C16 - Seattle Ratification
Axel
not.
Explain why.
Lin
C16? Have a slept a year and missed one?
Also, what has been resolved with the voting process ... I have questions.
--Lin
(Apologies if you have seen this twice -- I appear to be having issues
with either the news server, or thunderbird).
CarrieMonster
I do not want this bid ratified.
I feel that they are not even close to being ready to host a party.
This is nothing personal against the chair people or the committee.
I just don't feel like they are going to be able to give us a party
that
lives up to our expectations.
My suggestion is to wait a couple of years, get some more experience
under your collective belts and then throw us the best damn party you
can!
xoxo
CM
~Fianna
Carrie said exactly what I was going to say.
I don't want this bid ratefied because I don't get the sense that there's
enough understanding of what Convergence ought to be. The huge misstep with
the Corpgoth dinner and the extra charges for everything seem to be way off
the mark for how Convergence should be run.
~Fi
Axel
> Axel wrote:
> > Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
> > not.
>
> > Explain why.
>
> C16? Have a slept a year and missed one?
Nope. I just screwed up on the numbering.
I blame Bob and Rafe.
Sorry about that.
> Also, what has been resolved with the voting process ... I have questions.
The current process is documented on the a.g. wiki.
If you have any specific questions please ask them, preferably in
another thread.
Tylorael
Ditto.
> I don't want this bid ratefied because I don't get the sense that there's
> enough understanding of what Convergence ought to be. The huge misstep with
> the Corpgoth dinner and the extra charges for everything seem to be way off
> the mark for how Convergence should be run.
>
> ~Fi
And again with the "Ditto".
- Pixi/Tess
Scar
Carrie's statement sums it up perfectly. It's not a bad bid.. but it's
not a mature bid.
I'd like to see this bid after a couple years of planning, rather than
a couple of weeks.
Scar.
Macross Actual
What Scar wrote X2.
-///
madelynb...@gmail.com
> Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while this bid is not going
to get my vote and isn't as good as the Long Beach bid, I'm sure they
could pull it off if they were to win. So, I vote Yes.
- Madelyn (marchenland / Lulu Garou)
Dr. Frank N. Furter
any of the successful bids through C9 (except for Cliff's. Let's just
put that behind us). The group may have changing expectations, but I
don't think replicating C14 (or all of its philosophy) is the only way
to go. Furthermore, those of you who were at C5 know that Robert's
more than ready to help host a Convergence.
Furthermore, Robert being a basically shy person with "Arbeit"
tattooed on one arm isn't necessarily interested in being surrounded
by hundreds of strangers, and will work very hard to see to the
success of the event. I don't know the remaining organizers on a
personal level, but it's fair to say that their attitude as
demonstrated here has been very good.
I say this without having spoken to Bert or the others associated with
the bid. I'd just like to see them given a fair shake and not blamed
for last year's drama.
- Dr. Frank N. Furter
- A Scientist
Karolina
> enough understanding of what Convergence ought to be. The huge misstep with
> the Corpgoth dinner and the extra charges for everything seem to be way off
> the mark for how Convergence should be run.
How is this that different from Convergence 13 in Portland (which I
really enjoyed)? There were plenty of events that cost extra which
one could choose to go to or not...
-Tammy
~Fianna
That's my point, exactly.
~Fi
CarrieMonster
who were at C5 know that Robert's
> more than ready to help host a Convergence.
I do not doubt Robert's ability. What I doubt is the co-chairs.
They seem to be missing what is really going on here.
During the Meet The Bids the one chair couldn't even answer a question
properly and the other chair person couldn't be bothered to go.
My consern is based on what I have witnessed.
But you know, you can have your opion as well.
CM
CarrieMonster
oh.my.god.
have you even bothered to read anything going on here for the past
year or so?
CM
TheOneBob
I think they need more time to make this work. They're nice people,
just not ready. I say not this year.
Bob
TheOne...
The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar
>
> How is this that different from Convergence 13 in Portland (which I
> really enjoyed)? There were plenty of events that cost extra which one
> could choose to go to or not...
>
>
> -Tammy
Well, if I remember correctly, C13 was your first Convergence, so you may
not have a lot to compare it to. I'm not sure whether you got to C6 or
not, but seriously - C13 succeeded in *spite* of the screwed-up bid and
what the committee was doing, rather than *because* of it. The community
feel there was primarily due to the actions of the actual core ag(and
agf, and LJ members that actually *go* to Convergence regularly)
community that got all riled up, showed up, and made things work.
However, for those of us that have been to a number of Convergences, C13
was arguably even worse than C7 in how badly it was planned and executed.
You'd probably do well to look at the history of what happened on the run
up to C13. The issues arising at C13 (and C12 to a lesser extent) really
follow directly on the heels of the decisions made by those committees
about what sort of Convergence they wanted to put on. Much of the
backlash at this bid is due to the appearance of wanting to do a C12/C13
style Convergence with even less experience and planning.
You're a pretty cool person (also, ag people - this is someone decent
that I know in RL, so not a sockpuppet. Friend of the committee, yes.
Sockpuppet, no.), but I wonder at how much of the history of Convergence
you've gotten, and through what filters, since you may have heard more
from the active and passive C14 committee members than from the actual
core Convergence community.
--
Michael
djeterna...@gmail.com
I vote to see this ratified. Things have changed in Seattle since C6.
tracy....@gmail.com
knowing you, because I don't :p).
I will also stand up and ratify this bid. I think that, if it won the
folks might have learned enough to be able to pull it off fairly well
and would ask the C*b*l for help/get over here more for input, etc.
Have to admit that my vote is going elsewhere, though ;)
Tracy
aka Victorianrose23
madelynb...@gmail.com
> I vote to see this ratified. Things have changed in Seattle since C6.
What does that have to do with whether or not this should be
ratified?
- Madelyn
The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar
> During the Meet The Bids the one chair couldn't even answer a question
> properly and the other chair person couldn't be bothered to go.
That's a pretty major concern of mine, as well. The more-experienced
members of the committee seemed to have left Carlee twisting in the wind
a bit. I have no problems with Carlee personally. She seems to be a
decent person and really wants to put together a Seattle Convergence.
However, a lot of things about this bid seem to point to something of a
lack of planning and preparation and a last-minute feel.
--
Michael
Peter H. Coffin
If the timing were different, allowing enough room for this bid to
retool in light of the discussion in the hotel bar, then I'd back having
it. There's nothing that's intrinsically wrong with the bid, and were it
2004, it'd be a major contender. I don't think it's really in touch with
what the core attendees want, however. That alone doesn't warrant
rejection of the bid, IMHO.
