.
Discussions of whether or not the policy is well-founded and/or sexist set aside, I obviously agree. Them's the rules as they stand now, and her company should have known that it was possible there would be a kerfuffle of some sort and not thrown her under the bus (unless she knew, at which point...good for her? haha)
Then again, this is a LOT of talk we're having now...making their booth more effective at publicity than all those that DID follow the rules. That alone makes a compelling case for re-evaluation of the policy, or instituting further punishment for them moving forward or whatever...but, I am VERY happy to say, it's not MY event. I can't IMAGINE running something like PAX in terms of scope or approach, so any criticism I have about the "no professional models" rule has gotta be sort of put in check by the sheer size of what's happening and the fact that we can't each have the rules the way we like them and I'm very grateful for such an amazing event being run whatever my opinion on the details may be.
If this is the case then explain the Firefall woman's exposed left butt cheek. She showed more of a private area of her body then Jessica ever did during all three days of PAX. I am not looking to argue..I am just confused as to why the rule was not rightfully implemented to all "booth babes" present. Don't get me wrong..I had an amazing time at PAX..just confused how one is acceptable and the other is not.
I didn't see her, but I would have felt that that violates the booth babe policy too. (Particularly if she couldn't answer straight-forward questions about the game) I don't think this matter of "But someone else did it and they didn't get called out!" is okay, and I'm really wishing that the exhibitors would just follow the friggen policy. It should be more about knowing the game, and less about trying to sell it with skin. (And again, I don't care whose skin it is.)
I think while Robert Khoo's response to Kotaku was probably the most "acceptable" response to make, I don't think it works too well given the audience. As demonstrated by several responders here with the pointing out of its hypocrisy, perhaps we need a more straight-forward "The goal of the community's "No Booth Babes" rule is to allow for an environment where fans can appreciate the games, talk to developers, community heads and PR people, and enjoy a hobby that we all partake in. It has nothing to do with the rights of a woman (or man) to wear what they like, but rather the feeling of the community as a whole in whether they are being marketed a game or model." And try to avoid what karmacappa said, which is the objectification of these representatives. It's not about their appearances, but whether they actually know and care about their product and gaming in general.
attendees interacting with her, touching her, being extremely fucking weird.
Wow, really? In what way? I'm surprised she let people touch her in any shape or form.
But anyway, my opinion on the matter. I don't think she's in the wrong at all. She dressed perfectly as the character, and it was completely canonical and matched the game they were showing. It's not as if she just dressed like that in any old outfit. Now, the problem is with Warner Bros. really. They should have checked to see if it was fine for her to wear and looked into the dress policy. PAX also wasn't in the wrong at all - besides, they didn't kick her out, they just asked her to put on a shirt/jumper over the costume, or to change into something a bit less risqué.
Going to PAX East 2013/14 is my biggest goal right now. I plan to achieve it...
@TheJackoNerd: it's not like they grabbed a boob, but I saw 2 separate dudes at random times kind of like touch her arm and such, while saying something awkward/gross. She's obviously a pro and didn't like smack them or anything but I didn't like seeing it and you could tell she was just thinking like "keep your hands where I can see them" while smiling through it.
It's odd, that's really my only problem with the booth babe thing. I have nothing against them being there I just think idiots don't know how to act around them.
just confused how one is acceptable and the other is not.
I haven't seen pictures of that person, just Jessica's costumes. If it's as egregious as you state it was, I don't think that was acceptable either. She should have been asked to cover up or leave as well. This simply my opinion as someone who attends Prime yearly with regards to how I'd like to see the con develop. I don't want booth babes in every booth. It seems that is how it is at E3, and I feel it really detracts from the event. Disagree if you will.
However, I do think cosplayers guidelines should be lenient. As long as they aren't breaking any local laws, they should be left alone. I'm unaware of any PAX guidelines for cosplayer dress. I would have been fine with Jessica's pink outfit if it had been as a cosplayer. However, I think as soon as someone is paying you to be there, the rules change because of how it can negatively shape the con.
