The only ones here talking about "authority figures" and "police monitoring" are you and the commenter to whom I originally replied. The article under discussi

The only ones here talking about "authority figures" and "police monitoring" are you and the commenter to whom I originally replied. The article under discussion suggests nothing more than that a convention's hosting organization take a slightly more active role, in discharging its responsibility to its guests, than is embodied in the standard code-of-conduct model requiring a victim of sexual misconduct to complain to the organizers in order for anything to be done. If I invite two guests to my home, and while they're there I see that one of them is refusing to be politely dissuaded from making sexual suggestions that the other finds uncomfortable, then it's part of my responsibility as a host to intervene. (This isn't a hypothetical situation for me; it's actually happened.) If my organization invites N people to my convention, our responsibility is just the same: they're here because we asked them to be, so while they're my guests, we are bound to look after them. Of course, like any adults, they'll still look out for themselves to the extent they're able; it would be foolish to imagine otherwise. That's where the "polite dissuasion" part comes in. The host's responsibility begins where harassment escalates beyond that point, and all the article under discussion suggests is that hosting organizations ensure there's someone at hand, in a situation like a con hotel bar where such escalation is historically speaking most likely to occur, in order to intervene in the improbable event that it actually does. As for the nature of that intervention, the article goes into a lot of "good actor/bad actor" business which, while not without interest, IMO just clouds the basic issue. Speaking, again, as someone who's actually done it, this kind of intervention doesn't start with the police, and it would be stupid to imagine otherwise. You start with a firm, quiet word in the ear of the miscreant, on the subject of the standards you expect your guests to uphold, and with a note that those who fail to do so cease to be welcome. If that doesn't do the job, you tell your former guest he's no longer welcome and escort him out, or in the convention case have your security staff do so. If he refuses to leave, then at that point he's made himself a de jure trespasser, and if that's not enough to get the point across, then and only then is it appropriate to involve the police. Such a response is measured at every stage, and titrated from zero up to the minimum necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of a host. Those merely too dense to take a repeated hint will get the idea at step one, and curtail their misbehavior. Those who fail to do so will be removed from the situation so that they may no longer maltreat your guests. If merely escorting them off the premises will suffice, then that's all that is done; only someone thick enough not to get the idea at that point risks incurring force majeure. And nothing in the article implies otherwise. But, hey, if you want to imagine the author's talking about stationing uniformed police in every con hotel bar, to descend with flashing nightsticks upon he who makes a pass at a colleague and finds himself turned down, then go for it, I guess.