--
Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are
virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same
acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.
-- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Eilis
<tracy.pain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will also stand up and ratify this bid. I think that, if it won the
> folks might have learned enough to be able to pull it off fairly well
> and would ask the C*b*l for help/get over here more for input, etc.
But will the committee tap into that resource?
Considering that I'm involved with two bids up for consideration (one
by choice, one by being shanghai'd), I am not going to say yay or nay
to any of the proposals' ratification, but I will say that any
committee headed by relative Convergence novices would be wise to seek
input from the C*b*l.
Eilis
Cat
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Axel wrote:
> > Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
> > not.
>
> > Explain why.
My primary concerns are:
a. Carlee was the only member of the committee to make it to the last
Convergence, even though it was known a panel was going to happen
(seems like lack of teamwork; someone should have been there for
support, at the very least)
b. The bid not being "mature" (I'm sure it will become mature if it
wins)
c. no one from the bid coming on a.g to "defend" it - which indicates
a lack of presence on here.
Maturity, like I said, would come with the winning vote... but
teamwork is essential, and not having the desire/ability to defend
their bid in this forum is telling.
So, I vote against ratification.
Best wishes,
Cat
Peter H. Coffin
posting Blackavar wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:37:41 -0700, CarrieMonster wrote:
>
>> During the Meet The Bids the one chair couldn't even answer a
>> question properly and the other chair person couldn't be bothered to
>> go.
>
> That's a pretty major concern of mine, as well. The more-experienced
> members of the committee seemed to have left Carlee twisting in the
> wind a bit.
Yeah. I felt for her, I really did. It would have been nice if she'd had
more comfort with the vision of the bid and more familiarity with the
tenor she'd be facing. That may not be *entirely* the other committee-
members' faults, but the whole feeling that things aren't quite in touch
isn't really settling.
--
26. No matter how attractive certain members of the rebellion are, there is
probably someone just as attractive who is not desperate to kill me.
Therefore, I will think twice before ordering a prisoner sent to my
bedchamber. --Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Macross Actual
>I don't think it's really in touch with
> what the core attendees want, however. That alone doesn't warrant
> rejection of the bid, IMHO.
>
On the contrary, I'd say that absolutely warrants it's rejection. If
they're not even paying mind to the core attendees, whatever else they
have on the table it moot.
-///
Satori
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnga782l....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:52:16 -0500, The forever lurking, but sometimes
> posting Blackavar wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:37:41 -0700, CarrieMonster wrote:
>>
>>> During the Meet The Bids the one chair couldn't even answer a
>>> question properly and the other chair person couldn't be bothered to
>>> go.
>>
>> That's a pretty major concern of mine, as well. The more-experienced
>> members of the committee seemed to have left Carlee twisting in the
>> wind a bit.
>
> Yeah. I felt for her, I really did. It would have been nice if she'd had
> more comfort with the vision of the bid and more familiarity with the
> tenor she'd be facing. That may not be *entirely* the other committee-
> members' faults, but the whole feeling that things aren't quite in touch
> isn't really settling.
I felt the same thing. She seemed very uncomfortable, which made me feel
very uncomfortable with her as chair. I do hope that she becomes part of the
community. But I'd like to see her get to know the community better, and
have some more experience with Convergence, before she chairs a committee.
I'll gladly buy her a drink at C15, whereever it may be, though.
Scarlet_Faeriewind
> Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
> not.
>
> Explain why.
I say not because; it is not even halfway put together, the
chairpersons have no sense of what has upset us about past C*, and
they do not seem to care why they upset some of us with the bid. Yes
they removed the offending portion of the bid but they did not get it.
Scarlet
Macross Actual
> On Aug 13, 7:44 pm, "tracy.pain...@gmail.com"
> <tracy.pain...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I will also stand up and ratify this bid. I think that, if it won the
>> folks might have learned enough to be able to pull it off fairly well
>> and would ask the C*b*l for help/get over here more for input, etc.
>
>
> But will the committee tap into that resource?
Recent history says - not likely. or - not seriously. kids these days.
> Considering that I'm involved with two bids up for consideration (one
> by choice, one by being shanghai'd), I am not going to say yay or nay
> to any of the proposals' ratification, but I will say that any
> committee headed by relative Convergence novices would be wise to seek
> input from the C*b*l.
ought to be mandatory. heck, before anyone is allowed to put in a new
bid, we should require compulsory volunteer work on the ground during
the previous year's event.
After a full day of running around, say "ok... now imagine this times
100 and with a full year run up. Still wanna be on a committee?"
-///
spitballing.
ieightth...@gmail.com
chime in here...
If you don't want to have C* in Seattle, then don't vote for it. This
process is not for personal criticism, so much as to make sure the bid
fits the requirements of the process. Frankly, the petty negativity
exhibited here by everyone is really upsetting to me.
I realize that C* is a party for net.goths first and foremost, and I
have watched and listened here for, oh, about eleven years, having
attended several Convergences along the way despite my not having been
a regular presence, but do you have any idea how you all look from the
outside? I recognize that there are some things about the Seattle
proposal that some people don't like. Fine. You don't have to vote
for it, but by refusing even to ratify it, you're effectively giving
the message that we, as a community, are closed off to new people,
regardless of their benevolent intentions. (I mean, the point is moot
by now anyhow, given how two or three of you effectively submarined
the bid on its first proposal.) I really do think it's a bad
precedent to refuse even to ratify a bid because you've been rallied
by a vociferous and fussy few who dislike it.
We need to think about the purpose of the ratification process, and
separate that from the voting (which is the place for personal
preferences).
Noxenlux
I attempted to answer any and all questions honestly, whether or not
you found those answers up to your par is up to you. If they weren't
we were there for an hour with people asking questions, you could have
asked more. :)
I was left with no other person from the Seattle Bid in attendance,
some were off on business others were not able to attend. I went and
had fun on my own meeting new people or meeting up with people I've
known for a while.
Noxenlux
> folks might have learned enough to be able to pull it off fairly well
> and would ask the C*b*l for help/get over here more for input, etc.
From the start and after we've asked for input from ag, we tooled our
bid to go with what wants we hear from the people and not only from
what we wanted to do. :)
Noxenlux
> c. no one from the bid coming on a.g to "defend" it - which indicates
> a lack of presence on here.