PAX is a celebration of the community, which cosplayers are a part of. Marketing gimmicks don't and shouldn't have the same rights. PAX isn't a trade show. Publisher's have plenty of other tools that they can use to market at PAX without causing problems.
really, would it have been okay for her to cosplay a biker from BMX XXX as long as it was in the spirit of cosplay? obviously not regardless of if you think saying it's inappropriate is 'slut shaming' or whatever. it is what it is; pandering.
Jars on
0
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Didn't the Firefall girl match the character in-game 100%? I almost wonder if the people complaining didn't actually look up at the Santa-Maria sail sized banner that read "Lollipop Chainsaw" and perhaps think to themselves "wow, she looks like the real life version of the game character". Same for Firefall.
Posts
@zerzhul. Ive been around long enough to know what the community wants and again it wasn't a "Why let cosplayers in" statement. You either enforce the rule for all or none. Singling out one who's outfit was no worse off than most cosplayers (ok I saw the pink one, that was a bit much) and booting her but not the others is hypocritical.
I don't have a strong opinion about what happened because I don't feel like 2nd and 3rd hand descriptions are likely to have all the relevant details. Usually things like this get a bit scrambled in the retelling. However, I think people are combining two issues here.
1 - PAX as a community has decided booth babes are a bad idea. Cool.
2 - Some people complained about this cosplayer/promoter as a booth babe and she was asked to leave.
(1) could be valid without (2) being valid. (1) could be a law passed by Congress/Parliament/whatever, but (2) could be an invalid application of that law. Unfortunately, I don't know that there's a strong definition of (1) or a thorough process for deciding whether someone is "guilty" of (1). Some people complaining isn't a reasonable method, because just because the community has decided that a line exists doesn't mean that for some number of people that line might be more restrictive than the community in general. So application becomes a bit arbitrary.
Apparently Jessica Nigri was allowed to wear her original costume day 1 (I believe I saw her as well, and neither my wife nor I was offended or thought it was out of line). If her day 2 costume was out of line by some criteria, its at least somewhat reasonable that she be disallowed unilaterally by Enforcers or Khoo or whomever. I think the thing that will get more people angry is that she wasn't allowed to wear a day1 costume. Rule enforcement that is arbitrary (as something based on criteria such as "too skimpy" often will be) and inconsistently will annoy people.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Not complaining, just an observation.
This is a perfect, brief distillation of the history and policy. I bet it will not be listened to by people who already decided that they wanted to see her in her skintight suit, but this is good.
--
Last year in addition the the Duke Nukem Girls, there were also about 25 girls at the Sprint Booth, all dressed alike. They were defended for being Sprint employees, though the 3 or 4 men at the booth wore shirts and khakis, and the girls wore tight shirts, push up bras and skinny jean style pants. Though supposedly employees, they would refer you to the men if you asked questions, and all they were doing was getting people to fill out raffle cards.
This is not entirely about appearance; any of the girls could have been unnoticeable on the street. This has to do, in part, with some often dismissed (in the video game industry) issues with misogyny (and in the case of Sprint, a pretty patriarchal set up) and sexualization of pretty much anything.
That some examples of it were not caught this year does not mean that the ones that were flagged were flagged inappropriately.
S.
(I only saw one person all weekend that I thought was inappropriately dressed; she was wearing white underwear and a white bra that had marabou on it (also if she is reading this, next time check your costume under a couple types of light. Because I could see your ladyparts and I looked at you for about 2 seconds as we passed in the hall). While I am certain it was cosplay of a character I did not recognize, No Costume is Still No Costume.)
The bottom line, if PAX wants to be so politically correct, they should enforce banning any costume that could objectify women. They should force any game company that has characters that objectify women to enforce game IDing or put them in an adults only section. I don't know about you, but I don't want PAX or anyone else becoming my moral enforcement police. That's my decision and my decision ONLY. If you don't like something, either go to another booth, or hey, here's an idea, JUST LEAVE!!!!
Other than that, this year was great in that regard. Some good clean fun etc.
They do not want to be politically correct. They want to do what the PAX community has decided they wanted. You say, "I don't know about you," but you do in fact know about a general community 'you', which has decided they do not want booth babes. Often it was not even a moral enforcement police thing, but the fact that booth babes often were uninformed about product, and are there to appeal to a type of game fan that PAX attendees on the whole decided they did not want to be pegged as. That you choose not to take that into account, and/or fight against that prevailing community preference because it happens not to be yours is, of course, your own choice.
