[C15 Vote] C13 Voter Pool
Axel
the committee / bid itself but on the consequences of putting it up
for a vote this year.
This is the first opportunity for the people provided by the C13
committee to vote for where a C* should take place, and with the vast
majority being close to Seattle and not part of the our community
their interest in the event is as a Gothic Musical Festival, which is
reasonable since that is what the only Convergence they have been
exposed to was.
I gather that when TheOneBob was inviting people to the C14 MySpace
site a lot of Northwesterners indicating that they wished to wait
until "next year" to attend their next Convergence.
How big a deal is this, you ask?
Here are the vote counts for the Convergences I could find numbers for
on a.g.[1] :
Total votes cast:
C14 = 193 votes
C13 = 430 votes
C12 = 677 votes
C11 = 517 votes
C10 = ??? votes
C9 = 487 votes
That's an average of around 500 votes altogether.
There are 970 net new entries from C13 that get their first
opportunity to vote this year.
Consequently, should a significant percentage do so they own the vote.
Which would mean Seattle would win and our friends there would
subsequently face a lot of pressure to replicate C13 from the people
that voted for them.
Vomvamuse begged the question on LJ a few days ago as to why we were
including them in the vote, given all the kerfuffle surrounding C13,
and after discussion with the restof the C*B*L we feel that due to the
nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
(option 2 under Who Is Eligible To Vote? in the Wiki).
http://www.altgothic.com/wiki/index.php/Voting
We figure those that matter can do that.
Those that can't don't matter.
If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
20th.
--
Axel... ...The Voice of the Mystero^H^H^H C*B*L
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
<ax...@eol.ca>
[1] The C6 vote was by e-mail and attracted 1338 votes, after Bob
filtered out thousands of fraudulent duplicate addresses, so it isn't
comparable.
tracy....@gmail.com
> Vomvamuse begged the question on LJ a few days ago as to why we were
> including them in the vote, given all the kerfuffle surrounding C13,
> and after discussion with the restof the C*B*L we feel that due to the
> nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
> electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
> (option 2 under Who Is Eligible To Vote? in the Wiki).
I think this sounds like a most EXCELLENT idea and should be
implemented.
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
no objection from this voice here :D
Tracy
aka Victorianrose23
fros...@gmail.com
new people were added to the voter database each year. Something like
100 per year, and C13 again has the figure just short of 1000.
Obviously, these are not people in our community. Certainly I've not
seen 1000 more people on alt.gothic in the last 2 years.
These were people who joined due to advertising C13 in areas it should
not have been promoted. Eg band mailing lists, local events,
whatever. We all already know where this went.
I don't want the skinny puppy and fla mailing list people to decide
where *our* party is. They can hold one themselves, there's certainly
enough of them.
Given that the C13 committee bent/broke the rules on promotion and
this glut of people in the database is a direct result of that, I
agree that the addresses added to the database by C13 be removed.
Anyone who actually only attended at C13 and is genuinely interested
is of course welcome to contact the cabal to be added directly. And
of course, everyone who wants can attend any Convergence.
CarrieMonster
<tracy.pain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Axel:
>
> > Vomvamuse begged the question on LJ a few days ago as to why we were
> > including them in the vote, given all the kerfuffle surrounding C13,
> > and after discussion with the restof the C*B*L we feel that due to the
> > nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
> > electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
> > (option 2 under Who Is Eligible To Vote? in the Wiki).
>
> I think this sounds like a most EXCELLENT idea and should be
> implemented.
>
I am echoing Tracy!
I support this idea 100%
xoxo
CM...god, I am so bored! Ian and I have nothing to do tonight!
Which I suppose I should be glad =D
ildirector
concerns that I have IMHO:
> This is the first opportunity for the people provided by the C13
> committee to vote for where a C* should take place, and with the vast
> majority being close to Seattle and not part of the our community
> their interest in the event is as a Gothic Musical Festival, which is
> reasonable since that is what the only Convergence they have been
> exposed to was.
I'd be concerned with gauging interest from potential people because
of their locality to the last Convergence. I can see how you could
come to that conclusion, however.
> I gather that when TheOneBob was inviting people to the C14 MySpace
> site a lot of Northwesterners indicating that they wished to wait
> until "next year" to attend their next Convergence.
But can we be sure that they were waiting for Seattle to come up for
bid the next year? I see potential jumping to conclusions, but I
could be wrong.
> How big a deal is this, you ask?
>
> Here are the vote counts for the Convergences I could find numbers for
> on a.g.[1] :
>
> Total votes cast:
> C14 = 193 votes
> C13 = 430 votes
> C12 = 677 votes
> C11 = 517 votes
> C10 = ??? votes
> C9 = 487 votes
>
> That's an average of around 500 votes altogether.
>
> There are 970 net new entries from C13 that get their first
> opportunity to vote this year.
>
> Consequently, should a significant percentage do so they own the vote.
>
> Which would mean Seattle would win and our friends there would
> subsequently face a lot of pressure to replicate C13 from the people
> that voted for them.
Politics at its finest for sure, and hard to get away from, as the
desire is to reign this party in a bit.
>
> Vomvamuse begged the question on LJ a few days ago as to why we were
> including them in the vote, given all the kerfuffle surrounding C13,
> and after discussion with the restof the C*B*L we feel that due to the
> nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
> electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
> (option 2 under Who Is Eligible To Vote? in the Wiki).
>
> http://www.altgothic.com/wiki/index.php/Voting
>
> We figure those that matter can do that.
> Those that can't don't matter.
>
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
I was actually expecting to see some sort of conversation about voting
eligibilty to come up. Cliff (the good one) and I were discussing
this very thing over C14. My concern in delimiting is that you are
going to cut some legitimate people out of the process. While there
are mechanisms to deal with that situation, it seems like to me that
there are more and more layers being added to the process. In all
good systems, the more layering that commences, the propensity for
breakdown increases. So I'm worried that we may be entering a
"slippery slope" in regard to the process.
It would be very easy for me personally to say "Let's set this up"
because I'm in the system already (I've been going since C9) and it
wouldn't affect me. But I worry for the new people (I think someone
referred to them as "punters") not even getting a chance to step up to
the plate.
Ultimately, up the the C*B*L, but I'd like to throw my idea out there:
1)you attend a Convergence once
2)you get an opportunity to take part in the voting process, but not
ratification. This allows the AG'ers to properly vet a bid to ensure
it meets to snuff
3)your second Convergence attendance allows you to ratify and vote
that year.
Dan
ildirector
This would work-would we want to notify them beforehand to let them
know to respond? Give them the opportunity to defend their remaining
on the list?
vomv...@hotmail.com
> we feel that due to the
> nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
> electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
> (option 2 under Who Is Eligible To Vote? in the Wiki).
I am thrilled, seriously, that you are considering this. I am nearly
getting teary eyed.
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
No objection from me what-so-ever. This is your party, therefore I
want us to win or lose by a legit vote.
>[1] The C6 vote was by e-mail and attracted 1338 votes, after Bob
>filtered out thousands of fraudulent duplicate addresses, so it isn't
>comparable.
I forgot about that all…but thousands of bad votes? wowzers. I
remember that what why the voting change was implemented, but I did
not realize that the fraud was that rampant. geez
-Erica
vomv...@hotmail.com
> I think the stats are even more interesting when you look at how many
> new people were added to the voter database each year. Something like
> 100 per year, and C13 again has the figure just short of 1000.
>
> Obviously, these are not people in our community. Certainly I've not
> seen 1000 more people on alt.gothic in the last 2 years.
More the reason why we should not include their database.
> I don't want the skinny puppy and fla mailing list people to decide
> where *our* party is.
Err, that is a very scary thought. No offence if you are on those
lists, but even if our bid is not ratified I would dump their database
for that reason alone.
-Erica
`una
> and after discussion with the restof the C*B*L we feel that due to the
> nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
> electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
The only objection I'm seeing is "What about the new people?"
That's been covered by the quote above.
That totally satisfies me because it's worked
for this community for years.
I had some issues with being able to vote after C6 because
it was my first Convergence. A quick e-mail fixed it right up.
Back then I was the worst person in the world for keeping track
of information and I was too shy to communicate with ANYBODY.
If I could care enough to track down information about the vote
and find the courage to write to someone and say, "I'd really like
to be able to vote." I don't see why anybody who cares wouldn't
be able to. Seriously, I was utterly petrified that the C*B*L were
a bunch of ogres and I'd be flamed out of the group for being
a fluffy bunny. Sheer terror was not enough to stop me from
participating because I cared about Convergence.
These discussions and the voting process aren't happening in secret.
They get announced. Google groups is a hideous interface, but it does
make the discussion accessible to people who don't have traditional
NNTP access to usenet. People who want to be included in the vote
have access to the necessary e-mails in a variety of places.
Being added to the vote is not rocket science.
It isn't the end of the world if people get excluded. It sucks
for the people it happens to. It's happened to me in plenty of other
situations where it shouldn't have. I either cared enough to fight
for my voice or it didn't really matter and I let it go.
We aren't fucking ogres. We're a community of people preparing to vote
on where we want our party held next year and who gets to host the party.
People who want to be involved will find a way, even if they fall through
the cracks and have to try again next year. Shit happens and people deal
with it or cry themselves to sleep because they didn't get to vote
on Convergence.
`una - would you believe I'm a bleeding heart liberal?
Just gotta grab the bandages sometimes.
Cat
> There are 970 net new entries from C13 that get their first
> opportunity to vote this year.
>
> Consequently, should a significant percentage do so they own the vote.
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
Ok, I'll object. I feel that removing a mass number of voters just
simply because they live in the NW and were first able to attend
Convergence at C13 is a bit... draconian.
But, I'll also propose another solution:
Why not do the normal voting ping, but add an extra step? So, not
only does everyone get the ping to show their email is working, but
they have to click a link, login to altgothic.com, get a short,
succinct explanation of what Convergence is (highlighting its relation
to a.g), and answer a question such as, "would you like to continue
voting for Convergence?" with a boolean answer.
This should weed out the voter pool in general and educate anyone who
didn't know about the correlation between a.g and Convergence.