I work and I needed to get my work done before I came onto the board
to "defend" the bid/ratification. I would be more then happy to let
the whole team talk, but we usually work together if we think an
answer needs to be truly thought out or know if another person knows a
better answer.
Noxenlux
> Yeah. I felt for her, I really did. It would have been nice if she'd had
> more comfort with the vision of the bid and more familiarity with the
> tenor she'd be facing.
Sometimes I do well with public speaking, others not so much. This one
went under the not so much part. The vision part decided it didn't
like me so much ;) at least when I got up and started talking to
everyone.
Noxenlux
> On the contrary, I'd say that absolutely warrants it's rejection. If
> they're not even paying mind to the core attendees, whatever else they
> have on the table it moot.
We requested feedback from everyone when we were looking to figure out
for sure what people wanted in a bid. We ended up moving some things
around and adding others. We know that we will not be able to please
everyone. And we attempted to please those on ag, sometimes better
then others. Sometimes people say one thing but then expect it to be
something else. Since the bids are locked down I have no way of
updating so no changes can be made, I can just talk to people here
about the bid.
Noxenlux
> I say not because; it is not even halfway put together, the
> chairpersons have no sense of what has upset us about past C*, and
> they do not seem to care why they upset some of us with the bid. Yes
> they removed the offending portion of the bid but they did not get it.
>
> Scarlet
How do you mean that we didn't get it? Yes we removed the offending
portion of the bid, it was a mistake by our whole committee. It can
happen, we were attempting to do something nice and that backfired on
us.
We understand that there are things that are always going to be
unofficial events that happen at C* and they'll always happen at C*
and no one from the committee should say when or where they should
happen. We'll help with anything people need to get unofficial events
going because we know Seattle and we are all currently living in
Seattle.
mange....@gmail.com
I will vote for Long Beah, but I think that all of the bids deserve a
chance to be voted on.
~Fianna
<ieightth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, though I'm really much more a lurker, I do feel the need to
> chime in here...
>
> If you don't want to have C* in Seattle, then don't vote for it. This
> process is not for personal criticism, so much as to make sure the bid
> fits the requirements of the process. Frankly, the petty negativity
> exhibited here by everyone is really upsetting to me.
Honestly there hasn't been any personal criticism. I think the overwhelming
sentiment is that they're nice people but that the bid needs more time.
> I realize that C* is a party for net.goths first and foremost, and I
> have watched and listened here for, oh, about eleven years, having
> attended several Convergences along the way despite my not having been
> a regular presence, but do you have any idea how you all look from the
> outside? I recognize that there are some things about the Seattle
> proposal that some people don't like. Fine. You don't have to vote
> for it, but by refusing even to ratify it, you're effectively giving
> the message that we, as a community, are closed off to new people,
> regardless of their benevolent intentions. (I mean, the point is moot
> by now anyhow, given how two or three of you effectively submarined
> the bid on its first proposal.) I really do think it's a bad
> precedent to refuse even to ratify a bid because you've been rallied
> by a vociferous and fussy few who dislike it.
I don't think it's a few, number one... and this isn't particularly
vociferous, especially for a.g. It's not that I dislike the bid. I just
think that the committee planning events that are handled by other groups
and have been for ages shows that the committee doesn't quite get the event.
I also was somewhat distressed that they stopped responding to questions,
responded to the ones they did respond to vaguely and threw their chair to
the wolves by not giving her any support at the meet the bids. Seriously,
if you can't be arsed to go to Convergence, why should you plan a
Convergence?
> We need to think about the purpose of the ratification process, and
> separate that from the voting (which is the place for personal
> preferences).
The purpose of the ratification process is to make sure that the bids that
get to be voted on don't raise any serious concerns with the members of a.g
That's what we're doing.
~Fi
Scarlet_Faeriewind
The fact that you are asking, makes it all the more clear that you are
not paying attention. You tried to SELL TICKETS to something that is
not open to the whole Convergence. Selling tickets to Goths on Ice
MIGHT be excused because everyone has been invited in the past. There
was no research done on it and you overstepped your bounds by like
10-15 miles. And to my knowledge (and I might have missed it) it was
taken down but there was no apology to those who started the CorpGoth
Dinner or even CorpGoth as a whole.
Scarlet
TheOneBob
> We requested feedback from everyone when we were looking to figure out
> for sure what people wanted in a bid. We ended up moving some things
> around and adding others. We know that we will not be able to please
> everyone.
You are doing the right thing and this is why you should try again
next year. If you spend the intervening time soliciting feedback and
putting the bid together before you present it, you are far more
likely to get past ratification. With some more thought and
preparation you would avoid the problems and mostly constructive
criticism you are facing now.
Bob
TheOne
CarrieMonster
>
> I attempted to answer any and all questions honestly, whether or not
> you found those answers up to your par is up to you. If they weren't
> we were there for an hour with people asking questions, you could have
> asked more. :)
Sure, maybe you got flustered and were nervous and thought you
answered questions as best you could. You were, after all, fed to the
wolves out there.
You left me, and others as well, with the feeling that you have no
idea what you are doing.
I strongly feel you are not ready to host this party yet.
I think you need to come to a few of these, maybe work on another
committee to learn the ropes.
>
> I was left with no other person from the Seattle Bid in attendance,
> some were off on business others were not able to attend.
yeah, but see, if you guys really wanted this win the other chair
should have been there with you. We all know who you are now but we
have NO IDEA who she is. Yes, that _is_ an issue. You need a strong
supportaive cmte to pull this off.
Sure, we may know who Erica and Robert are but that is not the point.
We need to know AND fully trust our chair people.
If you haven't caught on by now, dear, the a.g crowd is hard to
please.
We are very protective of our party.
I am speaking from expereince, this is not an easy party to put on.
I don't think you really know what you are signing up for.
I am not saying I dislike you or the concept of your bid.However,
I think it is in everyone's best intrest if you wait, participate and
then revamp your bid in a couple of years.
Good luck,
CM
Peter H. Coffin
'zactly. As she's got two Convergi under her belt now, and can compare
them and the feedback seen here and other places, I don't doubt
that changes can be made to meet the core's expectations. I'm not
recommending non-ratification because I think they can even STILL make
those changes and put it together right this time around. (It's a year
away, after all.)
Part of it is timing. We try to give about a year to winners to hammer
their bids into live events, but that means that the ramp up from
attending to deciding one wants to try to bid is *really* short, under a
year. Most of the bids that win and are good are ones that spend about
two years forming before their vote. Usually there's at least one vote
that a bid loses before getting it together enough. Tampa bid for 11 and
12 before 14 with good people behind it, Las Vegas bid 8 before winning
9, NYC bid at least twice before winning, Salem bid has been working for
two years building up to being *almost* ready to do their thing, and
I've got a year on looking at possibilities for a Wisconsin bid for
almost a year now and might be ready for a run at 16.
