Buffy ,'The Killer In Me'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
I'm sorry, sj.
I've been in total lurker mode, sending the ~ma and nodding my head a bunch. Busy busy busy. DH is in Otter Lake since last weekend so when I am not working or visiting Mom I am doing the tourist thing with him. I'll need a vacation after my vacation!
Dunno if any/man of you read this blog, but I feel weird, reading this post. Because on the one hand, yes, I can totally see her point, not knowing who's been in your hotel room, being the one who would've been on the hook monetarily for any damages, etc, is disturbing. But seriously?? It seems a bit weird and overblown to me. Am I not reacting appropriately? Would y'all be this upset? (Because reading the initial bit on twitter, I would not have given any kind of side eye, and would've assumed they were all friends happy to share a makeup party at a con! The thing that would've disturbed me more is the idea that so many people might be sharing makeup, which could be very unsanitary!!)
I would've been a little upset, but I feel like she is overreacting. I can't see where, from the pov of the other person, she'd done anything wrong. The party was discussed beforehand, she asked for permission at the time, and no one ever asked her or the people she brought in to leave. The absence of no is not yes, but she left the room and was not present to say either no or yes, and the roommate who was there did say yes and never changed it to no.
I have brought random strangers up to my room to party in similar environments and there is risk there, but I assumed that risk. If at any point prior to that she had told anyone I'm uncomfortable with this and they'd still gone through, then sure. But as it reads? It just sounds kinda passive aggressive. I don't know anyone involved, so who know, but, really? Also, does it sound like she hasn't approached the person directly outside of the grievances process? Because that feels a little shady to me.
Looking at the comments, she began the grievance process and wrote that blog without ever approaching the person directly. The person claimed (in the comments) not to know she even had a problem with what happened. I would have been really upset about it (and that's one reason I don't have roommates at cons anymore) but I would have spoken to the person myself, privately, before I did anything else. I think it was a bit cowardly to post a blog about it without even telling the person she was upset.
I think she's completely overreacting.
I don't know. If I was the only one paying for the room and wasn't there when a party happened, I would be pissed if everything wasn't cleaned up completely when I got back to the room. The fact that they actually had the party that she knew about ahead of time, does seem like an overreaction though.
I find the fact that she went from saying "this person" to broadcasting the person's name repeatedly less than cool. I can see being upset, and I feel like in those circumstances I would be too, but it does seem like she went for the nuclear option awfully early in the grievance process.
Yeah, the fact that she went straight to the Internet to complain rather than talking to the person she had the issue with doesn't lend much credibility to her outrage.
Maria, good thoughts headed your way today.
Jilli, procedure~ma for your dad.