Best wishes,
Cat
spacekadt
*snipping objection*
>
> Why not do the normal voting ping, but add an extra step? So, not
> only does everyone get the ping to show their email is working, but
> they have to click a link, login to altgothic.com, get a short,
> succinct explanation of what Convergence is (highlighting its relation
> to a.g), and answer a question such as, "would you like to continue
> voting for Convergence?" with a boolean answer.
>
> This should weed out the voter pool in general and educate anyone who
> didn't know about the correlation between a.g and Convergence.
>
The people that we're attempting to weed out (I use the royal "we"
here for lack of better wording) are the ones that just don't care
about a.g and Convergence. They want Skinny Puppy-fest all over
again. Education is well and nice, but it seems to me that the people
we're worried about just plain don't give a shit about the origins of
the event, they just want another C13... however it has to happen.
Even if it means they vote for something in their area and hope to
play the "I voted for you so give me what I want" card. Ideally, that
card wouldn't work, but that won't stop them from voting for something
en masse and overruling what a.g wants (should they want something
different). Conceivably, this could keep C* in the northwest every
year. Likelihood of this is low, but it's there.
However, I'm personally hoping that the number of people that would do
this is fairly low... I'm really hoping that most of these people just
dropped off the face of Convergence and don't plan to do anything with
us ever again.
There are a few people (like Carlee) who had C13 as their first
convergence and have become active and gotten to know a.g and
Convergence and understand or are coming to understand what it's all
about. Those are the ones that I wouldn't want to lose... and the way
Axel phrased his original message, I'm not sure we would. For one,
Carlee is associated with the C14 database now and certainly wouldn't
lose her status. Anyone who wants to continue to participate only
needs to pipe up around a.g or contact the c*b*l with a reference to
be kept around.
Maybe a compromise would be to email all those C13 addresses and
explain the proposed plan. Give them an email address to contact
specifically if they want to stick around. Similar to a ping, but not
really... if that makes any sense.
That said, I understand Cat's hesitation, but I'm on board with the
plan as proposed in the OP.
-spacekadt
Peter H. Coffin
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Cat wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:33 pm, Axel <a...@eol.ca> wrote:
>> There are 970 net new entries from C13 that get their first
>> opportunity to vote this year.
>>
>> Consequently, should a significant percentage do so they own the vote.
> ...
>> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
>> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
>> 20th.
>
> Ok, I'll object. I feel that removing a mass number of voters just
> simply because they live in the NW and were first able to attend
> Convergence at C13 is a bit... draconian.
>
> But, I'll also propose another solution:
>
> Why not do the normal voting ping, but add an extra step? So, not
> only does everyone get the ping to show their email is working, but
> they have to click a link, login to altgothic.com, get a short,
> succinct explanation of what Convergence is (highlighting its relation
> to a.g), and answer a question such as, "would you like to continue
> voting for Convergence?" with a boolean answer.
That's roughly what they already got. When we loaded them, they got
emails saying "Hi! You're in the database. To continue getting email
about Convergence stuff, go to this linky and validate that you care."
If they do that, they'll get mail like every other registered user. If
they don't, they'll not hear from us again, the way things are now.
25 have bothered to, so I'm inclined to let it sit, fairly quietly, and
left things fall according to what things look like are going to happen.
--
10. I will not interrogate my enemies in the inner sanctum -- a small hotel
well outside my borders will work just as well.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
fros...@gmail.com
> Ok, I'll object. I feel that removing a mass number of voters just
> simply because they live in the NW and were first able to attend
> Convergence at C13 is a bit... draconian.
We would not be removing the voters based on their geographical
location. The reasoning is thus:
a) The C13 committee took Convergence and turned it into Gothapalooza
with loads of bands.
b) They advertised it WAY wider than it should have been (eg band
mailing lists), combined with the above, got a lot of people
interested who wanted to attend simply for the bands.
c) As a result, the voter database from C13 is tainted with a lot of
people who want a Gothapalooza, and not a Convergence such as we've
done the other dozen or so times. (This is obvious from the sheer
volume of people who were registered as new before).
d) This "festival contingent" could have an enormous sway over our
event, so it is important to minimise that. We think we should remove
these from the vote by default. If you want to blame someone, blame
the C13 committee.
e) If someone has never been to Convergence before 13, and didn't come
to 14 afterwards (as stated, we don't know of a single person on a.g
who this applies to), they are vulnerable to this. However, if they
are at all active on a.g, convergence lj or even know anyone who is,
then they will just have to give a one-off heads-up, and they will be
put back on the voter database.
As far as I know members of each C15 bid have come out in support of
this so with their blessing this should not be construed as bias
toward any one bid. If anything, I would see it as dangerous to a
Seattle bid, having pressure put on it if they won, to make another
event similar to C13. And that is what we are against happening,
wherever it would be.
erith romycin
>The concern that I personally have with the Seattle bid is not about
>the committee / bid itself but on the consequences of putting it up
>for a vote this year.
>There are 970 net new entries from C13 that get their first
>opportunity to vote this year.
[under the current rules]
>Consequently, should a significant percentage do so they own the vote.
>If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
Why, and I ask this as much from historical interest as anything else, do
the criteria for eligibility for voting on Convergence -not- include posting
to alt.gothic or parts of the USENET *.gothic.* hierarch(y/ies)? With
(against my better judgement, it ought to be said) some extension for
members of certain other internet based gothic communities, including, but
not limited to those prissy primadonnas in corpgoth and those feckless
traitor scum on livejournal, et cet era et al ad infinitum.
It strikes me that that's a far more reasonable extension to the
requirements for franchise than attending two convergences, certainly given
the costs that tend to be associated with going to the event. It also gives
the few Europeans who've been able to make it over a say, however small,
over an event that is meant to be about an -international- community.
--
erith - i wish i could do something about this
Cat
> On Aug 17, 8:49 pm, Cat <graveyardfashi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'll object. I feel that removing a mass number of voters just
> > simply because they live in the NW and were first able to attend
> > Convergence at C13 is a bit... draconian.
>
> We would not be removing the voters based on their geographical
> location. The reasoning is thus:
>
votes from C13 attendees>
Thank you, Fross. I know the reasons behind Axel's suggestion, but
feel the proposed action is too harsh. Besides, my programmer side
wants a logical answer that will work as a general rule for everyone,
rather than a one-off circumstance (which can be viewed/argued as
unfair).
"If the user hasn't validated within 6 months of a ping being sent
out, we remove them from the database" makes more sense to me. Here's
why:
1. It takes care of the vast majority of the C13 populace (as Peter
said, only 25 of them validated)
2. It would take care of database cleanup in general - and prevents
future chaff from filling it up
3. It's a reasonable expectation that the offer to validate will
eventually expire, anyway. Future validation requests could even have
a sentence stating "you must validate within the next six months."
4. It does not target a certain group of individuals (prejudice based
on when their first C was), but all of us.
Best wishes,
Cat
Siobhan
<graveyar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"If the user hasn't validated within 6 months of a ping being sent
>out, we remove them from the database" makes more sense to me.
Only problem with that is that the ping was only sent out a month ago
or so. It would push the vote back to November-December, and that
would seriously impact the ability of the current committees to sign
contracts with their venues/hotels.
Siobhan
Siobhan
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>Why, and I ask this as much from historical interest as anything else, do
>the criteria for eligibility for voting on Convergence -not- include posting
>to alt.gothic or parts of the USENET *.gothic.* hierarch(y/ies)?
There are people who go to Convergence year after year, volunteer,
host room parties, organize day trips and otherwise make Convergence a
successful event and do not post to a.g.
There are people who post to a.g who have never been to a Convergence
and who never intend to go.
IMHO, I'd like to prioritise people who actually participate in the
event when it comes to making decisions about that event.
Siobhan
CarrieMonster
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:15:02 -0700 (PDT), Cat
>
> >"If the user hasn't validated within 6 months of a ping being sent
> >out, we remove them from the database" makes more sense to me.
>
> Only problem with that is that the ping was only sent out a month ago
> or so. It would push the vote back to November-December, and that
> would seriously impact the ability of the current committees to sign
> contracts with their venues/hotels.
>
> Siobhan
Forgive me if this has already been covered but why not do away with
the voting system and let everyone express opinons here and decide
that way?
That way the people of a.g have control, which is what we want right?
I'm sure hashing it out here would cause no drama and headaches
too! ;) j/k
xoxo
CM
Scarlet_Faeriewind
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
>
> --
> Axel... ...The Voice of the Mystero^H^H^H C*B*L
> "Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
> "How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
>
> [1] The C6 vote was by e-mail and attracted 1338 votes, after Bob
> filtered out thousands of fraudulent duplicate addresses, so it isn't
> comparable.
I support this decision.
Scarlet
Cat
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:15:02 -0700 (PDT), Cat
>
> >"If the user hasn't validated within 6 months of a ping being sent
> >out, we remove them from the database" makes more sense to me.
>
> Only problem with that is that the ping was only sent out a month ago
> or so. It would push the vote back to November-December, and that
> would seriously impact the ability of the current committees to sign
> contracts with their venues/hotels.
>
> Siobhan
Well then, what about 6 weeks? Six months was just a random figure I
pulled out of my arse. :) But having some statute of limitations on
the validation makes sense and would serve us in the long run,
methinks.
Best wishes,
Cat
erith romycin
>erith romycin wrote:
>>Why, and I ask this as much from historical interest as anything else, do
>>the criteria for eligibility for voting on Convergence -not- include
>> >>posting to alt.gothic or parts of the USENET *.gothic.* hierarch(y/ies)?
>There are people who go to Convergence year after year, volunteer,
>host room parties, organize day trips and otherwise make Convergence a
>successful event and do not post to a.g.
>There are people who post to a.g who have never been to a Convergence
>and who never intend to go.
>IMHO, I'd like to prioritise people who actually participate in the
>event when it comes to making decisions about that event.
Voter eligibility as:
ONE Convergence Attendance
AND ONE OF Second Convergence Attendance
OR alt.gothic active
OR some other measure
?
Prioritises Convergence attendance, rewards frequent participation in
alt.gothic as a community or Convergence as an event. Tidies, gives grounds
for expansion, cures the "parachute" issue some have identified as an issue
w/ C13.
--
erith - but at my heart I am an alt.gothic peep
Isara
weeks, watching the discussions around the bids, and have, to put it
mildly, some concerns.
First, though, please let me introduce myself:
I am an American goth who has been involved in the UK goth scene since
1993, particularly through the telnet talkers. I'm now active in the
San Francisco area. I'm fairly well-known around these parts, and I
run the local message board. I am also quite active on Livejournal,
though not on the goth communities (other than goth_macros).
I say this not only to state my credentials, but also to point out
that... well... the discussions at hand are making me feel the need to
state my credentials. This seems somewhat counter to my idea of what
this beautiful community should be about, and I cringe from not
feeling at all welcome - even though I'm as goth as the rest of you,
and would have known many of you throughout the years, had not my life
prohibited me from being exceptionally active until now.
Now then, I believe I am one of those few, who has only attended C13
and who validated. Like many of you, I had my own issues with the C13
organizers. I hate Skinny Puppy and I didn't go to the concerts (other
than the acoustic set at the tea party). Instead, I danced to the DJs
and had a glorious time admiring my beautiful brethren. I fairly well
understand the history of alt.gothic and Convergence, especially
seeing how so many of my current friends have been involved since the
very early days. I recognize that there is a desire by many to keep
the newbies out, to keep it a semi-private party by oldtimers, for
oldtimers. Fair enough. But if this is indeed the desire, why allow
new people to attend at all? Why create an open event and then put so
many barriers in place that it makes it offputting and/or insulting to
both the babybats and new old(er)timers like myself? The message from
the community is unclear. Do you want your own private party or do you
want to see the community flourish and make new friends?
It would be nice to have that clarified, especially since the
discussion I'm butting in upon seems to try to walk both those lines,
but it doesn't do it well. All it does is penalize those who happened
to have the "bad" luck of C13 being their first Convergence, and who
might not be particularly well-connected here. Now, I know there's
nothing prohibiting anyone from attending another Convergence (at
least not yet), but it seems that you're not only setting yourselves
up for a logistical nightmare, but you're also sending off a rather
unwelcoming message. If that's what you're after, fine. But is that
really what you want?
~Isara
Tim McGaughy
> On Aug 17, 12:49 pm, Cat <graveyardfashi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *snipping objection*
>
>> Why not do the normal voting ping, but add an extra step? So, not
>> only does everyone get the ping to show their email is working, but
>> they have to click a link, login to altgothic.com, get a short,
>> succinct explanation of what Convergence is (highlighting its relation
>> to a.g), and answer a question such as, "would you like to continue
>> voting for Convergence?" with a boolean answer.
[edit]
> Maybe a compromise would be to email all those C13 addresses and
> explain the proposed plan. Give them an email address to contact
> specifically if they want to stick around. Similar to a ping, but not
> really... if that makes any sense.
>
> That said, I understand Cat's hesitation, but I'm on board with the
> plan as proposed in the OP.
Personally, I think it should be done exactly the way it's planned, no
compromises.
It's supposed to be an alt.gothic party. The intention to dump voters
was announced on alt.gothic. Anybody who reads alt.gothic saw the posts,
and can contact the vote committee about saving their particular
individual ability to vote.
As far as I see it, problem solved.
Kaos
<carrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 17, 6:56 pm, Siobhan <n...@virulent.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:15:02 -0700 (PDT), Cat
>>
>> <graveyardfashi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >"If the user hasn't validated within 6 months of a ping being sent
>> >out, we remove them from the database" makes more sense to me.
>>
>> Only problem with that is that the ping was only sent out a month ago
>> or so. It would push the vote back to November-December, and that
>> would seriously impact the ability of the current committees to sign
>> contracts with their venues/hotels.
>>
>> Siobhan
>
>Forgive me if this has already been covered but why not do away with
>the voting system and let everyone express opinons here and decide
>that way?
>That way the people of a.g have control, which is what we want right?
While it's ideologically appealing, I don't see it as being practical
in the long term.
Although some (many?) feel that we already have a winner this year and
that the rest is mere formality, I wouldn't want to bank on that being
the norm. What happens should the popular sentiment be more obviously
split as the deadlines approach - whether this year, or in future
years?
Macross Actual
> Forgive me if this has already been covered but why not do away with
> the voting system and let everyone express opinons here and decide
> that way?
> That way the people of a.g have control, which is what we want right?
all of this has happened before.... all of this will happen again.
Shall we draw straws to determine who has to call Xthlic?
-///
--
** MacrossActual's global internet omnipotence: Gmail, Flickr, Twitter **
** In Perpetual Motion since 1998 - http://www.ipmradio.com **
** Text encapsulated, multi-disciplined elitism: http://rogueestate.com **
Siobhan
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>siobhan:
>>erith romycin wrote:
>
>>>Why, and I ask this as much from historical interest as anything else, do
>>>the criteria for eligibility for voting on Convergence -not- include
>>> >>posting to alt.gothic or parts of the USENET *.gothic.* hierarch(y/ies)?
>
>>There are people who go to Convergence year after year, volunteer,
>>host room parties, organize day trips and otherwise make Convergence a
>>successful event and do not post to a.g.
>
>>There are people who post to a.g who have never been to a Convergence
>>and who never intend to go.
>
>>IMHO, I'd like to prioritise people who actually participate in the
>>event when it comes to making decisions about that event.
>
>Voter eligibility as:
>
> ONE Convergence Attendance
>AND ONE OF Second Convergence Attendance
> OR alt.gothic active
> OR some other measure
That actually makes sense to me.
Throw it up to the newsgroup, see if people ratify it. :-)
Siobhan
`una
Street creds and a bunch of stuff about not feeling welcome.
The purpose of bid proposals, ratification, and voting is
NOT to make new people feel welcome. It is for the core participants
of Convergence to decide where Convergence will be and who will
get to host it.
The atmosphere of Convergence and people at Convergence make
new people feel welcome, as has been demonstrated over and over
throughout the years. When a new person feels welcome and
continues to participate, that person becomes part of the core
that gets to participate in the bid discussions, ratification
and voting for Convergence.
See how that works?
Now, for a generalized rant that's been percolating for a
good long while and not specific to you, though it does apply:
When you approach a new group for acceptance, it is not the job
of the group to hand you cookies and a blankie and show you to
the best seat in the room. It's up to you to demonstrate a clue
and a desire to get along with the group. It's entirely up to you
to develop the trust of the established group.
Compared to the days when I joined, this group is practically
bending over to make people feel welcome or to at least not
make them feel attacked for any reason at all (sometimes, even
if there's a valid reason for a good flame.)
I came here from alt.cuddle back in the day when my mere association
with that group would have gotten my ass flamed into oblivion without
so much as a "don't let the door hit you," and I managed enough
of a clue to be fairly openly welcomed into the group on my own merits.
So fuck all you whiny little bitches who expect this group to do
whatever it takes to make you feel like you can waltz in and do whatever
you want just because you think you're entitled to feel welcome
in whatever group you're interested in.
If you want to feel welcome, then do your homework and
approach the group like an adult instead of crying about how
elitist and exclusionary we're being. I haven' even seen a decent
flame in this group for years and we used to be artisans of the craft.
This is probably going to be counted a flame and it's hardly more
than a pointed rant.
`una - not here to make people feel welcome, but will joyously welcome
anyone displaying a clue. I'll settle for half a clue these days.
Kaos
wrote:
>I recognize that there is a desire by many to keep
>the newbies out, to keep it a semi-private party by oldtimers, for
>oldtimers.
AIUI, it's more about keeping the newbie's cousin from hijacking the
party.
>Do you want your own private party or do you
>want to see the community flourish and make new friends?
Again AIUI, it's the latter - just with caveats. They've been burned
once or twice by people who were just along for the ride, so now
they're looking for ways to appeal to the folks who'd be interested in
'the community' while deterring those who want to exploit it.
>It would be nice to have that clarified, especially since the
>discussion I'm butting in upon seems to try to walk both those lines,
>but it doesn't do it well. All it does is penalize those who happened
>to have the "bad" luck of C13 being their first Convergence, and who
>might not be particularly well-connected here.
Worst case scenario, you can choose to either build the connections or
postpone having a voice in deciding where it's going to be for a year.
And since we're talking about "seeing the community flourish and make
new friends," I think asking you to show some interest in being part
of the community isn't out of line.
>Now, I know there's
>nothing prohibiting anyone from attending another Convergence (at
>least not yet), but it seems that you're not only setting yourselves
>up for a logistical nightmare, but you're also sending off a rather
>unwelcoming message. If that's what you're after, fine. But is that
>really what you want?
If the choice is between being seen a s a bit standoffish, and
welcoming in folks who just want to drink my beer and eat my cake, I'm
willing to err on the side of standoffish.
Now, I'm not saying you're such a person. I'm saying that there are
such people out there, many of whom showed up beside you, and until
you stand up and show me you're not one of them I have no way to tell
you apart from them.
TheOneBob
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
>
It's our party. We get to decide who we trust with a vote.
I support this decision.
Bob
TheOne
Axel
<ildir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But can we be sure that they were waiting for Seattle to come up for
>bid the next year? I see potential jumping to conclusions, but I
>could be wrong.
I can't be.
The fact is tho' that if that volume forms a block, they control the
vote.
> My concern in delimiting is that you are
>going to cut some legitimate people out of the process.
Legitimate people can find us.
alt.gothic is accessible via Google.
altgothic.com is a pretty intuitive website.
We even e-mail everybody who gets added to the db to let them know
that they can register.
> While there
> are mechanisms to deal with that situation, it seems like to me that
> there are more and more layers being added to the process. In all
> good systems, the more layering that commences, the propensity for
> breakdown increases. So I'm worried that we may be entering a
> "slippery slope" in regard to the process.
We've eliminated some too - notably the mail in to join the voter db
component.
One benefit of making this change a one off exception item is that we
don't have to further complicate the process.
>1)you attend a Convergence once
>2)you get an opportunity to take part in the voting process, but not
>ratification. This allows the AG'ers to properly vet a bid to ensure
>it meets to snuff
>3)your second Convergence attendance allows you to ratify and vote
>that year.
That's complicated 'cos the Ratification is really open to anyone that
pipes up here.
I don't recognise your ID, I am willing to trust your credentials
(posting, sounding like you know what you're on about) and so your
opinion is counted.
Personally, I'd like to restrict new voters to people who've been to
at least 2.
Well, I'd really like to restrict it to people who've bought me a beer
for the privilege, but I can comprise...
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
Peter H. Coffin
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:22:27 +0100, "erith romycin"
>>
>> ONE Convergence Attendance
>>AND ONE OF Second Convergence Attendance
>> OR alt.gothic active
>> OR some other measure
>
> That actually makes sense to me.
>
> Throw it up to the newsgroup, see if people ratify it. :-)
Gap: We have no attendance figures for most Convergi. The closest we've
got in an incomplete list of who bought 1 or more laminates. The
possible patch is we have photo libraries for most Convergi since C4.
--
74. When I create a multimedia presentation of my plan designed so that my
five-year-old advisor can easily understand the details, I will not label
the disk "Project Overlord" and leave it lying on top of my desk.
Axel
I also want to point out that all the bids get ratified and the
discussions & decisions about how bids go from a mad gleam in a
Canadians eye to a Fiasc^h^h^h -esta in Omaha happen here.
ildirector
> (posting, sounding like you know what you're on about) and so your
> opinion is counted.
Let me intro myself for the board. My name is Dan, I've been going to
Convergence since C9, and I know a few people on the boards (Eilis,
CarrieMonster, spacekadt, etc.). This is the first year that I've
been posting on alt.gothic. More recently, I was the bartender at the
infamous room party with FLA, despite my best efforts :D
Oh yes, I usually room with the "Good Cliff" too.
erith romycin
>erith romycin
>>>>Why, and I ask this as much from historical interest as anything else,
>>>> >>>>do the criteria for eligibility for voting on Convergence -not-
>>>>include
>>>>posting to alt.gothic or parts of the USENET *.gothic.* hierarch
>>>>(y/ies)?
>>>There are people who go to Convergence year after year, volunteer,
>>>host room parties, organize day trips and otherwise make Convergence a
>>>successful event and do not post to a.g.
>>>There are people who post to a.g who have never been to a Convergence
>>>and who never intend to go.
>>>IMHO, I'd like to prioritise people who actually participate in the
>>>event when it comes to making decisions about that event.
>>Voter eligibility as:
>>
>> ONE Convergence Attendance
>>AND ONE OF Second Convergence Attendance
>> OR alt.gothic active
>> OR some other measure
>That actually makes sense to me.
I'm glad.
>Throw it up to the newsgroup, see if people ratify it. :-)
As-
Now, Peter's concern, proving Convergence attendance; I would have thought
that (as was stated) photographic evidence (or a scan of a photo of a
laminate on a table faxed) or similar would do, though verification/vouching
by those known by th C*B*L ought to do it, neh?
--
erith - .sig
CarrieMonster
> > I don't recognise your ID, I am willing to trust your credentials
> > (posting, sounding like you know what you're on about) and so your
> > opinion is counted.
>
> Let me intro myself for the board. My name is Dan, I've been going to
> Convergence since C9, and I know a few people on the boards (Eilis,
> CarrieMonster, spacekadt, etc.).
Name dropper! :p
Kidding ;)
Dan is a good guy, you know who he is I am sure.
He's been around since c9 I think?
xoxo
CM
kest
> The concern that I personally have with the Seattle bid is not about
> the committee / bid itself but on the consequences of putting it up
> for a vote this year.
>
I don't think this should be a concern in a well run system. However,
it came to my attention at convergence that in our discussions about new
voting, the C*b*l's measure of the newsgroup was that we should keep the
currently existing voter database intact, rather than dumping it and
starting fresh. This concerns me, because I'm not sure that question
was actually asked in that way. We talked about whether we should keep
the database *system* and how people should get in it, but not clearly
about how to deal with the one we've got.
(btw, I went to gooja this to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass,
and ran into yet another postc7 thread. Talk about deja vu...we really
*do* keep having the same discussions over and over again. Someone
should put this stuff in a FAQ or something.)
Anyway, I'd be for dumping it completely and starting fresh with
whatever method we decide(d) on for getting into it (for which I'm still
for the 'buy someone a drink' method, personally, although that c7
thread reminded me that once I said that the most important convergence
voting block are those who have *not* yet been to one - anyone who wants
to meet their net.goth friends and hasn't been able to yet). It may be
a little late at this stage of the game tho, unless the c*b*l have
really good memories while drunk and can put together a list of anyone
who plied them with alcohol at c14. (May still end up being a fairly
small list.)
If we decide not to do that, then, about in c13 in particular, don't
voters still have to jump through a hoop or two in order to actually be
able to vote? It seems like people who just came to go to a skinny
puppy show wouldn't be arsed to vote, and, in fact, we had the same
concern about the coil fans after c7 but I don't think we actually had
any problems. In general, though, I have no objections to disqualifying
attendance at c13 as a method of getting in the voter database, although
I do think that if we do that, the fact that we did that and what the
alternative methods are should be widely publicized before the vote (ie,
*not* just here.)
k
kambriel
Siobhan wrote:
> IMHO, I'd like to prioritise people who actually participate in the
> event when it comes to making decisions about that event.
>
> Siobhan
Makes sense. Is there anything prohibiting doing a vote based on
people having attended a minimum of two Convergences? That way a
person may have gotten their start because it was local, but they had
to actually like it enough and feel it was worth the effort/time/cost
to travel to another one further afield?
I just think if you make it a two C* minimum, it would automatically
weed out a lot of the one-timer/ballot stuffing/local contingent
that's got people concerned.
~ Kambriel
kambriel
Axel wrote:
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
I don't object to tossing it out. Personally, I'm thinking, coming to
one Convergence provides the ability to enjoy the party, coming to at
least two provides the ability to vote*.
~ Kambriel
*unless of course you end up tossing the whole thing and just letting
the c*b*l decide the darn thing in the future...
oldgoth
Me too, I've never been, I'd like to attend next year, but until I'd
been to at least two I see no reason why I should be allowed a say in
matters. It also solves a lot of what I see as peoples worries.
I'll go back to lurking in this thread now.
Axel
wrote:
>First, though, please let me introduce myself:
>
>I am an American goth who has been involved in the UK goth scene since
>1993, particularly through the telnet talkers. I'm now active in the
>San Francisco area.
Lovely to meet you.
Who do you know out that way?
> I recognize that there is a desire by many to keep
>the newbies out, to keep it a semi-private party by oldtimers, for
>oldtimers.
If that's your interpretation is then you're about as wrong as an
Inaccurate Machine from the land of Doesn't Have A Clue that was
recently serviced by Old Mr Fuckitup 'Couldn't Fix a Halfbrick with a
Sledgehammer' McBroken vonFail pants.
Which is to say very wrong indeed.
Everyone's invited onboard, we decide on the ports of call.
Axel
wrote:
>(btw, I went to gooja this to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass,
>and ran into yet another postc7 thread. Talk about deja vu...we really
>*do* keep having the same discussions over and over again. Someone
>should put this stuff in a FAQ or something.)
Yeah. I read a rumour that someone was doing something about that...
Name begins with a 'K', 4 letters, been posting here for many years...
KAOS. That's the girl.
kest
>
> Why, and I ask this as much from historical interest as anything else,
> do the criteria for eligibility for voting on Convergence -not-
> include posting to alt.gothic or parts of the USENET *.gothic.*
> hierarch(y/ies)?
The historical record shows that we don't want to get spammed with
people who are only interested in the vote or their sockpuppets, and no
one could come up with a satisfactory way of measuring net.dick (ie, not
either a pain in the ass or guaranteed to cause drama) that prevented
that. (There was also, ironically enough, a time when there were *so
many* people posting that figuring out who might be 'valid' was much
more difficult. Might be easier now.)
However, there used to be other avenues than convergence attendance for
interested people to get on the list (ie, mailin registration) which we
have just eliminated.
k
kest
> I am an American goth who has been involved in the UK goth scene since
> 1993, particularly through the telnet talkers. I'm now active in the
> San Francisco area. I'm fairly well-known around these parts, and I
> run the local message board.
Hey, a local. Hello, local! (I've never been on the message board. Is
it worth checking out?) (I don't think I know you, but LJ says you know
people I know.)
> I say this not only to state my credentials, but also to point out
> that... well... the discussions at hand are making me feel the need to
> state my credentials. This seems somewhat counter to my idea of what
> this beautiful community should be about,
Do you mean the goth community, or the net.goth one? They're not really
quite the same thing, which is where a lot of the discussion comes in.
Credentials are not necessary to post here, although introductions never
hurt. Credentials may be necessary to vote for Convergence, but they
will look somewhat different from the ones offered here.
and I cringe from not
> feeling at all welcome - even though I'm as goth as the rest of you,
> and would have known many of you throughout the years, had not my life
> prohibited me from being exceptionally active until now.
>
a.g. has traditionally had a high bar at entry ('we're not pretentious,
we really are better than you') but if you keep your asbestos undies at
hand, this can be the most upstanding group of people you've ever had
the fortune to know.
I recognize that there is a desire by many to keep
> the newbies out, to keep it a semi-private party by oldtimers, for
> oldtimers.
This is, unfortunately, a common misperception. What we want to do is
keep it a *party*, rather than a music festival. I have not talked to a
single person that wants to keep newbies out. What we want to do is
make sure the newbies are appropriately integrated into the community,
which is hard to do if hundreds of them show up just looking for a show.
IMO, it is also important to respect the 'net' part of net.goth -
convergence is about meeting and hanging out with some people who are
extremely good friends, they just happen to live very far away and one
may not have actually met them yet. Even in today's more heavily
internetted society, many people don't really 'get' that.
All that said, if you are interested in voting for c15, you've come to
the right place. All ya gotta do is say so, and I'm sure someone will
take care of you.
k
kest
> *unless of course you end up tossing the whole thing and just letting
> the c*b*l decide the darn thing in the future...
>
Ya know, people keep suggesting that, but what fun would that be?
k
kest
Seems like a headache waiting to happen to me. I mean, I like the
*idea* but... seems complicated.
You know, some will say it's elitist as hell, but I'd be for letting the
c*b*l decide who gets to vote, by whatever arbitrary measures they wish.
k, lining up bottles for bribing
`una
> kest wrote:
>
> >(...Someone
> >should put this stuff in a FAQ or something.)
>
> Yeah. I read a rumour that someone was doing something about that...
>
> Name begins with a 'K', 4 letters, been posting here for many years...
>
> KAOS. That's the girl.
See. This is what happens when you leave things up to KAOS!
`una - struck down by post-Convergence blues this afternoon.
Dag
> Forgive me for poking my nose in here, but I've been lurking for a few
> weeks, watching the discussions around the bids, and have, to put it
> mildly, some concerns.
Dealing with concerns is what this part of the process is for.
> This seems somewhat counter to my idea of what
> this beautiful community should be about, and I cringe from not
> feeling at all welcome - even though I'm as goth as the rest of you,
> and would have known many of you throughout the years, had not my life
> prohibited me from being exceptionally active until now.
I think this is where confusion starts to set in. Convergence isn't by
or for the goth community at large, it's for and by the net.goth
community and specifically our little corner of the net.goth community
and our friends.
While there is certainly overlap between the general goth community and
net.goths, they are still separate and seeing the net.goth community as
a sub-set of the general goth scene would be a mistake. Several people
here (myself included) have had nothing to do with the goth scene for
years and feel that the actual goth scene as it stands in their part of
the world doesn't have much to offer them. I do however consider myself
a net.goth and see Convergence (together with Whitby) as one of my two
regular 'club nights'.
> I recognize that there is a desire by many to keep
> the newbies out, to keep it a semi-private party by oldtimers, for
> oldtimers. Fair enough. But if this is indeed the desire, why allow
> new people to attend at all?
That's not our desire at all. We are quite happy having new people, in
fact we want new people. However we want new people to come to a party
we put on the way we want it, not a bunch of new people dictating how
our party should be done. Anybody who thinks our idea of good time
matches up with their idea of good time is more than welcome to show up.
All we want is that if your idea of a good time is completely different
from our idea of a good time then perhaps you should be considering
attending a different event, rather than trying to re-shape Convergence.
Basically we have started to see Convergence drift further and further
away from what we consider a good time and are simply trying to steer it
back. If you agree with us, welcome aboard. If you don't there are
plenty of other festivals out there that might be more to your taste.
> Why create an open event and then put so
> many barriers in place that it makes it offputting and/or insulting to
> both the babybats and new old(er)timers like myself?
What barriers are you talking about? Buy a ticket and show up. If you
mean barriers about getting to host the event and who gets to decide
where it will be held then yes history has taught us that some barriers
in those areas are necessary, but that shouldn't affect people who only
want to attend.
> The message from
> the community is unclear. Do you want your own private party or do you
> want to see the community flourish and make new friends?
Which community are you referring to? If you're referring to the
general North American (or even global) goth community then I'm
reasonably uninterested in whether it flourishes or not, and I certainly
don't think that Convergence should be about trying to grow the goth
community. Any event who's primary concern is to help the goth
community flourish will lose my vote.
If you're talking about our little net.goth community then I think the
best way to help it flourish is for us to put on the sort of kick ass
party we want to throw and hope that those who show up have such a good
time they want to find out more about the people behind the event.
As for making new friends, I find it easier to make new friends when the
people who are there are there for more or less the same reason I am.
If most people are there simply to see Skinny Puppy or Coil and don't
care about the rest of the event I fail to see how that helps in the
make new friends department.
Dag
Kaos
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:01:44 -0500, kest <ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org>
>wrote:
>
>>(btw, I went to gooja this to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass,
>>and ran into yet another postc7 thread. Talk about deja vu...we really
>>*do* keep having the same discussions over and over again. Someone
>>should put this stuff in a FAQ or something.)
>
>Yeah. I read a rumour that someone was doing something about that...
>
>Name begins with a 'K', 4 letters, been posting here for many years...
>
>KAOS. That's the girl.
Don't even joke.
If I had to write the FAQ, the first question would be "Is this bloody
thing ever going to get done?"
To which the answer would be "Maybe if someone else takes over..."
Lady Cat
> a) The C13 committee took Convergence and turned it into Gothapalooza
> with loads of bands.
> b) They advertised it WAY wider than it should have been (eg band
> mailing lists), combined with the above, got a lot of people
> interested who wanted to attend simply for the bands.
Though C14 was my first Convergence & thus my only frame of
reference.....
I LOVED the bands & was only sorry more of the locals weren't there.
Having that little auditorium filled for Voltaire would have been
nice. It needn't have been a Gothapalooza, but the Vendor's room could
certainly have used about 300 more visitors. Seeing sad faces behind
the tables didn't make me think THEY were having a good C14.
~Lady Cat
(back at the Library after a week off)
kest
> The people that we're attempting to weed out (I use the royal "we"
> here for lack of better wording) are the ones that just don't care
> about a.g and Convergence. They want Skinny Puppy-fest all over
> again. Education is well and nice, but it seems to me that the people
> we're worried about just plain don't give a shit about the origins of
> the event, they just want another C13... however it has to happen.
Do we have any actual evidence that such people exist?
k
kest
> Forgive me if this has already been covered but why not do away with
> the voting system and let everyone express opinons here and decide
> that way?
Look on google for the threads with the subject something like 'vote meta
post' for where we hashed all that out and ended up with this ratification
thing.
k
Eilis
> spacekadt <spacek...@gmail.com> scrawled:
Well, a guy I talked to at C13 had no clue what Convergence was or
even that he was at an event that included things beyond the music
nights. He'd heard about "the show" from a Skinny Puppy message board
and was happy that SP was playing a show local to him.
Eilis
`una
> Axel wrote:
>
> > kest wrote:
> >
> >>we really
> >>*do* keep having the same discussions over and over again. Someone
> >>should put this stuff in a FAQ or something.
> >
> >Yeah. I read a rumour that someone was doing something about that...
> >
> >Name begins with a 'K', 4 letters, been posting here for many years...
> >
> >KAOS. That's the girl.
>
> Don't even joke.
> If I had to write the FAQ, the first question would be "Is this bloody
> thing ever going to get done?"
How many years has kest been working on it now?
`una - still thinks that joke was hilarious!
CarrieMonster
> CarrieMonster <carriemons...@gmail.com> scrawled:
yeah I was trying to follow that thread for a while but I got lost.
Maybe I'll re-try!
xoox
CM
kest
> On Aug 20, 11:51 am, kest <k...@spamfree.nettrip.org> wrote:
>> spacekadt <spacek...@gmail.com> scrawled:
>> They want Skinny Puppy-fest all over
>> > again. Education is well and nice, but it seems to me that the
>> > people
>> > we're worried about just plain don't give a shit about the origins
>> > of the event, they just want another C13... however it has to
>> > happen.
>>
>> Do we have any actual evidence that such people exist?
>>
> Well, a guy I talked to at C13 had no clue what Convergence was or
> even that he was at an event that included things beyond the music
> nights. He'd heard about "the show" from a Skinny Puppy message board
> and was happy that SP was playing a show local to him.
>
>
Yes, but does he vote?
I think its all well and good to know that a lot of people at c13 were
not part of the convergence core, but by that very token, I think any
fears that they will take over the voting so they can have all skinny
puppy all the time are probably groundless.
k
Sheila Marie
>"Lady Cat" <cc...@lib.usf.edu> wrote in message
>news:66964ad9-f950-4248...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
The problem with this is that it would have meant that people would have to
go someplace OTHER than the Castle. They are like friggen lemmings out here
& everything revolves around the Castle. It's almost like the goth mob or
something. If some one tries to do something away from the Castle, & it
doesn't have the sanction of the Castle. it fails. Horribly.
Also, I think that Voltaire is too "silly" for the locals. See, being goth
is serious business in Tampa. Between that and certain creepy locals who act
like leeches and won't take small hints that you want them to GO AWAY, I
can't stand the place. I do occasionally take a non-goth there because they
want to find out what it's all about, but I hardly ever feel the teeniest
desire to set foot in the place on my own.
Guess the Castle is the ultimate goth club. Everyone stand around bitching
about various aspects of the place, but won't so much as look at any other
clubs or events. Well, unless Peter Murphy or some other such huge band is
playing, they'll do that and head over to the Castle for the after party.
Sheila Marie, didn't attend any of the festivities of C14, but did go check
out what the vendors had and made a few purchases. I brought a friend along
as well and she also made a few purchases.
TheOneBob
> Also, I think that Voltaire is too "silly" for the locals. See, being goth
> is serious business in Tampa. Between that and certain creepy locals who act
> like leeches and won't take small hints that you want them to GO AWAY, I
> can't stand the place. I do occasionally take a non-goth there because they
> want to find out what it's all about, but I hardly ever feel the teeniest
> desire to set foot in the place on my own.
The local Tampa scene doesn't know any better and it's the promoters'
and club owners' faults.
In Tampa, we never get to see any smaller acts because the promoters
won't bring anyone in who doesn't draw at least 500-1000 people or
more. I know because when I moved down here I tried to hook up some
bands I knew with promoters. They were basically snubbed. Tampa will
never see any lesser known independent goth/synth/industrial bands,
unless we bring them in ourselves, because none of the goth club
owners and promoters in Tampa wants to foster the scene, they just
want to leach off it.
Bob
TheOne
erith romycin
>erith romycin scrawled:
>>Why, and I ask this as much from historical interest as anything else,
>>do the criteria for eligibility for voting on Convergence -not-
>>include posting to alt.gothic or parts of the USENET *.gothic.*
>>hierarch(y/ies)?
>The historical record shows that we don't want to get spammed with
>people who are only interested in the vote or their sockpuppets, and no
>one could come up with a satisfactory way of measuring net.dick (ie, not
>either a pain in the ass or guaranteed to cause drama) that prevented
>that. (There was also, ironically enough, a time when there were *so
>many* people posting that figuring out who might be 'valid' was much
>more difficult. Might be easier now.)
Indeed. I thought that might well be the case, to be honest. I think it
could be made to work as a "second hurdle" if there were a ping or similar
that went through "net.goth channels". Response to that (in effect, the
voter roll thing) would be enough to get you on, and those that don't see it
could get hit up through the two convergences path.
>However, there used to be other avenues than convergence attendance for
>interested people to get on the list (ie, mailin registration) which we
>have just eliminated.
That's why I put back "other measures". I have a soft spot for mail-in
registration.
--
erith - it might be my fontanelle
erith romycin
>Siobhan wrote:
>>erithromycin
>>>Voter eligibility as:
>>> ONE Convergence Attendance
>>>AND ONE OF Second Convergence Attendance
>>> OR alt.gothic active
>>> OR some other measure
>>That actually makes sense to me.
>Me too, I've never been, I'd like to attend next year, but until I'd been
>to at least two I see no reason why I should be allowed a say in matters.
>It also solves a lot of what I see as peoples worries.
Well, I would say that you would qualify as "alt.gothic active" for a value
of "alt.gothic active" that includes upg, so that might ought to be
"recognised net.goth", but as before just because you have had franchise
extended doesn't mean you have to use it, just that you ought.
--
erith - .sig
erith romycin
>Siobhan scrawled:
>>erith romycin
>>>Voter eligibility as:
>>>
>>> ONE Convergence Attendance
>>>AND ONE OF Second Convergence Attendance
>>> OR alt.gothic active
>>> OR some other measure
>>That actually makes sense to me.
>>Throw it up to the newsgroup, see if people ratify it. :-)
>Seems like a headache waiting to happen to me. I mean, I like the
>*idea* but... seems complicated.
One of the * in c*b*l is for 'headache'*
>You know, some will say it's elitist as hell, but I'd be for letting the
>c*b*l decide who gets to vote, by whatever arbitrary measures they wish.
Well, this is somewhat less arbitrary, but includes the "or some other
measure" which puts yours back in.
>k, lining up bottles for bribing
Two fingers of rye is some other measure, eh?
--
erith - * the other * is for 'quality'
oldgoth
>
> Well, I would say that you would qualify as "alt.gothic active" for a value
> of "alt.gothic active" that includes upg, so that might ought to be
> "recognised net.goth", but as before just because you have had franchise
> extended doesn't mean you have to use it, just that you ought.
In that case look out world, If/after I attend next year I'm voting from
then on in...
Cheers!
martin oldgoth
Axel
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>kest:
>>erith romycin scrawled:
>>The historical record shows that we don't want to get spammed with
>>people who are only interested in the vote or their sockpuppets, and no
>>one could come up with a satisfactory way of measuring net.dick (ie, not
>>either a pain in the ass or guaranteed to cause drama) that prevented
>>that. (There was also, ironically enough, a time when there were *so
>>many* people posting that figuring out who might be 'valid' was much
>>more difficult.
Exactly.
Funny how things change.
>> Might be easier now.)
Now it's totally manageable.
Back then people were almost entirely screennames and posts..
Now it's much easier to see the person at the keyboard.
>>However, there used to be other avenues than convergence attendance for
>>interested people to get on the list (ie, mailin registration) which we
>>have just eliminated.
>
>That's why I put back "other measures". I have a soft spot for mail-in
>registration...
...In your head.
Mail in registration is the opposite of the right way to go because it
is anonymous, and the point of the party is to break down that
anonymity.
Buying me beer, OTOH, is a great way to get added.
erith romycin
>erith romycin
>>kest:
>>>erith romycin scrawled:
>>>The historical record shows that we don't want to get spammed with
>>>people who are only interested in the vote or their sockpuppets, and no
>>>one could come up with a satisfactory way of measuring net.dick (ie, not
>>>either a pain in the ass or guaranteed to cause drama) that prevented
>>>that. (There was also, ironically enough, a time when there were *so
>>>many* people posting that figuring out who might be 'valid' was much
>>>more difficult.
>Exactly.
>Funny how things change.
There ought to be a saying.
>>>Might be easier now.)
>Now it's totally manageable.
>Back then people were almost entirely screennames and posts..
>Now it's much easier to see the person at the keyboard.
Well, lower bandwidth costs and the spread of digital cameras have done a
lot to make that a bit easier. I do think your 'x' is a bit bigger in real
life though.
>>>However, there used to be other avenues than convergence attendance for
>>>interested people to get on the list (ie, mailin registration) which we
>>>have just eliminated.
>>That's why I put back "other measures". I have a soft spot for mail-in
>>registration...
>...In your head.
Yes, in my head.
>Mail in registration is the opposite of the right way to go because it
>is anonymous, and the point of the party is to break down that
>anonymity.
Well, is it? You could change what it is to register. Require different
proofs, make it less anonymous. Part of me was amused by the samizdat
overtone, but I suppose that has been lost.
>Buying me beer, OTOH, is a great way to get added.
Other means, man, other means. "Recognised by the c*b*l" might count.
--
erith - .sig
kest
> Now it's totally manageable.
> Back then people were almost entirely screennames and posts..
> Now it's much easier to see the person at the keyboard.
>
Thanks in no small part to this little thing called 'convergence'...
k
DJVo...@gmail.com
>
> Vomvamuse begged the question on LJ a few days ago as to why we were
> including them in the vote, given all the kerfuffle surrounding C13,
> and after discussion with the restof the C*B*L we feel that due to the
> nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
> electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
> (option 2 under Who Is Eligible To Vote? in the Wiki).
>
> http://www.altgothic.com/wiki/index.php/Voting
>
> We figure those that matter can do that.
> Those that can't don't matter.
>
> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
> 20th.
Would we be considering this if Seattle did not have a bid this year?
Are we punishing all new C13 attendees for things they are not
responsible for - they were not responsible for C13 and they are not
responsible for Seattle submitting a bid. (and as has been pointed out
we don't know that they would all vote for Seattle). I think an
outright ban is not justified
That said I can see some merit to setting a reasonable hoop for them
to jump through - maybe send an email requiring them to confirm their
intent to vote this year (I bet we would lose a substantial number
from this)
Axel
> Are we punishing all new C13 attendees
The right to vote for where C* is going to be is such a great thing
that not being able to do so is a punishment?
If that's the case then why aren't people offering Peter, Siobhan and
me booze, drugs and sexual favours to get into the database?
Unless Sio & Peter are holding out on me...
You wouldn't do that, whould you guys?
--
Axel
Kaos
>On Aug 16, 1:33 pm, Axel <a...@eol.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Vomvamuse begged the question on LJ a few days ago as to why we were
>> including them in the vote, given all the kerfuffle surrounding C13,
>> and after discussion with the restof the C*B*L we feel that due to the
>> nature of C13 it would be acceptable not to include them in the
>> electorate unless they approach us and someone can vouch for them
>> (option 2 under Who Is Eligible To Vote? in the Wiki).
>>
>> http://www.altgothic.com/wiki/index.php/Voting
>>
>> We figure those that matter can do that.
>> Those that can't don't matter.
>>
>> If anybody objects, please do so now, and we'll discuss.
>> The decision will be made when I get home from work on Wednesday, the
>> 20th.
>
>
>Would we be considering this if Seattle did not have a bid this year?
>
>Are we punishing all new C13 attendees for things they are not
>responsible for - they were not responsible for C13 and they are not
>responsible for Seattle submitting a bid. (and as has been pointed out
>we don't know that they would all vote for Seattle). I think an
>outright ban is not justified
On top of what Axel said, I don't see anyone talking about an outright
ban (other than the folks objecting to one at this point.)
vomv...@hotmail.com
> Would we be considering this if Seattle did not have a bid this year?
Maybe it is just me, but for some reason I don't think so.
-Erica
arch...@gmail.com
> a) The C13 committee took Convergence and turned it into Gothapalooza
> with loads of bands.
I will admit, more bands than usual, but EVERY Convergence that came
before it had at least 8 bands in the lineup. Isn't that
Gothapalooza?
> b) They advertised it WAY wider than it should have been (eg band
> mailing lists), combined with the above, got a lot of people
> interested who wanted to attend simply for the bands.
Getting Skinny Puppy was a bad idea, I would agree. However, every
Convergence that came before it was allowed to advertise to their
local community as they saw fit. At the first Convergence I went to,
C2 in Boston, the whole point of it was to show to the rest of North
America that Boston has a thriving Goth scene. And they did,
spectacularly. They also had at least 50% local bands!
> c) As a result, the voter database from C13 is tainted with a lot of
> people who want a Gothapalooza, and not a Convergence such as we've
> done the other dozen or so times. (This is obvious from the sheer
> volume of people who were registered as new before).
It sounds like you're trying to punish them for doing something right.
> d) This "festival contingent" could have an enormous sway over our
> event, so it is important to minimise that. We think we should remove
> these from the vote by default. If you want to blame someone, blame
> the C13 committee.
So, because many people want Convergence to become something that a
few people don't want, those few are going to rig the election
(again!)?
> e) If someone has never been to Convergence before 13, and didn't come
> to 14 afterwards (as stated, we don't know of a single person on a.g
> who this applies to), they are vulnerable to this.
I went to C2, C9, and C11. Which of those makes me vulnerable to the
notion that Convergence doesn't have to suck? I'll give you a clue: it
wasn't C11. My reasons for not going to C14 had nothing to do with
Kegger vs. Festival drama. It was because I didn't want to spend
hundreds of dollars to go to Florida in August for such a lackluster
bid. That's why I voted for Boo's Pants, and why they almost won.
> If anything, I would see it as dangerous to a
> Seattle bid, having pressure put on it if they won, to make another
> event similar to C13. And that is what we are against happening,
> wherever it would be.
Why would Seattle NOT want to emulate an event that was successful?
I'm not sure, but maybe the few people who want Convergence to die
will get their way. I see Seattle as the only hope for Convergence at
this point, assuming the election process isn't W'd once again. People
don't seem to remember that many of the policies that some people want
to change were always allowed in years past, and are now apparently
being rallied against only because they have become TOO successful.
Cost alone will keep those who don't contribute in some meaningful way
to the online goth community from being too involved, and they will
fall by the wayside. Very few people want to spend a thousand dollars
to fly across the country just to say HI to people. There has to be
something greater to motivate them, no matter how entrenched they are
in the scene.
But do what you want. If it looks like fun, and I can afford it, I'll
go.
I came on here to help out a friend, and I might come back at some
point to see if anyone replied to this, but I wouldn't count on it. I
mean, c'mon. Usenet is sofa king 20th Century! I last used it in 1994.
And yet, I still found out about every Convergence from C2 on.
Fross
> On Aug 17, 3:16 pm, frossn...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > a) The C13 committee took Convergence and turned it into Gothapalooza
> > with loads of bands.