--
Christian Biblical literalists are trusting themselves to an archaic English
translation of a Latin translation of (help me here) Greek? Aramaic? source.
I wouldn't even trust a VCR manual to make it through that intact. - Dr. Dee
ildirector
that I don't necessarily agree with, I'd say that Seattle made changes
to their bid based upon feedback from this group, and for that I'd say
it should be given a chance to be voted upon.
While I believe that other people from the committee should have been
there to support instead of leaving her to hang in the wind, it showed
great courage to come up and defend against all of us.
Macross Actual
... I really do think it's a bad
> precedent to refuse even to ratify a bid because you've been rallied
> by a vociferous and fussy few who dislike it.
>
> We need to think about the purpose of the ratification process, and
> separate that from the voting (which is the place for personal
> preferences).
the day we don't feel comfortable expressing our opinions on any
subject, popular or not is the day this NG gets RM'd.
Vetting the proposals by any other name is just as caustic.
-///
Macross Actual
(stuff)
top posting gives you crabs.
-///
ildirector
I'll stop that now ;)
Rafe
> On Aug 13, 4:10 pm, Lin <grafixbunny2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Axel wrote:
> > > Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
> > > not.
>
> > > Explain why.
>
>
> Nope. I just screwed up on the numbering.
> I blame Bob and Rafe.
> Sorry about that.
That's right, C14 was so good, it was C15, too.
I'm echoing CarrieMonster's thoughts here - having just come through
that particular wringer, especially.
`una
> Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
> not.
>
> Explain why.
I do not want this bid ratified.
This committee is not ready to host a Convergence. They need
another year to figure out who their core audience is and what
Convergence is about.
The apologies I'm seeing for having done things like making
Goths on Ice an official event speak volumes about this
committee's approach to planning and communication.
They don't get points for cleaning up a mess that wouldn't
have been made if they had understood what Convergence is about.
They don't get points for making excuses for how they left
one of their own to twist in the wind because they were "busy."
People on the other committees are adults with real jobs and lives
and they made the time to get their shit together and do it right.
I'm not feeling inclined to give leeway to people who didn't take
the time to understand the event they are planning when there's a
committee that HAS done so and other committees have done so in the past.
Just to be brutally honest, I don't feel like spending a year
furrowing my brow over a committee that is either leaving us
in the dark or whining about how unappreciated they are when they
fuck up and we bitch about it. When you fuck up, people bitch.
Pull on your big kid panties and deal with it while you fix the problem.
Whining about how mean other people are, just makes
you look like an asshole.
There, NOW you can bitch about how mean someone's been to you because
she criticized you outright instead of being nice about it.
`una - agrees that this committee could probably pull off an awesome
Convergence with a little more maturity behind their bid.
CarrieMonster
> There, NOW you can bitch about how mean someone's been to you because
> she criticized you outright instead of being nice about it.
>
> `una - agrees that this committee could probably pull off an awesome
> Convergence with a little more maturity behind their bid.
I get full of glee when 'una lays the Smack Down!
Awesome!
xoxo
CM...i tried to be nice, i swear!
ash...@gmail.com
> Seriously,
> if you can't be arsed to go to Convergence, why should you plan a
> Convergence?
Well, for the purpose of fairness, I'm going to argue with this one.
Not being at *one particular* Convergence shouldn't be grounds for
saying that you can't be on, or even chair, a bid committee -- this is
a rather large continent, and we're in the middle of a spectacular
economic downturn. I know a lot of people who had planned to come to
C14 who had to cancel, due to job loss or lack of money or insane
plane fares.
I'm catching up with all the relevant threads, so I don't yet have a
vote either way for ratification, but I did think that this was worth
pointing out.
-- A <3
~ I am the Angel of Death with amphetamine eyes
I'm the sinking feeling in between your thighs ~
Siobhan
> We need to think about the purpose of the ratification process, and
> separate that from the voting (which is the place for personal
> preferences).
Madelyn's comments about the ratification are an excellent summary,
and I've re-posted them under a new subject line, just to make sure
everybody sees them.
Siobhan
~Fianna
>> Seriously,
>> if you can't be arsed to go to Convergence, why should you plan a
>> Convergence?
>
> Well, for the purpose of fairness, I'm going to argue with this one.
> Not being at *one particular* Convergence shouldn't be grounds for
> saying that you can't be on, or even chair, a bid committee -- this is
> a rather large continent, and we're in the middle of a spectacular
> economic downturn. I know a lot of people who had planned to come to
> C14 who had to cancel, due to job loss or lack of money or insane
> plane fares.
I think it's fair to expect more than one member of a committee to be at the
Convergence prior to the one they're bidding on. I understand where you're
coming from, but sending one member to twist in the wind at the Meet the
Bids thing was a bit distasteful.
I'm also a bit concerned because a lot of the members of this committee have
been citing work and life responsibilities as part of the reason that
they've been unresponsive. I'm hugely sympathetic to that, but putting on a
C* is a huge committment for a year both in time and in money. If they
can't make the committment to help the bid win, then I've got some concerns
about their committment 6 months in to it. Yes, life happens, but if
they're having a problem balancing it now, it's only going to get more
complex as the clock ticks down.
~Fi
Noxenlux
> The fact that you are asking, makes it all the more clear that you are
> not paying attention. You tried to SELL TICKETS to something that is
> not open to the whole Convergence. Selling tickets to Goths on Ice
> MIGHT be excused because everyone has been invited in the past. There
> was no research done on it and you overstepped your bounds by like
> 10-15 miles. And to my knowledge (and I might have missed it) it was
> taken down but there was no apology to those who started the CorpGoth
> Dinner or even CorpGoth as a whole.
>
> Scarlet
Nope, I just was not going to assume what your belief was on this
subject. I always ask questions and will continue to ask questions it
is the only way to get a clear picture of what people want.
See our site about the corp goth dinner.
Noxenlux
> They don't get points for making excuses for how they left
> one of their own to twist in the wind because they were "busy."
> People on the other committees are adults with real jobs and lives
> and they made the time to get their shit together and do it right.
I couldn't/wouldn't force my friends to buy plane tickets they
couldn't afford.
There are ways to get around that like selling a kidney or maybe some
blood.
