BasedCon is a small science fiction and fantasy convention in West Michigan, founded in 2021 by novelist Robert Kroese as an alternative to Worldcon and the rest of institutional fandom.
Kroese is definitely not faultless here, but I don't think we can blame a guy for not wanting to turn his convention floor into a debate. Being willing to debate is great and all, but there's a time and a place. If JDA had said, "I'm coming to your place of work/church/kid's sporting event to debate you", and you banned him from coming, and then he called you a coward, would you still side with JDA?
I think you answered your own question. Church is probably the only setting where it wouldn't be appropriate given the recreational nature of a debate. Otherwise, why not?
... What??? I wouldn't want a debate any of the other places either. Do you actually think if somebody showed up to my workplace demanding a debate right here, right now, I should be expected to take them up on it?
I definitely think there's no value in accepting a debate anytime, anywhere, with anybody. As you say, it's a recreational value, and not necessarily anything actually important. So, it's absurd to think somebody is obligated to put down what they're doing to join somebody else's recreational activity on demand.
Worse than that, Jon's original "debate me" throwdown was based on a completely false conception of what Kroese was talking about. If somebody misrepresented my position and demanded a debate, I definitely would not give him the time of day without trying to clear that up first as a BS test.
Debate, as I mean it, is not a UFC card and it is not a subpoena. It is what men used to do on a porch or at a bar. Cigar. Scotch on ice. Somebody says a thing about God or a book or a game company, whatever. Somebody else says that is wrong. They go back and forth until the ice melts. Nobody is “obligated" to do it. They do it because the subject is worth turning over in the open, and because walking away is how a room goes soft.
You can refuse a challenge. Fine. What you cannot do is found an alternative to a progressive venue and ban a man wanting to debate a point left cold in digital space.
As for the “he misrepresented Kroese” line, that is what a debate is for. Again, you answered your own question.
That sounds nice, but it's also the absolute, and extremely rare, ideal. I have to ask, do you work anywhere but at home? No shade; working at home is great, but if you just came from a contentious and useless office meeting, after a morning in traffic and an argument with your wife, and you just want a lunch break where you can play a mobile game or read a book but you have to work through lunch because you're project manager on something due next week and your subordinates aren't doing their part so you have to pick up the slack, and then FRIGGIN JOHN DEL ARROZ shows up at your office door and says "hey, we need to have a discussion right now on this thing I clearly don't understand, but will act like I do anyway because I have a public image to maintain, but also I brought beer and two cigars", well. You would probably be considered a saint for *just* banning him from work.
And look, I like John's work. All us Onward Christian Soldier-types have a lot of flaws and make a lot of mistakes, and I'm not holding his against him; I'd much rather have him keep fighting then fade away (same thing with Kroese). But still I say, there's a time and a place. When someone shows up where you are and "heavily suggests" a "NOT not mandatory" discussion, you have a right to say no without being called out for it.
Now, should Kroese have handled it differently? Sure, maybe. He could've addressed it more calmly, or banned John from the event -- because, and I think you're not being honest with yourself about this, John would've been disruptive and put his own purpose ahead of the con's purpose -- but also indicated they could have it out later, perhaps even publicly. They were both being petulant children about it.
He definitely started it, he escalated it, blocked everyone, then overreacted. He could have just looked at it like free publicity and +1 attendee, instead he made a mockery of "based con"
This is all dirty laundry. I like Jon's content here and broadly support his baseline position, but this isn't a good look wrestling in the mud like pigs.
Let's leave the streamer drama to the theater kids please? This site should be better than that.
This isn’t dirty laundry. Dirty laundry is DMs, private slights, and hallway gossip. These are public posts. Jon posted them. Kroese posted them. Anyone can click the links.
The back-and-forth is in the piece for one reason: context. If you only print one man’s version, you look like a partisan. If you print both, the reader can see the record and decide. I am showing the receipts so nobody has to take my word for it.
And the conclusion does not crown either side the winner. The points is that all this drama should have been settled the way men settle an argument: in a room, on a clock, with a claim and a rebuttal. A convention that calls itself "Based" refused that. That is the story.
Streamer theater is when you pick a team and pile on. This is asking why the alternative to Worldcon ran from a debate.
