Article 2461 of alt.fandom.cons:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,alt.fandom.cons
From: hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey)
Subject: Counterfeit vs countercounterfeit vs ....
Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 00:57:33 GMT

matt@access.digex.net (Matt Lawrence) writes:
> If ConFrancisco had used "photosensitive badges", I would have created a
> stencil saying (probably) "ConFiasco" and borrowed a photoflash to
> permenantly add it to my badge.

and hazelton@mizar.usc.edu (John W. Hazelton) adds:
> An amusingly creative response, if indeed a photoflash would blacken
> the badge.

Point taken, they did promise a photoflash wouldn't mess it up, didn't
they?  How about just using a photocopier?  If indeed a photocopier
would blacken this mythical plastic (and for the sake of word-mincers,
until someone comes up with the repeatedly requested and pointedly
unmentioned manufacturer's name, this stuff is a myth).

dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael) mentions:
> Nevermind if we thought things through.  Nevermind if we had
> contingency planning in place.  Nevermind if we never got a sample to
> test.  It *might* have happened -- and that's what we (ConFrancisco)
> have been getting dumped on about.

But I thought it was you who said you didn't have a sample, that was
your excuse for not knowing the specifications, or whether it would
really turn or not turn black.  And the examples I've seen of you
thinking things through sound awfully naive.  You couldn't handle the
crowds you actually had at the door, what were the contingency plans
for thousand replacement badges?  And the solutions proposed to the
black badge problem are far too member-unfriendly.  "Explain how it
happened" my foot, I was photocopying it to send in a letter home, why
not?  Well, maybe there were plans to make it unavoidably known that
you shouldn't try to photocopy the badge, but it's still an imposition
not to be able to do so.  I would also find it quite annoying were the
badge to turn black over the years, as I cherish it as a souvenir of
the con (and I never say ``ConFiasco'' save with the fondest of doting
memories.  It was surely the most wonderful ConFiasco I've ever seen.)
How were you supposed to know the badge would last after the con?
This is not nevermind-if-you-had-thought-things-through, this is a
question:  What *did* you think through?  (As far as many other
proposed technological solutions go, I would also be really annoyed if
my badge set off alarms at bookstores or libraries or nuclear
reactors.  I just feel that, unlike my employee ID, the con badge is
my property, and should be built to handle the ordinary conditions of
life.)

ConFrancisco managed to trip, stumble, and fall upon the best solution
mentioned yet: the diffraction film on the badge was good enough to
stop everyone who was not willing and able to circumvent anything you
could reasonably produce (including photo badges as a triviality.)
Before you go into your ``we're losing billions if not trillions of
dollars'' estimates yet again, try estimating the number of
counterfeit badges actually used at the con in question.  Is there any
evidence that even a single counterfeit badge was ever used by a
non-member of the con?  (As an official ConFrancisco badge
counterfeiter myself, I of course was a member.  And I only
counterfeited Kevin Standlee's badge and my own.)

Speaking of which: Does anyone from the concom know how many people
actually ponied up the $145 to replace a lost badge, and how many were
returned for the refund less $35 processing fee?  I'm just wondering
how much money they got to make up for the ill will generated.  No,
I'm not interested in yet another round of everyone's estimate of the
hypothetical monies not lost by having a less restrictive policy, I'd
just like to know how much CF really made on the deal.  (And I guess
I'd better find a parenthetical remark to end this paragraph with,
too).

Fisoo,

Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil