Please bring cameras to KinkForAll! Help record and republish presentations!

[maymay]

Hi all,

One of the goals for KinkForAll is creating a way for information
about sex in all its forms to have a means of spreading from person to
person. This is immensely powerful when it happens in person, but the
Internet and other telecommunications technologies are another
effective platform for realizing this goal. To that end, CableFlame
writes the following about KinkForAll in her LiveJournal[0]:

> all talks can and will be recorded, information from the talks will
> be spread on the web afterwards. It's to get everyone in on the
> discussion on sexuality, it's to get everyone sharing and teaching
> with everyone else, and it's to get sexual information available to
> all people, regardless of age, socioeconomic station, gender,
> sexuality, etc.

In particular, let me call out the section where she says "all talks
can and will be recorded, information from the talks will be spread on
the web afterwards." This is very much aligned with the goal of
spreading information about sex and generating the kinds of knowledge
transfer and forward momentum we all want to see happen.

To that end, I wanted to ping everyone on this list about the following:

* Please bring cameras to KinkForAll!
* If you have audio equipment such as microphones or expertise
related to recording video or audio, please volunteer to help record
all (or as many) sessions (as possible) during the event, and let us
know that you are doing this by replying to this email stating so.

I would love to provide a live stream of the presentations on the Web.
Barring that, I'd love to create a podcast (or netcast) with the audio
recorded from each session. Barring that, perhaps we can collect links
and other media on the KinkForAll wiki itself. Whatever happens, we'll
need participant cooperation to make this possible. Quoting from
TheRulesOfKinkForAll page[2]:

> Presenters are responsible for making sure that notes/slides/audio/
> video of their presentations are published on the web for the
> benefit of all and those who can't attend.

In my ideal world, we could do all of these things. Since the real
world is far from ideal, I'm not sure which of these things is really
possible. That's why, again, I wanted to ping everyone on the list
about bringing whatever digital recording equipment you can to
KinkForAll, and to not feel as though this is an event where taking
pictures is not okay—taking pictures is encouraged. As
TheRulesOfKinkForAll state:

> Anonymity is not guaranteed or enforced, and recording devices such
> as cameras are allowed. Attendees are given the opportunity to
> signal to others that they do not wish to be photographed with a
> specially colored name tag.

I'm a shoddy photographer, but I'll be bringing my point-and-shoot! :)

Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay

EXTERNAL REFERENCES:

[0] http://c4bl3fl4m3.livejournal.com/584368.html
[1] http://c4bl3fl4m3.livejournal.com/584368.html#comments
[2] http://kinkforall.pbwiki.com/TheRulesOfKinkForAll

[Sara Eileen]

Hey all,
Going from this idea, I will most definitely bring my camera, and I'm
planning to post any of the work I do on presentations on my blog. I
hope others will do this as well! I'd like us to not only create a
free-flowing conversation, but also contribute our part to lasting
sources of information on these topics.

Cheers,
Sara Eileen

[Clarisse Thorn]

Thanks for including the specially colored name tag thing.

It will be interesting to see how many people are comfortable being recorded at this event!

Clarisse

[maymay]

On Dec 23, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Clarisse Thorn wrote:

Thanks for including the specially colored name tag thing.

It will be interesting to see how many people are comfortable being recorded at this event!

Clarisse

It should be noted (yet again and probably not for the last time) that the specially-colored name tag is only a signal, not a guarantee, that you don't wish to be photographed/recorded. It's still up to the individuals present at the event to "play by the rules" and either not take photographs of people who don't want to have their picture taken or to conceal the identity of these people before publishing their photographs.

[maymay]

Originally in a different thread[0], on Dec 24, 2008, at 11:24 AM,
Clarisse Thorn wrote:

> As a side note, to go back to the camera thing. I understand what
> you're saying about wanting everyone in attendance to understand
> that they may be recorded even if they are wearing those nametags.
> I worry, however, that this will strongly discourage attendance. In
> particular, I suspect that people who identify with sexualities even
> more marginalized than kink (arguably furries, for instance, or
> water sports) will write off KinkForAll if they think that going
> means a chance of being photographed even if they ask not to be.
>
> This isn't to say that I think recording should be disallowed,
> because I do believe recording is a noble goal. But I think it will
> encourage attendance if there is a more effective way to demonstrate
> one's unwillingness to be recorded -- you know, better than wearing
> an easily-missed nametag. For instance, maybe certain areas of the
> venue should be specifically designated as recording-free.

I tend to agree with you, actually, that encouraging cameras and
recording devices will probably discourage *some* people from
attending. While that's unfortunate, it's also simply the nature of
things. Social change is great and wonderful but it simply can not
happen if people don't put their faces behind the message. Saying free
sexuality information is great, but saying that MEITAR MOSCOVITZ wants
free sexuality information for the world is *so* much more powerful.