OK, I'll grant the distinction, but what good is it doing to post here in this space?
If people want twitter drama, they go to twitter. If they want a right leaning, conservative Christian take on entertainment culture, with a heavier emphasis than most on books and the publishing industry, they come here.
I don't see the positive side of putting it here, I'm sorry (and I appreciate your work on this site as well), but I don't.
Way I figured was people come here for a conservative Christian take on entertainment and publishing. That take is incomplete if we only review products and never talk about the priverbial gate and those that keep it. Worldcon ran a gate. BasedCon named itself the opposite and then posted a ban. If that story stays on X, the only people who see the record are already in the pile-on. Here it sits next to the rest of the industry coverage, with both men’s posts linked, so a reader can see the pattern.
Really buried the lead on this one! "The posted reason for keeping Jon out of the building is that a debate would be “a scene.” Jon said he would show up and argue the point. The response was a ban."
I am neither a libertarian nor a conservative Christian. I'm a Commie Pinko Red Trotskyist, and queer, atheist who originally came here mainly as a fan of the late Eric Flint, and I emphatically agree with Mr. Kroese that there was a Satanic panic back in the 1980's and 90's.
Would a debate on whether the Satanic Panic actually happened or not be of interest to libertarian and conservative science fiction and fantasy fans? I don't know, I honestly don't. I would have been surprised to see such a debate published in The American Conservative magazine, to which I was a subscriber for 15 years, or on its website, even if it wasn't pitched specifically to SF and fantasy fans. If Mr. Del Arroz wanted to have such a debate, he could have pitched it to Mr. Kroese as a panel during BasedCon, and it would be up to Mr. Kroese to decide if that was a worthwhile use of his time and of interest to the folks paying to attend BasedCon. If he declined, I would hope that Mr. Del Arroz would have still been welcome to attend, no harm, no foul.
Background 1: I've been to left conferences where debates were actively squashed, left conferences that brought people of different tendencies together on the same panels, and even a left conference that was programmed to specifically encourage anarchists and Trotskyists (of different stripes, even!) to debate each other (probably only possible because it was organized by Canadians).
Background 2: I've seen veteran Trotskyists (who should have known better) show up at events about Topic A just so they could bring up the completely unrelated Topic J, and the response from the organizers was to call on them once, allow them to have their say, delegate one member to make a direct response, and then carry on with the topic of the day and not allow the rest of the discussion to be sidetracked, even if it meant not calling on the sectarian putz one more time.
Mr. Kroese could have planned to deal with Mr. Del Arroz in such a way, but that would have been one hell of an organizing task to prepare for such an intervention at a dozen or more panels (just ask Rod Dreher how much time he used to have to spend moderating the comments on his posts on TAC, weeding out the crazies and the foul mouthed). Not to mention that Mr. Del Arroz would have probably pissed off a lot of people if he had brought up the question of the existence of the Satanic Panic at every single panel he attended, so I can understand if Mr. Kroese did not want to face that possibility.
If the sole purpose of Mr. Del Arroz buying a ticket was to try to force an unscheduled debate on Mr. Kroese, then I do not consider the latter a coward of any sort for banning the gentleman from his convention, which is, after all, his right. But, I don't know Mr. Del Arroz, so I can't say how likely it would have been that he would have tried to be a disruptive presence at BasedCon. I would encourage everyone to take a step back and try to discuss these issues like adults and avoid name calling, even in the toxic cesspool that is social media.
The screenshots from Mr. Hunter on X include "In short," but none of the screenshots finish the sentence, and the thought, as quoted by Mr. Gray: "In short, creating a scene. That’s what got Jon banned. No one there wanted that kind of drama." That last part, beginning with "creating a scene" and ending with "drama" only appears as quotes by Mr. Gray, not as screenshots, which is not ideal for getting to the truth of the matter.
My assumption is that this was a completely honest and non-malicious error on Mr. Gray's part, and I would suggest that the post be amended to include the actual screenshots completing Mr. Hunter's thoughts as quoted.