>
> I will admit, more bands than usual, but EVERY Convergence that came
> before it had at least 8 bands in the lineup. Isn't that
> Gothapalooza?
This is about emphasis. A Gothapalooza as I called it, is a band-
centric event. Convergence, historically, is not a band-centric
event. It's a net.goth-centric event, that also has some bands. This
distinction is very important.
> > b) They advertised it WAY wider than it should have been (eg band
> > mailing lists), combined with the above, got a lot of people
> > interested who wanted to attend simply for the bands.
>
> Getting Skinny Puppy was a bad idea, I would agree. However, every
> Convergence that came before it was allowed to advertise to their
> local community as they saw fit.
Band mailing lists != "local community". I'm guessing you are
unfamiliar with some advertising-related issues from recent
Convergences, eg C12 advertising at venues in Los Angeles, for
instance.
> At the first Convergence I went to,
> C2 in Boston, the whole point of it was to show to the rest of North
> America that Boston has a thriving Goth scene. And they did,
> spectacularly. They also had at least 50% local bands!
Well, no, that's not the whole point of it.
> > c) As a result, the voter database from C13 is tainted with a lot of
> > people who want a Gothapalooza, and not a Convergence such as we've
> > done the other dozen or so times. (This is obvious from the sheer
> > volume of people who were registered as new before).
>
> It sounds like you're trying to punish them for doing something right.
Bringing in 1000 extra people to *our* party via hiring big bands is
NOT something right. Until you understand this fundamental point,
you're not going to get why the C13 voter pool is an issue at all.
Had they booked Billy Ray Cyrus and got 10,000 country fans to attend,
who had no link or interest to the net.goth scene and were then able
to vote on the future direction of the event, would you consider that
appropriate?
Some of the previous organisers were trying to piggy-back the
Convergence name/audience to launch a large north american goth music
event, like a Leipzig Treffen, Whitby, etc. What has happened is a
significant number of Convergence regulars have stood up and said they
don't want their own event hijacked. Personally, I hope North America
gets a large goth music festival of its own, I'd probably go. But not
at the expense of Convergence, which doesn't work well in a festival
setting.
> > d) This "festival contingent" could have an enormous sway over our
> > event, so it is important to minimise that. We think we should remove
> > these from the vote by default. If you want to blame someone, blame
> > the C13 committee.
>
> So, because many people want Convergence to become something that a
> few people don't want, those few are going to rig the election
> (again!)?
I point you to what I wrote just above, and to the Billy Ray Cyrus
comment above it.
> > e) If someone has never been to Convergence before 13, and didn't come
> > to 14 afterwards (as stated, we don't know of a single person on a.g
> > who this applies to), they are vulnerable to this.
>
> I went to C2, C9, and C11. Which of those makes me vulnerable to the
> notion that Convergence doesn't have to suck? I'll give you a clue: it
> wasn't C11. My reasons for not going to C14 had nothing to do with
> Kegger vs. Festival drama. It was because I didn't want to spend
> hundreds of dollars to go to Florida in August for such a lackluster
> bid. That's why I voted for Boo's Pants, and why they almost won.
You may have considered it lacklustre, because it wasn't a big band
fest. I propose that you Just Don't Get It. The unanimous praise on
here for the atmosphere of C14 should tell you it captured what made
Convergence special in the first place.
Save your pennies and go to the Treffen instead, I guarantee you'll
have an amazing time.
> > If anything, I would see it as dangerous to a
> > Seattle bid, having pressure put on it if they won, to make another
> > event similar to C13. And that is what we are against happening,
> > wherever it would be.
>
> Why would Seattle NOT want to emulate an event that was successful?
Success, for a Convergence, does not equal ticket sales.
> I'm not sure, but maybe the few people who want Convergence to die
> will get their way. I see Seattle as the only hope for Convergence at
> this point, assuming the election process isn't W'd once again. People
> don't seem to remember that many of the policies that some people want
> to change were always allowed in years past, and are now apparently
> being rallied against only because they have become TOO successful.
> Cost alone will keep those who don't contribute in some meaningful way
> to the online goth community from being too involved, and they will
> fall by the wayside. Very few people want to spend a thousand dollars
> to fly across the country just to say HI to people. There has to be
> something greater to motivate them, no matter how entrenched they are
> in the scene.
> But do what you want. If it looks like fun, and I can afford it, I'll
> go.
We will do exactly what we want. And I suggest all of those who want
a gothapalooza, do what they want and create their own festival.
Hell, if they went to darksun that would help, I hear their numbers
are quite disapponting
> I came on here to help out a friend, and I might come back at some
> point to see if anyone replied to this, but I wouldn't count on it. I
> mean, c'mon. Usenet is sofa king 20th Century! I last used it in 1994.
> And yet, I still found out about every Convergence from C2 on.
Next time you turn up, chat to the people rather than watch the bands,
and you may discover something so good that it makes people spend vast
amounts of money every year just to say hi to people, as you put it.
We're not stupid, there is a reason for it.
/Fross
Edward Scissorhands
<snip>
> Some of the previous organisers were trying to piggy-back the
> Convergence name/audience to launch a large north american goth music
> event, like a Leipzig Treffen, Whitby
^^^^^^
<snip>
And this is where the problem lies. Whitby was not a large goth music
event[1]. It was a bunch of netgoths (from mailing lists primarily,
IIRC) getting together, with the music being really just a side effect
of 'goth' being largely defined BY the music as the only really tangible
bit of it.
It has gone drastically downhill IMO because of the promotion as a "goth
music event"; the new people attending rarely seem to mingle with the
parties of old netgoths, or become part of the wider netgoth community,
but instead seem to remain separate.
I can certainly see room for a North American Gothapalooza type of
event, but Convergence is not it.
Having said that, I'm envious that I didn't have the balls, sense or
cash to go to past Convergences where I have previously missed some
really rather decent big-name acts, but much as getting a big name act
at Whitby, it should be like a treat for the netgoths, not the reason
for the event existing or justification for attendance.
EdwardS, misses Whitby-as-was, but goes because his friends are there.
Even small things like not being able to stand and drink outside the
Elsi have spoiled it.
[1] Note the past tense there; I am not disagreeing that it is now.
--
Edward Scissorhands |\ _,,,---,,_
Eclectic Geek, Goth, Citroenist - EdwardS /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
E-Mail: EdwardS<at>dmc12.demon.co.uk |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Homepage: http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ '----''(_/--' `-'\_) Morticia
Peter H. Coffin
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:24:52 +0100, Edward Scissorhands wrote:
> Fross wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Some of the previous organisers were trying to piggy-back the
>> Convergence name/audience to launch a large north american goth music
>> event, like a Leipzig Treffen, Whitby
> ^^^^^^
>
><snip>
>
> And this is where the problem lies. Whitby was not a large goth music
> event[1]. It was a bunch of netgoths (from mailing lists primarily,
> IIRC) getting together, with the music being really just a side effect
> of 'goth' being largely defined BY the music as the only really tangible
> bit of it.
>
> It has gone drastically downhill IMO because of the promotion as a "goth
> music event"; the new people attending rarely seem to mingle with the
> parties of old netgoths, or become part of the wider netgoth community,
> but instead seem to remain separate.
>
> I can certainly see room for a North American Gothapalooza type of
> event, but Convergence is not it.
Is one. Blacksun. 17 bands last year, including a lot of the sort that
have played Convergence. Those that have gone seem to have really
enjoyed it.
("But it's so FAR from the Pacific Northwest!" Poor kids, having to
travel like that. Must be horrible to leave home.)
> Having said that, I'm envious that I didn't have the balls, sense or
> cash to go to past Convergences where I have previously missed some
> really rather decent big-name acts, but much as getting a big name act
> at Whitby, it should be like a treat for the netgoths, not the reason
> for the event existing or justification for attendance.
You know, I don't think I've actually SEEN more than three or four bands
at Convergence since C10.
> EdwardS, misses Whitby-as-was, but goes because his friends are there.
> Even small things like not being able to stand and drink outside the
> Elsi have spoiled it.
"We make our own fun."
--
Graham's First Rule of Internet Retailing:
If your 'shopping cart' site requires anything more complex than
HTML, SSL and a session cookie, at least one of your competitors
will run a site which does not. Your competitor will get the sale.
oldgoth
>
> It has gone drastically downhill IMO because of the promotion as a "goth
> music event"; the new people attending rarely seem to mingle with the
> parties of old netgoths, or become part of the wider netgoth community,
> but instead seem to remain separate.
I think that is partly to do with the fact that it now HAS to provide
big names to sell out the venue, or lose money, 'newcomers' demanded
bands they'd heard of rather than just be happy to turn up, get drunk
and party. I think a lot of the old crowd stopped going when the bands
were experimented with. Sadly I believe it's now reached the point where
there's no chance of it ever truly being like it was, which is a shame.
Personally I'm gutted that working there now prevents me drinking all day!
I think they may be applying for road closures though so hopefully there
will be outside drinking!
martin oldgoth
thirteen13
Dag
> I think they may be applying for road closures though so hopefully there
> will be outside drinking!
I would happily give up all the bands that will ever play for road
closure. In fact I would probably buy a wristband for Flowergate in
exchange for road closure.
Dag
Edward Scissorhands
Me too.
EdwardS
~Fianna
<vomv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c616441e-850e-4702...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> DJVoodoo posted:
>> Would we be considering this if Seattle did not have a bid this year?
>
> Maybe it is just me, but for some reason I don't think so.
Me neither, and I find that disturbing.
Kaos
I think it's been admitted as much in Message-ID:
<ribhb413uaa67561a...@4ax.com> and Message-ID:
<e0b6a2ac-0345-438b...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
(Axel and Fross, respectively.)
Fross
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:32:58 -0700 (PDT), vomvam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >DJVoodoo posted:
> >> Would we be considering this if Seattle did not have a bid this year?
> >Maybe it is just me, but for some reason I don't think so.
>
> <e0b6a2ac-0345-438b-a813-d31fdc2b2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
>
> (Axel and Fross, respectively.)
Please don't take my post out of context, while I pointed out it was
one factor out of many, both Axel and I stated concisely that yes, it
would still have been an issue had Seattle not had a bid this year (or
as was asked elsewhere, had their bid committee been a.g regulars)
The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar
> <vomv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c616441e-850e-4702-
b2ff-8d6...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> DJVoodoo posted:
>>> Would we be considering this if Seattle did not have a bid this year?