S.
Work is work, after all, and if you've put a lot of effort into your body and are a woman who has chosen not to be concerned about such issues then I believe it's a woman's right to do whatever she pleases. The requirement of someone having to KNOW something about the games they're promoting is, of course, completely valid in theory but occurs to me as completely unenforceable.
Regarding the actual incident, I guess my only opinion is that I feel simultaneously awful that this woman has now become the point of discussions and scrutiny that she didn't ask for AND grateful that, as a model, this controversy could help her career. Someone mentions she has upskirt shots on her web site - so what? If she's not selling them at PAX it's ridiculous to mention it. At the same time, it brought someone to her website even if it is to subtly denigrate her life choices. The conflict bears out pretty clearly in that dichotomy.
I don't know S about F at the end of the day, but it occurs to me that the response was a little misguided though well-intentioned. I do NOT know that I would feel that way if I was her though. I'd be interested in knowing how SHE feels about what happened.
To be fair, though, this is my first year...and while there were some great panels about gender issues in gaming, I certainly didn't go assuming that an event of that scope even has a CHANCE of successfully policing the ever-changing landscape of what ways women and are not allowed to dress (as decided, of course, by what is most likely a bunch of d00ds)
I guess the only other point I'd mention is that a wider array of body types being represented might make this discussion a bit different...but that is more of a critique of the industry as a whole than it is to the organizers of this event, who I can imagine are trying very difficult to balance the desires of women who DO want to participate in stuff like HAVING A JOB THAT MATCHES THEIR SKILLS AND INTERESTS "against" the interests of well-intentioned (and, incidentally, CORRECT) feminists who are concerned about the effect that promoting appearance over perceived substance can have.
This is how I feel about the entire situation. If she was cool with it, then no big deal. If she feels otherwise, I'd like to have her give her take and we can debate from there.
Otherwise we're just going off of sensationalist gaming journalism sites, and arguing the same debate we've had for the past few years. I don't like booth babes. (Nor would I care for booth beefcake, or whatever the male version is called) I'm not particularly fond of the "loopholes" that several companies are trying to pull as well. But I'll let the community make the call there, as I don't care to make waves. (Not unless I feel that my PAX is being made worse by someone who is causing the Expo hall to grind to a stop, because everyone wants pictures with that individual.)
There aretwo problems people have with booth babes: 1) That it degrades the industry to hire a person to be pure eye candy just to sell a game. Whether this is wrong or not is subjective, and so I won't say a lot. There ARE lines of taste though. The girls at Steel Battalion were, as I recall, attractive but it was tasteful. The uniforms were good, pretty authentic, even afterwards ( one of them asked a question ahead of me at the Khoo & A, and to my shame I admit I was enthralled). So, there is hiring someone to help and they are a bit of eye candy, then there's close to being a stripper.
2) It clogs up traffic, and personally, this bothers me more than the first because its an objective, practical concern. PAX is crowded, and I accept that as a con its gonna happen. But for this incident particular, there was a point Jeesica was doing photos at the game display. People lined up to individually take shots with her, and it created hellacious traffic.
Now, yes, lines were everywhere and other booths caused excesive traffic (Borderlands 2? Civ? Looking at you...). But that was over the game. That was geeks like the rest of us, held in our shared thrall of gaming. The crowd was tight, but while basking in the warm glow of, as a concept, "Why We Are There". During Jessica's pictures, that corner of the show floor was impassable. No rolling to see distance, no fatigue from rough terrain, flat out unable to get through. And why? To see someone in a skimpy suit?
Yes, women like Jessics are amazing beatuies and we SHOULD celsbrate that kind of cosplay because it proves that we nerds come in all shapes and sizes. But it shoukd not interfere with being able to see what you want.
I've seen that kind of boob-induced blockade once before... the Duke Nukem booth. Notice that both booths asked to leave caused traffi issues?