I remember that Satanic panic, as it spread across multiple continents where Christianity formed the moral foundation of civilization. I share Jon’s opinion though with some additional nuances; at one point I mentioned this to him in another FandomPlus article. Attempting a deeper analysis, I believe there were two main ways they took that discourse and twisted it to their advantage: first, by funding or supporting clowns who exaggerated the warnings and pointed out anything vaguely suspicious—these individuals very cleverly used Japanese products to achieve this end, because Asia was an unfamiliar continent, and linguistic and cultural differences allowed them to mix items that weren’t always appropriate for children with those that were. Thus, when they made claims not fully supported by actual images or context, and someone later checked to see if it matched reality, people dismissed them as liars. It goes without saying these individuals left behind a trail of scams still active today due to their profitability; one might describe them as grifters of another era. The second thing they did was divert attention from the core issues of works that genuinely sought those messages and pass them off as nothing, thanks largely to the negative reputations earned by previous figures who signaled anything similar. It’s also important to note these weren’t always so obvious; most were soft Luciferian messages, while others played with subliminalism. One could defend D&D by claiming its message wasn’t originally what it became over time and thus treat it as truth; the problem is they didn’t do much about it to prevent ending up where they are today, which leaves one wondering: was that warning real or not? It hardly needs stressing this phenomenon remains very much alive today—not just subtly or subliminally, but openly and literally, employing tropes like Plato’s Cave. A concrete example: if I brought *Zootopia 2* back to that era and someone pointed out its Satanic nature—both symbolically and in terms of Luciferian messaging—I’d have had to completely agree, at least in principle. But because the campaign had been so effective due to their exaggerations, they would eventually label me paranoid and resort to other dismissive terms (exactly as they do today). The public’s changing stance regarding that incident reflects a shift: what they once clearly saw as something bad is now different; in other words, the psyop succeeded. One must remember those deeply involved in this mess have always operated under one rule: show the warning, then deny it. Through this, they justify having, somehow, warned you despite their own denials—and thus it’s legitimate to move forward with their plans. I still don’t understand why they believe and act this way, but that’s how it functions—very similar to Gnostics.
It’s also important to note that Jon is not immune to making mistakes and pointing out things that aren’t actually wrong. As I said, today we have difficulty identifying evil because many of us were raised by the enemy—who, at their core, hated everything associated with their own civilization.
You leaned on ChatGPT to write this comment. Or something similar. The seams show everywhere.
The outline arrives before the argument. You posted this as if it were thought in motion:
"Attempting a deeper analysis, I believe there were two main ways they took that discourse and twisted it to their advantage: first..."
Then later:
"The second thing they did was divert attention from the core issues"
That is the house style of a model told to sound thoughtful. A person already inside the topic starts in the middle and cuts but you started with a table of contents.
Stock glue sits in every other sentence. You used the same crutches the machine reaches for when it needs to look serious:
"It goes without saying these individuals left behind a trail of scams still active today"
"It’s also important to note these weren’t always so obvious"
"It hardly needs stressing this phenomenon remains very much alive today"
"A concrete example: if I brought Zootopia 2 back to that era"
"One must remember those deeply involved in this mess have always operated under one rule"
Then you repeated the same crutch again:
"It’s also important to note that Jon is not immune to making mistakes and pointing out things that aren’t actually wrong."
FYI those lines are how the model buys time while it fills space. A real comment would drop half of them.
That last "Jon" line is the hedge. You asked for nuance and the model handed you a polite bow.
You probably also gave it a few names and a stance: Jon, FandomPlus, etc. Probably even spelled that wrong on purpose. Your model built the scaffolding and poured generic analysis into the gaps. Fluency is cheap. Structure is cheap. The tidy two-part frame and the closing caveat will always show up on demand.
Learn the tells before you paste next time. Learn how a human comment actually moves. Like sort turns and maybe an uneven rhythm or a mispeling of a word. Hard cuts. Even.
You're right; in this case, I turned to AI. I still have trouble with English when it comes to long comments, especially ones that might use terms for which I don't know the English equivalent. In the past, I’ve used translation software, but because this was so long and difficult to express, I tried using AI to see if the flow would be better. In this specific case, I used the Qwen3 4B Hivemind Inst Hrtic Ablit Uncensored Imat model via LM Studio, since it’s an uncensored model designed to avoid censorship of specific terms, but the results have left much to be desired. I’ll have to go back to the previous method, even if it takes more time.
I don't know, man. Guys acting like mean teenage girls kind of ruins it for me.
The whole problem with X. And social media, really.
Excellent reporting. Thank you.
Cancelling people is never based; it's always woke BS.
Kids these days.
Kroese is definitely not faultless here, but I don't think we can blame a guy for not wanting to turn his convention floor into a debate. Being willing to debate is great and all, but there's a time and a place. If JDA had said, "I'm coming to your place of work/church/kid's sporting event to debate you", and you banned him from coming, and then he called you a coward, would you still side with JDA?
I think you answered your own question. Church is probably the only setting where it wouldn't be appropriate given the recreational nature of a debate. Otherwise, why not?
... What??? I wouldn't want a debate any of the other places either. Do you actually think if somebody showed up to my workplace demanding a debate right here, right now, I should be expected to take them up on it?
I definitely think there's no value in accepting a debate anytime, anywhere, with anybody. As you say, it's a recreational value, and not necessarily anything actually important. So, it's absurd to think somebody is obligated to put down what they're doing to join somebody else's recreational activity on demand.
Worse than that, Jon's original "debate me" throwdown was based on a completely false conception of what Kroese was talking about. If somebody misrepresented my position and demanded a debate, I definitely would not give him the time of day without trying to clear that up first as a BS test.
Debate, as I mean it, is not a UFC card and it is not a subpoena. It is what men used to do on a porch or at a bar. Cigar. Scotch on ice. Somebody says a thing about God or a book or a game company, whatever. Somebody else says that is wrong. They go back and forth until the ice melts. Nobody is “obligated" to do it. They do it because the subject is worth turning over in the open, and because walking away is how a room goes soft.
You can refuse a challenge. Fine. What you cannot do is found an alternative to a progressive venue and ban a man wanting to debate a point left cold in digital space.
As for the “he misrepresented Kroese” line, that is what a debate is for. Again, you answered your own question.
That sounds nice, but it's also the absolute, and extremely rare, ideal. I have to ask, do you work anywhere but at home? No shade; working at home is great, but if you just came from a contentious and useless office meeting, after a morning in traffic and an argument with your wife, and you just want a lunch break where you can play a mobile game or read a book but you have to work through lunch because you're project manager on something due next week and your subordinates aren't doing their part so you have to pick up the slack, and then FRIGGIN JOHN DEL ARROZ shows up at your office door and says "hey, we need to have a discussion right now on this thing I clearly don't understand, but will act like I do anyway because I have a public image to maintain, but also I brought beer and two cigars", well. You would probably be considered a saint for *just* banning him from work.
And look, I like John's work. All us Onward Christian Soldier-types have a lot of flaws and make a lot of mistakes, and I'm not holding his against him; I'd much rather have him keep fighting then fade away (same thing with Kroese). But still I say, there's a time and a place. When someone shows up where you are and "heavily suggests" a "NOT not mandatory" discussion, you have a right to say no without being called out for it.
Now, should Kroese have handled it differently? Sure, maybe. He could've addressed it more calmly, or banned John from the event -- because, and I think you're not being honest with yourself about this, John would've been disruptive and put his own purpose ahead of the con's purpose -- but also indicated they could have it out later, perhaps even publicly. They were both being petulant children about it.
He definitely started it, he escalated it, blocked everyone, then overreacted. He could have just looked at it like free publicity and +1 attendee, instead he made a mockery of "based con"
This is all dirty laundry. I like Jon's content here and broadly support his baseline position, but this isn't a good look wrestling in the mud like pigs.
Let's leave the streamer drama to the theater kids please? This site should be better than that.
This isn’t dirty laundry. Dirty laundry is DMs, private slights, and hallway gossip. These are public posts. Jon posted them. Kroese posted them. Anyone can click the links.
The back-and-forth is in the piece for one reason: context. If you only print one man’s version, you look like a partisan. If you print both, the reader can see the record and decide. I am showing the receipts so nobody has to take my word for it.
And the conclusion does not crown either side the winner. The points is that all this drama should have been settled the way men settle an argument: in a room, on a clock, with a claim and a rebuttal. A convention that calls itself "Based" refused that. That is the story.
Streamer theater is when you pick a team and pile on. This is asking why the alternative to Worldcon ran from a debate.
OK, I'll grant the distinction, but what good is it doing to post here in this space?
