Wondering if GenCon has any official stance on using "hoverboards" at the con?

While I don't particularly care about people using them elsewhere in the ICC, I'd like to seem them barred from the Exhibit Hall. That place is crowded enough with just foot traffic and (IMHO) adding "hoverboards" would only make things worse.

Hopefully natural selection will take care of that.

The ICCLOS Facility Guide has this in section 2.4.2 (p. 7): "Motorized vehicles cannot be brought into the facility unless prior written approval has been given by Facility Management."

Barring changes in Indiana/Indianapolis law, ADA exceptions, and/or a worked-out deal, the default appears to be that they're not allowed inside the ICC.  Not that that's likely to stop anyone.

I'm not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, etc.

Finally! A practical use for a foam greataxe!  :-)

Yeah, no hoverboards.

Marian McBrine
Event Coordinator
Gen Con LLC

Hmmm, how about a hoverboard jousting event?  Use pool noodles for lances. That could be fun.

Fun to watch, at least.  
 

Can't remember if it was at GenCon or one of the other Indy cons but there was a guy dressed up as Emporer Palpatine in the dark robes riding around on a hoverboard. Looked like he was floating around the convention. That was pretty awesome. 

So the rule above doesn't say you can't bring a hoverboard. The interp of the rule above seems overly conservative. Someone could easily ask the Con center management for permission. I don't know what their standards are, but it does talk about facility management approval being theoretically possible.

What if you came dressed in your best second film Marty McFly costume, for example :)

EDIT FOR CLARITY: Marimacc has indicated below that hoverboards are not being allowed by Gen Con, so the ICC's rule doesn't even apply. In case anyone comes to this party late. :)

Frankly the hallways are just too conjested for someone on a hoverboard to get around. I remember seeing one last year outside the Dealer's Room for the 1st time and thought how could one get around and 'Not' get knocked down. Even if there was not a rule against them they still be a bad idea.
Randu

"So the rule above doesn't say you can't bring a hoverboard. The interp of the rule above seems overly conservative. Someone could easily ask the Con center management for permission. I don't know what their standards are, but it does talk about facility management approval being theoretically possible."

Actually the rule says exactly that . "Motorized vehicles cannot be brought into the facility" pretty definitive ,especially since the facility is the whole convention center.
You can ask (written ) but I can guarantee they will default to what their lawyers suggest  and that is no hoverboards
 

That last word is really, really important in interpretation of the rule.

You can guarantee all you want, but unless you work for them and know otherwise, the rule indicates that motorized vehicles are not absolutely banned from the building. They are not allowed without express permission.

That was the point of my post above, which is still correct. I didn't indicate at all what the odds would be of them allowing a vehicle. But I will tell you that Gen Con employees used to zip around on Segways all the time not too long ago. So the facility staff does not, in every single case, just default to 'not allowed'. Again, I have no idea and said nothing about what the odds are of a regular attendee being allowed. My point was only that the interpretation of 'no way no how' is incorrect.

First I did not misquote at all -  It is banned  unless you have permission . . Permissison being granted does not change the fact it is  , it merely gives 1 (or more )person/people  an exemption . Very different . If you choose to mis-interpret a rule /law , it does not make it a fact .
Actually the important word is PERMISSION.
Just the same way that it is against the law to drive without a valid license ,but there are exemptions . This does not change  the fact it is against the law .
I actually do know otherwise - I am on very good terms with a number of their corporate lawyers and do know the answer. 

This is what you wrote above:

"Motorized vehicles cannot be brought into the facility" pretty definitive, especially since the facility is the whole convention center. 

Definitive meaning 'done, conclusion reached' (which is the definition of the word), the partial quote you gave is, in fact, not definitive, any more so than saying "It's illegal to drive in the USA" is a definitive statement of the law that requires government permission to drive. That statement is an incomplete and potentially misleading interpretation of the law. That's what I meant by saying you misquoted. If I say "Donald Trump is not evil" and you quote me and leave out the 'not', you have misquoted me. Leaving out an important part of someone's statement is a misquote.

In contrast, here's what I wrote:

So the rule above doesn't say you can't bring a hoverboard. The interp of the rule above seems overly conservative. Someone could easily ask the Con center management for permission. I don't know what their standards are, but it does talk about facility management approval being theoretically possible.

First sentence: true. Third sentence: true. Fourth sentence: true.

The only thing I wrote there that is not blatantly true is the second sentence, my opinion that this interpretation: "Yeah, no hoverboards." is overly conservative.

And I stand by the opinion. Saying essentially "hoverboards are not allowed" and implying "at all" is overly conservative, as hoverboards may in fact be allowed on individual merit. And indeed, I stand by that opinion that it is not a definitive interpretation of the rule, even if you do happen to know some of their lawyers. Their own rule leaves open the possibility of allowed hoverboards. So to say "hoverboards are not allowed" is the definitive interpretation of the rule is as incorrect as saying "you can smoke anywhere you want in the United States" and leaving out "where it is permitted".

I guess you could try to argue about the definition of 'definitive'. I'm just going by a combo of the dictionary and common usage. And I'm not interested in debating that definition. I think what I've said here is both all I want to say and all I need to say to defend my position. Not trying to be a jerk, sorry if I came across that way. My initial point in all of this was that I didn't want people to neglect the very real fact that they can ask the convention center staff for permission to bring a hoverboard if they choose to. Someone reading "no hoverboards" might not have realized that.

Peace.

(I'll add that I'm not saying Marimacc was out of line in any way. Her being a rep of Gen Con, I think it's pretty reasonable of her to take the conservative position when she gives what will be taken as an 'official Gen Con position'. Better for her employer to be seen as saying "no" than to be seen as giving permission.)

Seriously, there is no argument here.  

We do not allow hoverboards at Gen Con, you will not be able to secure permission from the facility to bring one in, and that's that.  End of story.  We rent the whole convention center, and you cannot secure permission from the convention center to have something at an event that the event does not allow.  You cannot ask the convention center to allow it, when Gen Con does not.  Gen Con does not allow hoverboards, and therefore, there will not be hoverboards at Gen Con, and you cannot obtain permission to have one.  If you're seen using one, you'll be asked to get off it and take it outside the facilities.

That's it, there's no way around it, sorry.  They aren't safe, and we aren't allowing them.

Marian McBrine
Event Coordinator
Gen Con LLC

(And I'm on board with not allowing them, to be clear. That's a good call.)

Edit: just poked around a brief bit on the Google--seems some jurisdictions haven't even made distinctions, and have been allowing 'common sense' to dictate until forced into a decision. There's one case in Florida where a guy in a motorized wheelchair crashed into and killed a guy in a scooter, and the issue in court was to determine whether or not the chair was a vehicle. Things like horesepower, wattage, and speed were being considered. (Can't find the resolution yet...grrrr. Here's that article.)