`una
> I couldn't/wouldn't force my friends to buy plane tickets they
> couldn't afford.
>
> There are ways to get around that like selling a kidney or maybe some
> blood.
*hands you the stapler*
Also, attribute quotes so that people know who you are responding to.
Your inability to format a post correctly speaks very ill of you
committee's commitment to communicating with your intended audience.
If we are not your intended audience, you can put on a different party
and call it something else.
`una - less impressed with this committee with each post.
`una
> I get full of glee when 'una lays the Smack Down!
Can you believe I'm a fluffy bunny? :D
> CM...i tried to be nice, i swear!
You were nice! The reaction you and others got from
the committee/supporters was Not Cool. Thus, Smack Down ;)
If the committee understood how to play nice, I'd say
ratify the bid because it's within driving distance of me
and I would think it could be a cool party. However, their
inability to play nice has me thinking they don't really
care about the core attendees and wouldn't throw a good party.
`una - <3 CarrieMonster :D
Satori
"Noxenlux" <ne...@noxenlux.com> wrote in message
news:a9ae2bb1-c564-470a...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
This, then, brings up a whole new concern. If your fellow committee members
can't afford plane tickets to Tampa without selling bodily fluids, how do
you guys intend to fund this event?
CarrieMonster
> "Noxenlux" <n...@noxenlux.com> wrote in message
My guess is they have no idea how many THOUSDANDS of DOLLARS and how
much personal time you have to put into this.
But really, what do I know? ;)
xoxo
CM
Macross Actual
if you can't afford a plane ticket, you definitely cannot afford a convergence.
-///
--
** 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 **
Madelyn Boudreaux
> if you can't afford a plane ticket, you definitely cannot afford a
> convergence.
Which reminds me:
Where does one go to find info about Convergence financials?
- Madelyn
I swear, I'm going to stop changing identities for posting now. I just
figured out how to make Thunderbird behave as a news reader, and I
didn't even have to ask my dumbass ex. Woot!
vomv...@hotmail.com
> My guess is they have no idea how many THOUSDANDS of DOLLARS and how
> much personal time you have to put into this.
>
> But really, what do I know? ;)
I would be more then happy to share our budget with you. Would you
like me to email you a copy?
-Erica
The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar
Whew. As has been mentioned - if you're so tightly-budgeted that going to
the event that you're hoping to put on the next iteration of is so hard
that you can't make it, perhaps that isn't a good sign for the prospects
of the bid.
On the other hand, if the actual reason that the rest of your committee
didn't support you is that they're "not that into the kegger thing",
which is also more than slightly possible, that's also something to talk
about.
To be very clear, *you* obviously care about what's going on, and are
willing to put effort towards it. I can not manage to believe that the
rest of your committee does, based on their actions.
Putting on Convergence is amazingly hard work, and I happen to know that
the members of the other committees have also had hard times, and *very*
serious things going on in their lives. They managed to find a way to
make going to this event that they want to put on a priority in their
lives, even sacrificing other things that also matter to them.
Why did the other members of the Seattle committee not manage to make
that a priority? What will happen when it's time to make putting on
Convergence a higher priority than their own personal comfort? ( That
*will* happen, by the way. You can ask this year's committee, who put
together an incredible Convergence while facing serious personal
issues. ) They couldn't support you in just going to C14 and facing
potential disagreement - how will it be when they flake on something that
is essential to making your Convergence that you *do* care about work?
Of course, they already have done so, by contributing to the not-so-great
impression of the committee.
--
Michael - who has seen that particular meltdown before. Convergence
always happens, but not always without casualties, be they to
relationships, friendships, or respect.
djspr...@gmail.com
Cat
I've put on several one-night festivals (about the same size or a
little bigger than C14), and I've gotta tell you: putting on an event
requires up-front money. Your comment makes me worry.
:/
If you have a budget (I'm hoping/guessing you do), add about 15% to it
for incidentals. Consider at least 50% will probably need to be paid
months in advance. If it were one of my small, one-night festivals in
NC with a few bands, that advance number would be ~$3k. Include a
full weekend of events, and you're easily at $10-20k in advance (pre
ticket sales) - and there's no guarantee you'll see any of that back.
Heck, I've had a band *not show up* and keep their retainer fee. :P
If the other committee members would have to sell a kidney to come to
C14... well, we're getting into the arena where it's impolite for me
to ask, but it does leave me curious about where the funding will come
from.
Best wishes,
Cat
Madelyn Boudreaux
> It really should be changed:
>
> http://www.writheandshine.com/comics/ws251.gif
Ah, good. You've named the new North American Gothapalooza. If you hold
it in Seattle and the bands look good, I will try to go.
Now, back to Convergence discussions...
- Madelyn
Madelyn Boudreaux
> It really should be changed:
>
> http://www.writheandshine.com/comics/ws251.gif
Oh, and Writhe should really unstaple his wrist from his forehead and
untwist his panties, if he thinks *this* is trashing.
Fucking drama queens need to grow some skin and get some perspective
(Writhe that it, not you, Robert.)
- Madelyn
tracy....@gmail.com
*snork*
I love you.
And I'm oh so tempted to get snarky and pissy, but it could just be
the tired, worn out pregnancy hormones coming to a boil and I'm
spoiling for a good old fashioned flame war.
Tracy
aka Victorianrose23
Satori
<djspr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee2f61ca-b330-43e8...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Well, let's see... the Seattle committee has been vague, has completely
dropped off the newsgroup for over a week when asked direct questions, have
told us they're "too busy" to spend a lot of time answering our questions,
and have told us that they would have to sell a kidney in order to show up
to Tampa to answer our questions. Whose fault is it that we're left with
conjecture?
Satori
<vomv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:702de84d-c805-4e19...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Making your budget available may very well help ease our fears. However,
please realize that our fears are not just about whether the numbers all add
up in the end. The question being asked here is: do you have access to funds
to handle up-front costs while you're waiting for ticket sales to bring you
back into the black?
Eilis
> On Aug 14, 2:40 am, "~Fianna" <k...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Seriously,
> > if you can't be arsed to go to Convergence, why should you plan a
> > Convergence?
>
> Well, for the purpose of fairness, I'm going to argue with this one.
> Not being at *one particular* Convergence shouldn't be grounds for
> saying that you can't be on, or even chair, a bid committee -- this is
> a rather large continent, and we're in the middle of a spectacular
> economic downturn. I know a lot of people who had planned to come to
> C14 who had to cancel, due to job loss or lack of money or insane
> plane fares.
