[Tristan Lall]

I don't think that prohibition or record-keeping by FIRST is a reasonable solution. The former is a collective punishment for the transgressions of a few. The second is cumbersome and expensive, with unclear benefits.

A better approach would be to have a discussion with team members about the boundaries of acceptable conduct, and how to promote good conduct through social norms (in effect, peer pressure) without unduly limiting perfectly reasonable emotions and enthusiasm. That could also include a direct warning to costumed team members that their anonymity isn't a licence to take liberties with other people.

The psychology of misbehaviour is something with which teachers ought to be generally familiar, and as such, they should actively discourage placing team members in roles which are ill-suited to their personality traits—"creepy" being one of those red flags. Practically speaking, it's hard to do this perfectly, and mistakes will be made.


Meanwhile, the contention that a zero-tolerance approach is required strikes me as unfair. There's a continuum of bad acts ranging from obstruction and taunting to assault and battery (including of a sexual nature), and the motivations for those acts are similarly diverse. For the administrators who are responsible for resolving the situation, the solution is not to arrest and charge every idiot who does something wrong—it's to attempt to get to the bottom of the incident and choose the appropriate response. If the decision is to involve the police, it should be done with an understanding of the ramifications of that decision, and the potential for further injustices that lie beyond your control.¹ If the decision is to handle it using internal disciplinary procedures and rehabilitation, you have to weigh the possibility that it will be perceived as an inadequate slap on the wrist. Again, mistakes will be made, but you're still responsible for doing everything reasonable to avoid them.

The victims have a much smaller duty² to ensure that the perpetrators are treated even-handedly—but as a good citizen, they should understand that there's a chance that the situation will spiral out of control. If the incident is not particularly severe, report it to a trusted person and (if comfortable doing so) discuss the situation carefully to ensure a fair outcome without involving the torch-and-pitchfork brigade. But if the incident is severe, report it with a clear conscience, and trust that the authorities will handle it appropriately.

¹ For example, the record of an arrest or a criminal charge, even if unproven or dismissed, is often used to draw adverse inferences, even many years later. And certainly the detriments of being justly convicted are manifold, yet not necessarily just in their own right. One of your many competing responsibilities is to avoid injustice—even injustices committed against a bad person—so think hard before you bring the hammer down.
² The adage that life isn't fair is often used to justify negligence or minor misconduct. But perhaps that statement rings truer if we accept that even victims are burdened with a small measure of moral responsibility towards attackers.