Do the rules need to be clarified? Maybe, I havent read the text. But there HAS to be a policy against "Hey nerd! Come to our booth, we have boobs" for logistics reasons as well as any ethical concetns
Cosplayers who are paying attendees I believe are fine with violating this rule, since they are not paid to promote anything and our there because they want to be.
Cosplayers who are payed by exhibitors, no matter how knowledgeable about games, it must be asked to leave or cover up.
I am a monster truck that walks like a man.
Could be a logistical nightmare, but would also allow for the M room to get pretty wild while protecting the people who wish to avoid that sort of dynamic from it.
personally they weird me out a bit. I talked to a few last year and the job they have seems to suck. It's cool that Jessica is a fan and not really just a corporate shill but I saw some attendees interacting with her, touching her, being extremely fucking weird. It bothered me to even see that, knuckleheads saying shit like "you're really hot". I guess that's what she's going for but I dunno...I feel really weird about them.
Is this really a discussion that is happening? Do you guys show up for work with your scrotum hanging loose and procede to debate HR whether that is appropriate?
Why not just go to Hooters instead of PAX if that's what you're looking for?
I lol'ed.
There's been a lot of good discussion on this thread about if booth babes are cool vs. not and what your various definitions are for 'too skimpy'. That's all well and fine and of course opinions will differ.
I think the key point and completely valid argument here is that her costume was fine on Friday and not fine on Saturday. That's the part to me that is wrong and what she deserves an apology for.
One would assume that PAX officials walked the floor before the doors opened on Friday morning to make sure everything was safe, working, in order, etc. One would also assume they saw her and didn't bat an eyelash and her outfit was fine.
Based on official statements, it would seem that the action was taken regarding the unacceptability of her second Saturday outfit (which happened to be the same as the acceptable Friday outfit) from attendee complaints. Being reactionary and off the cuff like that on the part of management doesn't sit well. Does that mean we can technically complain about anything and get an immediate correction? I doubt it.
A more proper and acceptable response from PAX officials to the complaining attendees should have been something like "We apologize you find this level of attire uncomfortable, but we made a point to visually review the staff of all our exhibitors before the convention began. Based on criteria we've defined, we don't believe this attire violates the level of appropriateness that has been established. If you disagree, here's how you can contact management to express your dissatisfaction and we'll do our best to refine the criteria for subsequent conventions, reflecting the preferences of our attendees."
And, for the record, I personally felt her Friday cheerleading outfit was fine and pretty in line with most community standards of 'decency'. The pink one is debatable (of course I loved it but could understand why parents would be concerned).
I really wonder if a lot of the attendee complaints wouldn't have been as prevalent if she didn't look so good in the outfit and it wasn't just an issue of the outfit itself. That's a whole can of worms. Or, as others have pointed out, were most of the complaints from the (incorrect) perception she was a 'booth babe' and hired just because she was attractive?
Personally I'm just curious about how a convention that included the theme swears of "pussycrumbs" and "sluthorse", converses about dick wolves, etc can really be morally outraged at anything. I sat next to what appeared to be a 10-12 year old kid in the main theater while music that constantly had swears it in rang over the audience, I stood in the exhibit hall watching demos, some projected onto large screens or intricate displays (alienware's ring of video for one) showed video game people being shot and tons of blood. I had no problem with this, but if we are going to be outraged, then we should outraged. Again I have no problem with any of this, I come to the convention knowing it's there, and enjoy it.
That having been said if booth babes are banned, then booth babes are banned. Had she comes as just a generic cos-player instead of a being paid booth babe and the Con asked her to change/leave then I'd be more upset.
However, that has no place in a booth at PAX because we as a community have said so. Period. It's not a family friendly thing, it's not a public decency thing - it's simply that we as a Penny Arcade community spoke and said we want all genders to feel comfortable at PAX. I don't see where it's up for debate - we chose this atmosphere and I think that our female members appreciate it. Having seen footage of e3 I'm extremely glad we have the rule in place. Without it, every booth would be half dressed women looking bored, having their pictures taken by horny guys.
Edit: And she doesn't deserve an apology from PAX, she deserves it from her employer who didn't take the time to research PAXs policies or forward a pic of the costume to PAX ahead of time. After Duke Nukem last year there's no way that pink outfit would fly.