>
> I'm catching up with all the relevant threads, so I don't yet have a
> vote either way for ratification, but I did think that this was worth
> pointing out.
Snaps to that. I was unable to attend C8 because of work and jury
duty (bleah!), and Laura didn't make that one either, but we chaired
C9 together. In an economic downturn, I'm more than happy to give
people a pass.
Now...if the non-attendance of C14 by most of the Seattle bid
committee was because of a general loss of interest in Convergence, I
would find that *very* disturbing.
Eilis
who is finally home from C14!!
Eilis
> I'm also a bit concerned because a lot of the members of this committee have
> been citing work and life responsibilities as part of the reason that
> they've been unresponsive. I'm hugely sympathetic to that, but putting on a
> C* is a huge committment for a year both in time and in money. If they
> can't make the committment to help the bid win, then I've got some concerns
> about their committment 6 months in to it. Yes, life happens, but if
> they're having a problem balancing it now, it's only going to get more
> complex as the clock ticks down.
>
> ~Fi
Speaking from experience, this is true. Planning Convergence is like
a second full-time job. If you're the chair or the person holding the
money pot, you can expect to put the bulk of your leisure and personal
life on the back burner until the event is over.
Eilis
The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar
> It really should be changed:
>
> http://www.writheandshine.com/comics/ws251.gif
Hmm. As I posted way back at the beginning -
"...and a rich tradition of passive-aggressive nastiness..."
However, I really did expect better from you. The descent to this level
of interaction so very quickly at the first set of questions really
doesn't bode well for how well this team will do at putting on a
Convergence.
How about actually answering the issues raised? It's too late to go back
and decide to attempt the event you're asking to put on, but talk fast
and well, straightforwardly and honestly, and perhaps there's some
chance, or at least some way to not burn the chances of ever getting a
bid through again.
See, you don't get to slag off the people you're throwing the party for
and still have us be nice. You don't get it both ways.
Also, you can't hold forth opinions in a friendslocked post here and have
them stand without opposition...it's one of the wonderful things about
Usenet. If the proposal is weak, it becomes clear very quickly.
--
Michael
The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar
posting Blackavar wrote:
> How about actually answering the issues raised? It's too late to go back
> and decide to attempt the event you're asking to put on, but talk fast
> and well, straightforwardly and honestly, and perhaps there's some
> chance, or at least some way to not burn the chances of ever getting a
> bid through again.
That's "attend the event you're asking to put on". Though I do have a
feeling that this particular attempt may in fact be done, that's not what
I was saying there.
Also, I do know that you do go pretty regularly, but leaving Carlee alone
and pretty unprepared wasn't cool, especially when there were several
members of the committee that could have gone to support her.
--
Michael
~Fianna
I do have to say that that left a really bad taste in my mouth. Considering
that she was facing a pretty critical crowd, I think that she did fairly
well. It was pretty hard to hide that there hadn't been a lot of thought
put in to the whole thing and the "vision" questions really had no answers,
but still, if my friends threw me in to that and left me twisting in the
wind, I'd seriously consider procuring some new friends. And I'd be far,
far less inclined to put my legal signature on a lot of documents because
I'd completely fear being left holding the (cash) bag there, too.
~Fi
Kaos
wrote:
>Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
>not.
>
>Explain why.
I'm in favor of ratifying it for one simple reason:
If this bid isn't ratified, the remaining options are Long Beach and
Omaha. My impression is that Omaha is "the joke we'll make work if it
wins," which leaves Long Beach as the only serious bid.
Nothing against Long Beach, but I'd prefer to see it by win ballot
than see it win because nothing else was ratified.
I understand there are issues with the experience of the committee.
And if there were more options on the ballot, I'd give more serious
consideration to those concerns at this point. As there are not, I'm
inclined to be more willing to give them more opportunity to address
those concerns.
Kaos
wrote:
>
>> They don't get points for making excuses for how they left
>> one of their own to twist in the wind because they were "busy."
>> People on the other committees are adults with real jobs and lives
>> and they made the time to get their shit together and do it right.
>
>
>I couldn't/wouldn't force my friends to buy plane tickets they
>couldn't afford.
Nor would I.
But at the same time, I wouldn't expect those details to garner me (or
them) much support if someone were to note their inability to show up
for a convegence in the process of questioning their capability to
host one. If attending a convergence is problematic for the
committee, we have much reason to believe they'll have a nightmare of
a time setting one up.
If you can explain why the issues that kept them from being there
won't be relevant, that would be of much more use. I'm hoping you can
- I'd like to see this bid ratified.
But if you can't... well, there's a reason why I've never been a part
of a Convergence comittee myself, and it's not because Edmonton or
Calgary would be taken even less seriously than Omaha. It's because I
can't do what I just asked of you either.
Madelyn Boudreaux
the epic (Hey, CarrieMonster! EPIC!) pisstake I experienced when that
one guy put in the SLC bid back in, what, 2001? 2002? and brought me
along for the ride.
Talk about a *writhing* -- and horrifying -- experience. Yet, I'm still
shining. Darkly, of course.
Anyone who thinks the line of questioning being leveled at Seattle is
tough, do find that and see how a.g. takes on a TRULY laughable,
immature, failed abortion of a bid.
Interestingly, some of the strongest critics are (now) some of my best
friends here on a.g., and I don't think less of any of them (and I hope
they don't think any less of me) for it. It was the right thing for them
to do, and while it was hard and embarrassing, I used it to learn and to
grow.
I'd expect nothing less from anyone else who wants to put in a bid,
really. I'd expect nothing less from anyone who wants to be on a.g.,
come to think of it.
- Madelyn
chad.p...@gmail.com
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> >I don't think it's really in touch with
> > what the core attendees want, however. That alone doesn't warrant
> > rejection of the bid, IMHO.
>
> On the contrary, I'd say that absolutely warrants it's rejection. If
> they're not even paying mind to the core attendees, whatever else they
> have on the table it moot.
>
> -///
I think that the unwillingness of the committee to be involved in this
process is reason enough to not ratify the bid.
I would respect them so much more if they were here defending the bid,
because I know a few of them in person and worked with one of them
when my band played a show there a few years back. Professional to a
T.
But if your going to ignore the process and not acknowledge that there
are people who want to discuss this bid here in ag then you do not
deserve to have it move forward.
c
The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar
> But if your going to ignore the process and not acknowledge that there
> are people who want to discuss this bid here in ag then you do not
> deserve to have it move forward.
Seriously, this is one of the biggest issues I have about this. Hi, it's
our party. It's time to come here and tell us why we should let you put
it on for us. Not showing up is one *really* easy way to fail this
interview.
Perhaps they didn't realize that it was an interview?
--
Michael
Siobhan
>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Axel <der....@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
>>not.
>>
>>Explain why.
>
>I'm in favor of ratifying it for one simple reason:
>
>If this bid isn't ratified, the remaining options are Long Beach and
>Omaha. My impression is that Omaha is "the joke we'll make work if it
>wins," which leaves Long Beach as the only serious bid.
>
>Nothing against Long Beach, but I'd prefer to see it by win ballot
>than see it win because nothing else was ratified.
Boo's Pants will be on the ballot as usual as a "none of the above"
vote.
We agreed last year that if Boo's Pants ever win we re-open the floor
for bids and start over.
Siobhan
Peter H. Coffin
> It really should be changed:
>
> http://www.writheandshine.com/comics/ws251.gif
See, THAT warms the heart... Well done, RT.
--
48. I will treat any beast which I control through magic or technology with
respect and kindness. Thus if the control is ever broken, it will not
immediately come after me for revenge.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Peter H. Coffin
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:27:09 GMT, Kaos wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Axel <der....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
>>not.
>>
>>Explain why.
>
> I'm in favor of ratifying it for one simple reason:
>
> If this bid isn't ratified, the remaining options are Long Beach and
> Omaha. My impression is that Omaha is "the joke we'll make work if it
> wins," which leaves Long Beach as the only serious bid.
>
> Nothing against Long Beach, but I'd prefer to see it by win ballot
> than see it win because nothing else was ratified.
Which is very close to the situation we were in with regard to C10
voting: Chicago versus a "ha ha, only serious" bid from Lawrence.
The voting ended up a *lot* closer than pretty much anyone was
expecting, and I have no doubt to this day that Lawrence would have put
on a fine event.
> I understand there are issues with the experience of the committee.
> And if there were more options on the ballot, I'd give more serious
> consideration to those concerns at this point. As there are not, I'm
> inclined to be more willing to give them more opportunity to address
> those concerns.
I'd agree, but it doesn't seem like they're much interested in doing so.
--
The plural of datum is not "facts".
A collection of facts is not "knowledge".
CarrieMonster
No, Erica, I don't want to see a copy of your budget.
Anyone can put numbers down on paper. But when you can't afford to
come to C* it doesn't put any of us at ease that you will be able to
throw us a party.
Convergence is expensive business. You should know this.
You did do this before didn't you?
What I would like to see if a more mature bid from you and your team
in a couple of years.
xoxo
CM
kambriel
Siobhan wrote:
> Boo's Pants will be on the ballot as usual as a "none of the above"
> vote.
>
> We agreed last year that if Boo's Pants ever win we re-open the floor
> for bids and start over.
I really don't see that as an eventuality this year and think all is
going to go swimmingly in the end. Maybe it's just because I've seen
of the real messes that have happened in the past ~ which this in no
way has equalled ~ and we have perfectly good options to choose
from. Even for the next couple years, it sounds like some good plans
are in the works for a variety of host cities, so I don't think Boo
will have to be invoked for some time yet.
~ Kambriel
John Carr
> Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
> not.
Nay
> Explain why.
I was vascillating on this one between "I think I can live with an immature
bid and I have faith that it can be pulled off in the end" and "no way."
I'm falling toward "no way" now.
My main issue is the communication problems and a lack of understanding out
of the gate of what Convergence is. I can forgive the latter - we've seen
years of "what we didn't want" prior to C14 and it can give newer folks
some wrong impressions. However, that in conjunction with the communcation
problems and lack of turnout by the committeefolk at C14 seals it for me.
Some learning when putting together a Convergence is kinda assumed - but
learning how to communicate with the group that you're hosting the party
for almost guarantees, IMHO, that this will turn into a flamewar first,
party second... if the party happens at all. And, I guess the flamewar
would only happen if the committee is willing to take the heat, which they
so far are a bit nervous about doing. It already feels like another
Portland in the making.
That said, I'd seriously love to see the Seattle bid come up next year;
if they get things hammered out, I'd be up for voting for it. I don't feel
that any of the committee members _couldn't_ do it, but I think it needs a
bit more time to work out. The soup always tastes better when you let it
sit for awhile. :)
Macross Actual
It's a concept I dont understand, and we have seen it a LOT over the years...
SO there is this event, group x really likes it after accidentally
discovering it... learned just enough about it to discover it's volunteer
and open to new hosts every year and then they run with it. In the process,
they ignore it's founders, get pissed off that it's not a free for all and
they can't just have their way, us and our traditions and ideals be damned.
WTF? Is this entire country born with a sense of entitlement in their mouths
or what?
-///
--
** 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 **
Peter H. Coffin
> WTF? Is this entire country born with a sense of entitlement in their mouths
> or what?
That'd be a big ole "Yes", there, friend.
--
Judging by this particular thread, many people in this group spent their
school years taking illogical, pointless orders from morons and having
their will to live systematically crushed. And people say school doesn't
prepare kids for the real world. -- Rayner, in the Monastery
DJVo...@gmail.com
> Tell us if you want this bid ratified or not. Especially if you do
> not.
>
While this committee has made some missteps, I believe they have
learned from their mistakes and can put the party on , and I would
like to see more choices on the ballot, so ratify it
Noxenlux
> "Noxenlux" <n...@noxenlux.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a9ae2bb1-c564-470a...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> They don't get points for making excuses for how they left
> >> one of their own to twist in the wind because they were "busy."
> >> People on the other committees are adults with real jobs and lives
> >> and they made the time to get their shit together and do it right.
> > I couldn't/wouldn't force my friends to buy plane tickets they
> > couldn't afford.
>
> > blood.
>
> can't afford plane tickets to Tampa without selling bodily fluids, how do
> you guys intend to fund this event?
Convergence takes a good amount of money up front. Like CM said
Thousands of dollars, many times, tens of thousands of dollars. This
money does not come off trees or out of the air. When I was first
thinking of putting in the bid that was something I knew we'd have to
plan for and gather the funds. As much as a bid can look all pretty
and nice, if you don't have the cash backing it can not get anywhere.
If our bid comes around we will make sure we have all the backing we
need to put on a wonderful party.