>>
>> Maybe it is just me, but for some reason I don't think so.
>
> Me neither, and I find that disturbing.
I'd personally hope that it would be discussed one way or another.
However, it really does look like most of the non-Convergence C13 crowd
are busily disenfranchising themselves on their own through apathy.
I actually quite like the "if you're not interested enough to validate,
don't jump on during the vote unless you're prepared to talk to us about
it" solution that's happening now, even if it was arrived at in a bit of
a rush. It gets in the way of some of the tactics that I've found a
little distasteful in the past, and also in hopefully preventing some of
the old-style ward heeler tactics that have been big in online voting in
general, and C* voting in particular. I don't know if it's an effective
counter, but it doesn't feel horribly wrong. It's a compromise, and
certainly worth talking about.
It's still possible to get out the vote, but it requires a higher
investment and sets a higher bar for (metaphorically) registering voters
on election day.
--
Michael
Siobhan
<carrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Forgive me if this has already been covered but why not do away with
>the voting system and let everyone express opinons here and decide
>that way?
>That way the people of a.g have control, which is what we want right?
We still have to tally those opinons. We'd just being doing it here
rather than via the database.
Which is actually what Axel proposed, but he got voted down.
Siobhan
ags...@yahoo.com
> On Aug 17, 3:16 pm, frossn...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > c) As a result, the voter database from C13 is tainted with a lot of
> > people who want a Gothapalooza, and not a Convergence such as we've
> > done the other dozen or so times. (This is obvious from the sheer
> > volume of people who were registered as new before).
>
> It sounds like you're trying to punish them for doing something right.
>
It seems like this event caters to two types of people:
1. A bunch of social losers who would like to keep it as a simple get
together.
2. A bunch of social losers who would like to get together and at the
same time, make it worth their time to throw a big bash (which in
turn, attracts the locals and other goths outside of their stagnant
social net circle). If you purposely do this, then you're not as
socially challenged as previously thought.
The real solution is to find out what direction you want to head and
make it so.
> > d) This "festival contingent" could have an enormous sway over our
> > event, so it is important to minimise that. We think we should remove
> > these from the vote by default. If you want to blame someone, blame
> > the C13 committee.
>
> So, because many people want Convergence to become something that a
> few people don't want, those few are going to rig the election
> (again!)?
Yep
>
> > e) If someone has never been to Convergence before 13, and didn't come
> > to 14 afterwards (as stated, we don't know of a single person on a.g
> > who this applies to), they are vulnerable to this.
>
> I went to C2, C9, and C11. Which of those makes me vulnerable to the
> notion that Convergence doesn't have to suck? I'll give you a clue: it
> wasn't C11. My reasons for not going to C14 had nothing to do with
> Kegger vs. Festival drama. It was because I didn't want to spend
> hundreds of dollars to go to Florida in August for such a lackluster
> bid. That's why I voted for Boo's Pants, and why they almost won.
You also have to consider that you're at a different level than these
losers. You have a social circle outside of the net scene and
therefore do not find the need to travel to BFE to meet these losers.
> > If anything, I would see it as dangerous to a
> > Seattle bid, having pressure put on it if they won, to make another
> > event similar to C13. And that is what we are against happening,
> > wherever it would be.
>
> Why would Seattle NOT want to emulate an event that was successful?
>
> I'm not sure, but maybe the few people who want Convergence to die
> will get their way. I see Seattle as the only hope for Convergence at
> this point, assuming the election process isn't W'd once again. People
> don't seem to remember that many of the policies that some people want
> to change were always allowed in years past, and are now apparently
> being rallied against only because they have become TOO successful.
> Cost alone will keep those who don't contribute in some meaningful way
> to the online goth community from being too involved, and they will
> fall by the wayside. Very few people want to spend a thousand dollars
> to fly across the country just to say HI to people.
The smart ones anyway.
> There has to be
> something greater to motivate them, no matter how entrenched they are
> in the scene.
To the select few social losers, the fact that they will meet other
social losers who will accept them as friends because of the time
spent typing "lol" to one another, that is all that matters. Hey if
there are bands involved, then that is a plus.
> But do what you want. If it looks like fun, and I can afford it, I'll
> go.
>
> I came on here to help out a friend, and I might come back at some
> point to see if anyone replied to this, but I wouldn't count on it. I
> mean, c'mon. Usenet is sofa king 20th Century! I last used it in 1994.
> And yet, I still found out about every Convergence from C2 on.
You are geekier than thou!
Regards...
Kaos
wrote:
>On Aug 30, 3:28 pm, Kaos <k...@xplornet.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:32:58 -0700 (PDT), vomvam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >DJVoodoo posted:
>> >> Would we be considering this if Seattle did not have a bid this year?
>> >Maybe it is just me, but for some reason I don't think so.
>>
>> I think it's been admitted as much in Message-ID:
>> <ribhb413uaa67561a43251aerijf0qi...@4ax.com> and Message-ID:
>> <e0b6a2ac-0345-438b-a813-d31fdc2b2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> (Axel and Fross, respectively.)
>
>Please don't take my post out of context,
If I'd intended to do so, I wouldn't have provided message IDs :P
>while I pointed out it was
>one factor out of many, both Axel and I stated concisely that yes, it
>would still have been an issue had Seattle not had a bid this year (or
>as was asked elsewhere, had their bid committee been a.g regulars)
I can see that you and Axel both confirmed that it would have happened
under a different committee just as readily, and Axel confirming that
a Portland bid would have resulted in the same... but the impression I
got from both was that if all the bids had been well away from the
area where the 'possible taint' arose from, the possibility of a skew
would have been ignored as irrelevant.
But again, I posted the id's so that people could check it out
themselves rather than rely on just my interpretation.
Edward Scissorhands
I'll go a step further; if I had to buy a Spa/event ticket to obtain the
wristband to allow access to Flowergate, I would do so.
How they'd enforce such a rule is beyond me and part of the pleasure of
the Flowergate/drinking outside the Elsi is "talking to passers by", but
I think more of my friends would be there and it would be worth it.
EdwardS
oldgoth
>
> How they'd enforce such a rule is beyond me
How about we stage a goth stylee sit in in Flowergate and refuse to
leave, and only people past the barricades if they answer a series of
questions that we set?
martin oldgoth
erith romycin
>Fross wrote:
><snip>
>>Some of the previous organisers were trying to piggy-back the
>>Convergence name/audience to launch a large north american goth music
>>event, like a Leipzig Treffen, Whitby
^^^^^^
><snip>
>And this is where the problem lies. Whitby was not a large goth music
>event[1]. It was a bunch of netgoths (from mailing lists primarily, IIRC)
>getting together, with the music being really just a side effect of 'goth'
>being largely defined BY the music as the only really tangible bit of it.
It was also something to make getting together a little special. Like
sausage rolls at wakes and weddings, the kind of thing one expects to have
at that sort of event. Not the defining aspect by any stretch, but still
usually there.
I can't remember who found/posted them, but there's a flickr set of photos
of the first Whitby, all of fourteen years ago now. In fact, yesterday!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14329306@N00/sets/72157594373605913/
I also quote an old uk.people.gothic FAQ
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.people.gothic/msg/7ee890276b3e785e
"Whitby Gothic Weekend (WGW) started almost by accident in 1994 when a
goth lady called Jo Hampshire decided to go on holiday to Whitby. The
fact that it is legendary for being the landing place of Dracula didn't
come into it - Jo just fancied a seaside holiday. Several friends
decided to come along with her and in the end she invited some more and
told them to 'bring a crowd'. When 200 goths tried to all get into the
pub simultaneously on the first evening, it was clear that there was
something of an enthusiasm for an event where goths effectively went on
holiday. "
As posted by CountB. Oh well.
>It has gone drastically downhill IMO because of the promotion as a "goth
>music event"; the new people attending rarely seem to mingle with the
>parties of old netgoths, or become part of the wider netgoth community, but
>instead seem to remain separate.
Or have parties that AWESOME people like me and siani get thrown out of.
Which was one of the reasons behind the net.goth inquisition. There were
tags form quite early on in Whitby, but by the time Gothpat stopped I think
she was bringing 600+.
>I can certainly see room for a North American Gothapalooza type of event,
>but Convergence is not it.
No.
>Having said that, I'm envious that I didn't have the balls, sense or cash
>to go to past Convergences where I have previously missed some really
>rather decent big-name acts, but much as getting a big name act at Whitby,
>it should be like a treat for the netgoths, not the reason for the event
>existing or justification for attendance.
Quite. Though to be honest when I was buying spa tickets I wasn't going to
see the bands, but to see my friends (and people I knew off the internet).
>EdwardS, misses Whitby-as-was, but goes because his friends are there. Even
>small things like not being able to stand and drink outside the Elsi have
>spoiled it.
Cursed Scarborough Council!
>[1] Note the past tense there; I am not disagreeing that it is now.
Well, there's "Whitby" as organised by Top Mum, and there's the parallel
net.goth stuff that happens at the same time in the same place. Which you
well know, with your flash cars and all.
--
erith - .sig
Edward Scissorhands
>> Having said that, I'm envious that I didn't have the balls, sense or cash
>> to go to past Convergences where I have previously missed some really
>> rather decent big-name acts, but much as getting a big name act at Whitby,
>> it should be like a treat for the netgoths, not the reason for the event
>> existing or justification for attendance.
>
> Quite. Though to be honest when I was buying spa tickets I wasn't going to
> see the bands, but to see my friends (and people I knew off the internet).
But that's the same reason I bought them. I didn't buy them to see the
bands (though I did go and see a couple), I bought them because "MY
FRIENDS ARE IN THERE!". We all know what happened to that aspect of the
Spa, though, so now I don't care - if my friends want to see the bands,
I can hang out with them later.
I did like sitting in the Spa with such a large group of people around.
The limits mean that the large group of people is now missing, scary as
it first was.
> Well, there's "Whitby" as organised by Top Mum, and there's the parallel
> net.goth stuff that happens at the same time in the same place. Which you
> well know, with your flash cars and all.
It's why I still go, will visit for a day if I'm not actually
"attending", and am planning ahead for April and October/November '09.
EdwardS