I give the PAX community a lot of credit on most occassions. I like to think a large majority of us are intelligent, self-sufficient individuals, who can discern whether a game has any level of quality, regardless of what the girl in front of the booth is wearing. I also believe that there was a similar situation with the Duke Nukem girls last year, who also wore extremely risque outfits, yet they were allowed to stay.
They were allowed to stay, I believe, because they were also in the game.
The issue here is the obvious hypocrisy of Mr. Khoo, and Reed. In a direct quote from Kotaku, he says:
Maybe next year, then, all demos should take place behind closed doors. 9 year old children can't be exposed to cleavage [by exhibitors, don't even get me started on the cosplayers] but Spec Ops can have screens outside their booth showing extremely graphic trailers, as can Max Payne 3, and... oh. EVERY OTHER TRIPLE A TITLE.
I'm indifferent on the issue of booth babes, because I can largely disregard them. I'm not 12 anymore and don't go OMG BOOBZ everytime someone has a slightly revealing outfit - if it's canonical, why the fuck not? I'm just pleading for some consistency to the policies that Penny Arcade has.
Good joke, but I don't think it's a good analogy
Besides, the problem isn't with the women acting inappropriately by...you know, existing...it's with the fact that the attendees act like awful morons when presented with the reality of a (conventionally) beautiful woman. To me that isn't the company OR their employee's fault. This naturally segues into the awful fact that if a woman COULD tell men "you're not acting right, let's take a quick picture and you stop hitting on me now k?" (or even better, dudes didn't suck) without being mocked by ALMOST EVERY OTHER MAN EVER and considered bad at their job, we wouldn't be in this position. That's obviously far beyond the scope of this convo, but I'm compelled to mention it since so many people have mentioned traffic and inappropriate behaviour as a reason for opposing these women doing their jobs.
If the woman was dressed "appropriately", but crowds were forming based on how attractive she was, would she be asked to leave? I'd say no...or at least there's no indication of that being the case. That we are in the habit of feeling like it's our right to decide what a woman wears beyond that, to me, is very shaky ground ethically...esp. considering the other things people have mentioned (beheadings? Fine. Explicit language? No stress. Implied sexual violence? All over the place. Overt sexual themes? In abundance.)
All that said, there's always the fact that "but them's the rules, how and whenever we choose to enforce 'em!" is an ABSOLUTELY valid approach. Heh.
I'm certain some do, and some don't. I'm new, so I don't know if "the community" in this case includes only people here in the forums (the sheer size of the event suggests that couldn't POSSIBLY include every female) or if there was a greater question asked to "the community" as a hole. I apologize for my ignorance, but the only thing I know about anything in life anymore is that no _________ group of people feels __________ way about anything, really.
Of course, if companies either chose or were required to have male eye candy in even proportion with their female eye candy things would be a bit different...but again, that's talking about a land somewhere a few million parsecs away, if even. Ha.
Indeed!
Over 80% of the respondents in a poll put forward by Penny Arcade said that the person in question "needs to be trained/educated about the product." So for the record, most of the community are ok with a female in the booth promoting the game so long as they would belong there completely aside from their sex or appearance. I don't think anyone can claim Jessica does not meet this qualification.
Please everyone, try to follow Wheaton's Rule. I think the biggest breakdown here is not Jessica or the handling by the PAX staff, but the conduct of PAX community members in regards to this. From the people that complained in the first place, to people that wrote about it on the internet, to some of the comments on this thread on both sides. People just aren't trying to understand other people's viewpoints or open any kind of meaningful dialogue.
Scott Kurtz, The Morning After, Aug 31 - 2010
Really? It was the girls job to accurately represent and portray the character from the game; which she did flawlessly. It is not her's or WB's fault that irresponsible parents bring there children to a convention where violence and sex is advocated. I believe there is a Sesame Place for that right around the corner in PA for that good ol' family fun.
Cosplayers wonder around the con, and don't really cause congestion in any single area for long periods of time. In addition, each "Booth Babe" attending means one less fan who would be attending. That alone is reason for banning them.
