Filip

This accepted industry norm of "warning others" in private about supposed bad actors has to stop. It is poison to the professional standards of this industry because it grants the people who practice it in good faith the feeling that they're doing something meaningful, while those who are supposed to be hindered by it are entirely unbothered so long as they can keep up public appearances. It doesn't work against genuine bad actors with access to money or funding. It doesn't work against genuine bad actors who are shameless enough to namedrop any industry figures they've even brushed shoulders with for clout. It doesn't work against genuine bad actors who are willing to leverage the social politics of online "positivity" to stigmatise legitimate criticism. These are the only bad actors who pose any sort of serious threat to anyone. All of them are entirely unbothered by this person-to-person warning system until they get outed for something that costs them their relevance - at which point they've already done their damage and are usually beyond meaningful reproach. "Warning others" at cons, mixers and orgies is a supposed industry safeguard that amounts to little more than easily-weaponised gossip at the best of times. The worst part? It even allows those same bad actors to couch their dismissal of legitimate complaints (corroborated as they might be) as just more of the same idle, backroom backchat. What's more, this trend of only providing anecdotal testimony against bad actors after they've become publicly-approved whipping boys needs to stop as well. Every time someone only airs their complaints publicly (& without evidence or documentation) after the supposed bad actor has been rendered irrelevant by something else, they reinforce the exact same industry norm that allowed said actor to operate in secret for so long. I can probably count on one hand the number of people giving public accounts of Camana's seedy dealings now that also spoke up about a month ago when he was boasting about Luminara's evidently unsustainable business model and calling other companies in the space "predatory" by comparison. Why are all these allegations only being publicly aired now? It is because he's no longer a threat as the head of an agency without any talents left in it? Is it because all of the other surviving businesses in this space still worth playing nice with have publicly disavowed any affiliation with him and his company? Is it because he's no longer on the same site and can't or won't reply any more? I can sympathise with people's reasons for not wanting to be inconvenienced by the process of levelling public critique against an active entity. Maybe you don't want to burn bridges with the talents who are coping about the pie in the sky promised to them by their boss. Maybe you don't want to deal with the cattle on social media who will jump to their defence by virtue of them claiming the mantle of a "talent first" business. Maybe you don't want to start a gossip war against someone who appears to have (comparatively) loads of money behind them to avoid the possibility that they actually sue. All of these reasons are understandable, but when you speak out against someone or something only after they've lost all their relevance, understand that you achieve nothing but personal catharsis. The cattle will have already been milked, and the talents might've been too. Nothing will change and the next person with a suspicious amount of funding or sufficient number of "connections" will go on to do almost the exact same thing while making the exact same false promises to anyone who will listen. Some of the people who will listen might even be the same people who were burned by the last now-irrelevant disaster too. If people want this industry to be more professional, then we need to start moving away from an industry warning system modelled after high school girls bitching about someone who gave them the ick. If you have a legitimate complaint, gather evidence and documentation. If a peer in the industry who you've never interacted with before solicits you to talk business (or asks to meet up in a situation where talking business might very well occur), archive the conversation if it happens online or bring someone along who can corroborate your account of the interaction in real life (in case things get uncomfortable). Have a buddy at parties whose job is to stay sober and listen in on conversations that you have with other industry figures. The most important step will be moving away from person-to-person "warnings" to public callouts. Not shoddy Google dockeys airing out personal drama with nothing but a few obviously cherry-picked Discord screenshots, but a proper dossier and/or accompanying testimony from witnesses. This will be the biggest and most difficult step because it will require people to decide whether to speak up publicly based on objective standards of evidence rather than vibes and public consensus. However, it is crucial if anyone genuinely wants to make the industry more hostile to Camana and his ilk. In an industry where careers rely on clout and favours, there is virtually no incentive to make this shift. However, I urge anyone who has felt genuinely burnt by Camana and his dealings to consider how wholly played-out the entire debacle has been. Luminara was not an original sales pitch. Camana was not a novel scumbag. We've seen countless instances of the exact same thing before in this industry. They keep repeating themselves for a reason. If the only bad actors you're willing to publicly confront are deactivated Twitter accounts or bankrupt businesses, then you'll always win but you'll never change anything. So long as people continue to seek public consensus as their main form of protection while speaking out, bad actors will continue to infest this space entirely unbothered. Stop waiting until someone else with more autism or less to lose gives you permission to speak by making the first move.

Please read 💜 & take care!🍧🦝 If any emergencies or important discussions need to be had, I will def be around for them, but otherwise, taking a step back.