If people want twitter drama, they go to twitter. If they want a right leaning, conservative Christian take on entertainment culture, with a heavier emphasis than most on books and the publishing industry, they come here.
I don't see the positive side of putting it here, I'm sorry (and I appreciate your work on this site as well), but I don't.
Way I figured was people come here for a conservative Christian take on entertainment and publishing. That take is incomplete if we only review products and never talk about the priverbial gate and those that keep it. Worldcon ran a gate. BasedCon named itself the opposite and then posted a ban. If that story stays on X, the only people who see the record are already in the pile-on. Here it sits next to the rest of the industry coverage, with both men’s posts linked, so a reader can see the pattern.
Really buried the lead on this one! "The posted reason for keeping Jon out of the building is that a debate would be “a scene.” Jon said he would show up and argue the point. The response was a ban."
I am neither a libertarian nor a conservative Christian. I'm a Commie Pinko Red Trotskyist, and queer, atheist who originally came here mainly as a fan of the late Eric Flint, and I emphatically agree with Mr. Kroese that there was a Satanic panic back in the 1980's and 90's.
Would a debate on whether the Satanic Panic actually happened or not be of interest to libertarian and conservative science fiction and fantasy fans? I don't know, I honestly don't. I would have been surprised to see such a debate published in The American Conservative magazine, to which I was a subscriber for 15 years, or on its website, even if it wasn't pitched specifically to SF and fantasy fans. If Mr. Del Arroz wanted to have such a debate, he could have pitched it to Mr. Kroese as a panel during BasedCon, and it would be up to Mr. Kroese to decide if that was a worthwhile use of his time and of interest to the folks paying to attend BasedCon. If he declined, I would hope that Mr. Del Arroz would have still been welcome to attend, no harm, no foul.
Background 1: I've been to left conferences where debates were actively squashed, left conferences that brought people of different tendencies together on the same panels, and even a left conference that was programmed to specifically encourage anarchists and Trotskyists (of different stripes, even!) to debate each other (probably only possible because it was organized by Canadians).
Background 2: I've seen veteran Trotskyists (who should have known better) show up at events about Topic A just so they could bring up the completely unrelated Topic J, and the response from the organizers was to call on them once, allow them to have their say, delegate one member to make a direct response, and then carry on with the topic of the day and not allow the rest of the discussion to be sidetracked, even if it meant not calling on the sectarian putz one more time.
Mr. Kroese could have planned to deal with Mr. Del Arroz in such a way, but that would have been one hell of an organizing task to prepare for such an intervention at a dozen or more panels (just ask Rod Dreher how much time he used to have to spend moderating the comments on his posts on TAC, weeding out the crazies and the foul mouthed). Not to mention that Mr. Del Arroz would have probably pissed off a lot of people if he had brought up the question of the existence of the Satanic Panic at every single panel he attended, so I can understand if Mr. Kroese did not want to face that possibility.
If the sole purpose of Mr. Del Arroz buying a ticket was to try to force an unscheduled debate on Mr. Kroese, then I do not consider the latter a coward of any sort for banning the gentleman from his convention, which is, after all, his right. But, I don't know Mr. Del Arroz, so I can't say how likely it would have been that he would have tried to be a disruptive presence at BasedCon. I would encourage everyone to take a step back and try to discuss these issues like adults and avoid name calling, even in the toxic cesspool that is social media.
First, just a note as an amateur editor:
The screenshots from Mr. Hunter on X include "In short," but none of the screenshots finish the sentence, and the thought, as quoted by Mr. Gray: "In short, creating a scene. That’s what got Jon banned. No one there wanted that kind of drama." That last part, beginning with "creating a scene" and ending with "drama" only appears as quotes by Mr. Gray, not as screenshots, which is not ideal for getting to the truth of the matter.
My assumption is that this was a completely honest and non-malicious error on Mr. Gray's part, and I would suggest that the post be amended to include the actual screenshots completing Mr. Hunter's thoughts as quoted.
These are links. You can click on them.
My apologies.