The only reason people are up in arms about this particular incident is because she is a well known cosplayer with a fanbase. If this had been some random model, nobody would have cared. I agree that Jessica should be at the con as an attendee, but since she was working for WB to promote their game, at that point she ceased being a cosplayer, a part of the community which this con celebrates as part of the culture, and became a "Booth Babe", a promotional tool to sell games. As such, what she wore should be subject to the policy laid out.
I think the situation was handled as it should have been, and I fully support the policy.
If this is the case then explain the Firefall woman's exposed left butt cheek. She showed more of a private area of her body then Jessica ever did during all three days of PAX. I am not looking to argue..I am just confused as to why the rule was not rightfully implemented to all "booth babes" present. Don't get me wrong..I had an amazing time at PAX..just confused how one is acceptable and the other is not.
It's very simple. You talk to them like a human being and determine what they know about it, feel about it, and why they're passionate about it. That's how the person acts that most people at PAX want to be.
That is why this entire incident makes me sad, it's very UNPAX. It's people ignoring Wheaton's Law. If you can't talk to people and have a conversation, it's not PAX. Tattling on naughty shorts, calling people hypocrites, calling down shame on passionate people doing things in innocence, those are things that make me sad.
Scott Kurtz, The Morning After, Aug 31 - 2010
You know what else is funny about this? I'm a gay male, and female boobage/skin doesn't bother me in the least. These women are hired to portray characters from a game. It's not like any of them just decided out of the blue that, hey, it'd be cool to wear a costume that pushes their cleavage up to their chins, and contains just enough clothe to cover their vaginal area! For the most part, most all of these character costumes were designed by horny MALE game designers that are doing nothing but catering to an adolescent male demographic. The games that include this stuff are mostly rated M, but you know that these titles are going to eventually be in the hands of any male kid between the ages of 8 and 16.
Hmmm, yeh, I really believe Pax wants its events to be family friendly, but let's forget that almost every AAA title displayed on the floor does something, even in the slightest way, to demote or degrade women, or contains enough violence that if it were a movie, it would be rated X.
One last thing, if you have a hot body, be it male or female, and you want to show it off, go right ahead. You are not being degrading towards your sex. Unless it is deemed pornography, you have every right. What you don't have a right to do is make a decision for me as to what is considered decent or not. Jerry and Mike, you should stick to creating comics/games and stop trying to spearhead a gaming moral majority.
This. What a joke to call a revealing outfit "not family friendly" but wall-to-wall carnage and violence is OK.
Doesn't seem like that's the intention from the above Khoo quotation. From here it looks like the old American "sex bad, violence good" backwards morality.
Amen. WB hired Jessica, and was thus responsible for informing her of the PAX-specific attire guidelines for exhibitors. Since she makes her own costumes and has attended many different conventions, the guidelines for what is specifically allowable at PAX for exhibitors should have been clearly reviewed with her by her employer.
There's nothing unusual or hypocritical about establishing one set of guidelines for exhibitor attire, and another set for cosplay attendees. Yutt, thespian, Rorus Raz, shadowfire, themyscriya, lindsey lohan, sausage and other posters have articulated the genesis and intent of these community guidelines much better than I could, and make excellent arguments in their support. Exhibitors who encourage or enable their employees to flout or narrowly skirt these guidelines do so at their own risk, and are disrespecting the PAX community standards in pursuit of their own commercial advantage.
There's also nothing hypocritical about a parent allowing his/her children to play M games and admire sometimes-skimpy cosplay, and still appreciating the PAX standards regarding exhibitor employee attire. My children are mature enough to understand that video games are make-believe
I did not happen to find Jessica's cheerleader outfit unseemly (and she seemed to be enthusiastic and quite nice), but will leave that judgement to those monitoring the PAX exhibitor guidelines. I'm not familiar with other conventions, but I found the exhibitor employees at PAX (including the attractively-attired attractive women) to be consistently well-informed and friendly. If that's the happy result of PAX's policy, I'm all the more for it.
I also lol'd. But when I realized that means I can't hire these guys to hawk my game "Banana Ninja" at PAX 2013, I cried.