Selling fluids would be something I'd want to do, it's a bit yucky. :)
Noxenlux
Totally true, I'm just currently about to get on a plane for another
weekend long event that I will be vending at (I leave Thursday). I
have to make sure I am totally prepared for this one while replying to
post so I'm keeping my internet access time down because of the need
to use my hands to craft. :) August just ended up being a busy month
for me, which does happen to people.
vomv...@hotmail.com
> I would respect them so much more if they were here defending the bid,
> because I know a few of them in person and worked with one of them
> when my band played a show there a few years back. Professional to a
> T.
>
> But if your going to ignore the process and not acknowledge that there
> are people who want to discuss this bid here in ag then you do not
> deserve to have it move forward.
Not ignoring the process. Far from it. Honestly, and quite frankly I
did not see this thread to be where we needed to defend ourselves.
Yes, my chair has piped in here, but the ball is in your court now.
I have posted a cumulative post with multiple answers here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gothic/browse_thread/thread/6e711f46ca18d113#
I am looking forward to your feedback.
-Erica
vomv...@hotmail.com
> Perhaps they didn't realize that it was an interview?
>
> --
> Michael
Um, what was the bid post/thread then?
Again, I percived this "radification" as your discussion. I have
answered multiple questions here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gothic/browse_thread/thread/6e711f46ca18d113#
Your feedback is most welcome.
-Erica
vomv...@hotmail.com
> Anyone can put numbers down on paper. But when you can't afford to
> come to C* it doesn't put any of us at ease that you will be able to
> throw us a party.
Speaking for myself I could $$ afford to go down. Timing was way wrong
for my business that I could not swing it.
> Convergence is expensive business. You should know this.
> You did do this before didn't you?
Yes, I did.
> What I would like to see if a more mature bid from you and your team
> in a couple of years.
That is the thing I am having a problem getting my head around. We
made mistakes with our initial bid, however I feel that we had
recovered. If you are having problems with our f*ckups then just say
that. Call a spade a spade.
If you are calling it immature due to the time spent on planning this
bid? You can say that we have been planning for 3 years since C13. It
is the concempt for the theme came together last minute. Hella, we put
the C13 bid together in 4 days.
-Erica
ildirector
See, I didn't top post :)...
Groan...I'm not sure that the last sentence you wrote actually HELPS
your position, considering how the event went at C13.
I think (or at least hope) that people by and large can forgive/
overlook some of the initial mistakes, and can appreciate your efforts
to getting them corrected, which is why I voted to ratify this bid.
My feeling is that the larger issue is communication. In my opinion,
I would have found a way to get the more experienced members of your
committee to get a presence there (either by having them attend, video
or conference call, carrier pigeon). My impression is that you sent
the most inexperienced person to defend what could be a great bid (no
offence at all to Carlee, who's got great cajones to face all of us,
and will be at future Convergences, no? I want to see another bid
from you!)
Therefore, I'm starting to waver on my ratification decision for this
year..
Satori
<vomv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:950a359b-704a-4120...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> "The forever lurking, but sometimes posting Blackavar" wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they didn't realize that it was an interview?
>>
>> --
>> Michael
>
> Um, what was the bid post/thread then?
Part of my concern is that when a.gers started to ask for specifics on the
bid thread, the committee completely and utterly disappeared from a.g for
over a week. From 7/31 to 8/8 there was no communication at all.
Peter H. Coffin
> CarrieMonster wrote:
>
>> Anyone can put numbers down on paper. But when you can't afford to
>> come to C* it doesn't put any of us at ease that you will be able to
>> throw us a party.
>
> Speaking for myself I could $$ afford to go down. Timing was way wrong
> for my business that I could not swing it.
>
>> Convergence is expensive business. You should know this.
>> You did do this before didn't you?
>
> Yes, I did.
>
>> What I would like to see if a more mature bid from you and your team
>> in a couple of years.
>
> That is the thing I am having a problem getting my head around. We
> made mistakes with our initial bid, however I feel that we had
> recovered. If you are having problems with our f*ckups then just say
> that. Call a spade a spade.
>
> If you are calling it immature due to the time spent on planning this
> bid? You can say that we have been planning for 3 years since C13.
May I borrow your time machine? I have this other project...
> It is the concempt for the theme came together last minute. Hella, we
> put the C13 bid together in 4 days.
Uhm.
--
14. The hero is not entitled to a last kiss, a last cigarette, or any other
form of last request.
Satori
<vomv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That is the thing I am having a problem getting my head around. We
> made mistakes with our initial bid, however I feel that we had
> recovered. If you are having problems with our f*ckups then just say
> that. Call a spade a spade.
The thing is, since your "initial fuckups", there have been more questions
raised. Carrie had asked your chair on 7/30 what experience she had running
an event like this. She gave a very vague answer, and didn't answer the
follow-ups until Meet the Bids on Sunday.
We've been told that you guys are "too busy" to be involved in this
discussion. We didn't say that, you did.
We've been told that you would need to "sell a kindey or some blood" to
afford a plane ticket to Tampa. Again, your chair's words, not mine. Can you
not see how that makes us very concerned that you can handle the financials
of an event whose costs run into thousands of dollars, and has not always
ended in the black?
These are all things that happend since your initial bid, which have not
eased the concerns of those who you gave a less than stellar first
impression to.
~Fianna
Exactly. And honestly, perhaps that was for the best. Ever since the
ratification started, they've just dug themselves deeper.
I'm still waiting for an answer to the eminantly reasonable "why do you want
to hold our party" question. That doesn't seem like it should be a hard one
to answer. In fact, I asked Eilis the same question and she had an answer
in >30 seconds.
If any one from the Seattle committee could actually answer that question, I
think there would have been plenty of support for ratification. The problem
is that I don't think they have a good answer and they didn't gather from
last year's debacle that we're serious that this is OUR party and that we
really mean it this time.
This might best belong in another thread, but I have a question for the
C*b*l: didn't we decide that any bid needed to have a more than token
representation of a.g peeps on it? I know that was a suggestion, but I
can't tell if that was ever accepted as a concrete requirement for the
proposal process.
~Fi
Macross Actual
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:41:26 -0400, Macross Actual wrote:
>> WTF? Is this entire country born with a sense of entitlement in their mouths
>> or what?
>
> That'd be a big ole "Yes", there, friend.
>
oh. well fuck.
I speak in general, including the perceptions of the seattle thing but not
limited to or directed specifically at it, by the by.
Peter H. Coffin
I know *I* wasn't posting a lot during that period either...
--
Don't even get me started on the MCSEs I know. It's a miracle of
modern technology that some of these fsckwits still draw breath,
much less a paycheck.
-- Marc Bowden