I remember that Satanic panic, as it spread across multiple continents where Christianity formed the moral foundation of civilization. I share Jon’s opinion though with some additional nuances; at one point I mentioned this to him in another FandomPlus article. Attempting a deeper analysis, I believe there were two main ways they took that discourse and twisted it to their advantage: first, by funding or supporting clowns who exaggerated the warnings and pointed out anything vaguely suspicious—these individuals very cleverly used Japanese products to achieve this end, because Asia was an unfamiliar continent, and linguistic and cultural differences allowed them to mix items that weren’t always appropriate for children with those that were. Thus, when they made claims not fully supported by actual images or context, and someone later checked to see if it matched reality, people dismissed them as liars. It goes without saying these individuals left behind a trail of scams still active today due to their profitability; one might describe them as grifters of another era. The second thing they did was divert attention from the core issues of works that genuinely sought those messages and pass them off as nothing, thanks largely to the negative reputations earned by previous figures who signaled anything similar. It’s also important to note these weren’t always so obvious; most were soft Luciferian messages, while others played with subliminalism. One could defend D&D by claiming its message wasn’t originally what it became over time and thus treat it as truth; the problem is they didn’t do much about it to prevent ending up where they are today, which leaves one wondering: was that warning real or not? It hardly needs stressing this phenomenon remains very much alive today—not just subtly or subliminally, but openly and literally, employing tropes like Plato’s Cave. A concrete example: if I brought *Zootopia 2* back to that era and someone pointed out its Satanic nature—both symbolically and in terms of Luciferian messaging—I’d have had to completely agree, at least in principle. But because the campaign had been so effective due to their exaggerations, they would eventually label me paranoid and resort to other dismissive terms (exactly as they do today). The public’s changing stance regarding that incident reflects a shift: what they once clearly saw as something bad is now different; in other words, the psyop succeeded. One must remember those deeply involved in this mess have always operated under one rule: show the warning, then deny it. Through this, they justify having, somehow, warned you despite their own denials—and thus it’s legitimate to move forward with their plans. I still don’t understand why they believe and act this way, but that’s how it functions—very similar to Gnostics.
It’s also important to note that Jon is not immune to making mistakes and pointing out things that aren’t actually wrong. As I said, today we have difficulty identifying evil because many of us were raised by the enemy—who, at their core, hated everything associated with their own civilization.
You leaned on ChatGPT to write this comment. Or something similar. The seams show everywhere.
The outline arrives before the argument. You posted this as if it were thought in motion:
"Attempting a deeper analysis, I believe there were two main ways they took that discourse and twisted it to their advantage: first..."
Then later:
"The second thing they did was divert attention from the core issues"
That is the house style of a model told to sound thoughtful. A person already inside the topic starts in the middle and cuts but you started with a table of contents.
Stock glue sits in every other sentence. You used the same crutches the machine reaches for when it needs to look serious:
"It goes without saying these individuals left behind a trail of scams still active today"
"It’s also important to note these weren’t always so obvious"
"It hardly needs stressing this phenomenon remains very much alive today"
"A concrete example: if I brought Zootopia 2 back to that era"
"One must remember those deeply involved in this mess have always operated under one rule"
Then you repeated the same crutch again:
"It’s also important to note that Jon is not immune to making mistakes and pointing out things that aren’t actually wrong."
FYI those lines are how the model buys time while it fills space. A real comment would drop half of them.
That last "Jon" line is the hedge. You asked for nuance and the model handed you a polite bow.
You probably also gave it a few names and a stance: Jon, FandomPlus, etc. Probably even spelled that wrong on purpose. Your model built the scaffolding and poured generic analysis into the gaps. Fluency is cheap. Structure is cheap. The tidy two-part frame and the closing caveat will always show up on demand.
Learn the tells before you paste next time. Learn how a human comment actually moves. Like sort turns and maybe an uneven rhythm or a mispeling of a word. Hard cuts. Even.
You're right; in this case, I turned to AI. I still have trouble with English when it comes to long comments, especially ones that might use terms for which I don't know the English equivalent. In the past, I’ve used translation software, but because this was so long and difficult to express, I tried using AI to see if the flow would be better. In this specific case, I used the Qwen3 4B Hivemind Inst Hrtic Ablit Uncensored Imat model via LM Studio, since it’s an uncensored model designed to avoid censorship of specific terms, but the results have left much to be desired. I’ll have to go back to the previous method, even if it takes more time.