I would have, because my view of this doesn't consider such things at all. "The community" isn't one that I'm, necessarily, a part of. It's full of wondeful people, of course, that I HOPE will let me into their lives and find value in mine...but I've never been to any conventions that were about anything that wasn't purely IT-related or related to the real estate industry (which is...really exciting stuff let me tell ya).
I probably haven't explicitly stated my view yet, because it's not fully formed, but I see the policy as pretty much preventing certain women from being able to get a job that would otherwise be available to them. Since the problem is not their behaviour (i.e. we're not talking about sex trade here), it can only be their appearance. And that appearance has only ever been a problem because they are women...but having scantily clad women makes other women feel (rightfully) uncomfortable...and I think it's safe to say that if I were in charge of making the rules my head would be ready to explode.
Discussions of whether or not the policy is well-founded and/or sexist set aside, I obviously agree. Them's the rules as they stand now, and her company should have known that it was possible there would be a kerfuffle of some sort and not thrown her under the bus (unless she knew, at which point...good for her? haha)
Then again, this is a LOT of talk we're having now...making their booth more effective at publicity than all those that DID follow the rules. That alone makes a compelling case for re-evaluation of the policy, or instituting further punishment for them moving forward or whatever...but, I am VERY happy to say, it's not MY event. I can't IMAGINE running something like PAX in terms of scope or approach, so any criticism I have about the "no professional models" rule has gotta be sort of put in check by the sheer size of what's happening and the fact that we can't each have the rules the way we like them and I'm very grateful for such an amazing event being run whatever my opinion on the details may be.
I didn't see her, but I would have felt that that violates the booth babe policy too. (Particularly if she couldn't answer straight-forward questions about the game) I don't think this matter of "But someone else did it and they didn't get called out!" is okay, and I'm really wishing that the exhibitors would just follow the friggen policy. It should be more about knowing the game, and less about trying to sell it with skin. (And again, I don't care whose skin it is.)
I think while Robert Khoo's response to Kotaku was probably the most "acceptable" response to make, I don't think it works too well given the audience. As demonstrated by several responders here with the pointing out of its hypocrisy, perhaps we need a more straight-forward "The goal of the community's "No Booth Babes" rule is to allow for an environment where fans can appreciate the games, talk to developers, community heads and PR people, and enjoy a hobby that we all partake in. It has nothing to do with the rights of a woman (or man) to wear what they like, but rather the feeling of the community as a whole in whether they are being marketed a game or model." And try to avoid what karmacappa said, which is the objectification of these representatives. It's not about their appearances, but whether they actually know and care about their product and gaming in general.
Wow, really? In what way? I'm surprised she let people touch her in any shape or form.
But anyway, my opinion on the matter. I don't think she's in the wrong at all. She dressed perfectly as the character, and it was completely canonical and matched the game they were showing. It's not as if she just dressed like that in any old outfit. Now, the problem is with Warner Bros. really. They should have checked to see if it was fine for her to wear and looked into the dress policy. PAX also wasn't in the wrong at all - besides, they didn't kick her out, they just asked her to put on a shirt/jumper over the costume, or to change into something a bit less risqué.
Going to PAX East 2013/14 is my biggest goal right now. I plan to achieve it...
It's odd, that's really my only problem with the booth babe thing. I have nothing against them being there I just think idiots don't know how to act around them.
I haven't seen pictures of that person, just Jessica's costumes. If it's as egregious as you state it was, I don't think that was acceptable either. She should have been asked to cover up or leave as well. This simply my opinion as someone who attends Prime yearly with regards to how I'd like to see the con develop. I don't want booth babes in every booth. It seems that is how it is at E3, and I feel it really detracts from the event. Disagree if you will.
However, I do think cosplayers guidelines should be lenient. As long as they aren't breaking any local laws, they should be left alone. I'm unaware of any PAX guidelines for cosplayer dress. I would have been fine with Jessica's pink outfit if it had been as a cosplayer. However, I think as soon as someone is paying you to be there, the rules change because of how it can negatively shape the con.
PAX is a celebration of the community, which cosplayers are a part of. Marketing gimmicks don't and shouldn't have the same rights. PAX isn't a trade show. Publisher's have plenty of other tools that they can use to market at PAX without causing problems.