Me, no masks, no anonymity, nothing to hide my identity—because that's
not what I'm about. The relationships between free speech, anonymity,
and social change is an interesting conversation, to be sure. It's
probably one worth having at a KinkForAll, actually, but it's too far
afield for this list right now. Instead, let's hit up the more
practical issues:

> I suspect that people who identify with sexualities even more
> marginalized than kink (arguably furries, for instance, or water
> sports) will write off KinkForAll if they think that going means a
> chance of being photographed even if they ask not to be.

So, to be precise: this is definitely a possibility. However, the fact
remains that even if you confiscated every cell phone, digital camera,
tape recorder, and every other recording device you could find at the
door to the event, there is *still* a chance that people will be
photographed or otherwise recorded even if they ask not to be. There's
no way to stop it and ultimately you're always asking people to play
by the rules honestly anyway.

In the spirit of YAGNI, this is just not something KinkForAll as an
event has much of a reason to enforce. Moreover, in the spirit of
spreading information, creating any policy disallowing cameras is
itself a counterproductive idea. Making sure people are aware that
cameras are allowed sends a clear message: THESE THINGS WE ARE DOING
ARE NOT WRONG. It's not obscene to say "fisting" in a room full of
people. These are things every human being who cares about sexuality
needs to be talking about. *We* may already know that, but the people
who see the pictures, listen to the recordings, and otherwise observe
the event from a distance may not, and seeing that photographic
evidence will help convince people of these things.

So in other words, the message I want to send to people who are
considering not coming to KinkForAll because they might be
photographed is: we will miss you, and we hope you will be comfortable
enough next time around to come out and be part of the discussions
with the rest of us face-to-face.

> maybe certain areas of the venue should be specifically designated
> as recording-free.

This was actually considered early on, but rejected, because it has
the same problems as the issues mentioned above. That said, this kind
of "no photograph zone" is something I could see some events
instituting in their locality if it's seriously wanted and seen as
valuable. Perhaps a KinkForAllSaudiaArabia, for example, might do
something like this—and with good reason—but honestly if there's a
possibility of KinkForAll happening in a country that repressed then
we've really already won the battle against sexually photographic
shyness, haven't we? ;)

I'm also open to suggestions to make the "please don't photograph me"
signal more obvious than differently-colored name tags. Whatever the
solution is, however, it really must be understood as a *social
signal* and not a rule because, to quote from TheRulesOfKinkForAll:

1. You do talk about KinkForAll.
2. You do blog about KinkForAll.

And this can be extended to mean:

What happens at KinkForAll definitely DOES NOT STAY at KinkForAll.

-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay

EXTERNAL REFERENCES:

[0] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/4194f5cf46e7cb2c#msg_95e227b3ee7f191a

[Ben Boston]

Maymay,

 

I'm one of those people given pause by this wrinkle.  I agree with many of the sentiments you just expressed, namely that it is more powerful to have events where individuals openly acknowledge the legitimacy of their and others' sexuality than to have a closed, anonymous event.  And I agree that there is no reasonable way for kink for all to "ensure" that no one will be recorded.   

 

I agree that if people want to make absolutely sure they can't be recorded, they shouldn't come, and that's just too bad for them and for their potential audience.  Because Kink for All can't control what happens.  But the standards set by the event can strongly influence it.  And because people may have things to offer other attendees but also have very good reasons to want to stay off of youtube, I'd suggest Kink for All should try to influence all recording to only be made with the presenter's consent.  The notion of having different type name tags is a good one, though perhaps inadequate.  The main sticking point (for me) would be what attendees of the event agreed to in advance.  If the attendees and members agree to be discriminating about what they record, if presenters are allowed the choice of whether they are to be recorded, with the knowledge that the members of their audience have made a commitment not to record without permission, perhaps less people will be scared off. 

 

Why not make the recordability of each proposed presentation a salient part of its description?  Let people vote with their feet.  If being able to record and share presentations is a truly important consideration to the attendees, than those are the ones they'll choose to watch, that will be given pride of place and be picked out of the many possibilities to actually take place.  If attendees instead ask a presenter to give a talk they know he doesn't want recorded, well, they should respect that aspect of the presentation.

 

An approach like this doesn't require cameras or audio recorders to be banned from the event.  It doesn't require kink for all to have a security team on stand by ready to tackle people and forcibly erase their devices if they violate a presenter's stated wishes (though I like tackling people, so, uh, if you are looking to hire...oh, nevermind).  What it would require is making a commitment to respect the wishes of presenters in this matter an integral part of signing up for kink for all, so that presenters will know that the audience is on their honor not to record without permission, that people who release unauthorized recordings can properly be publicly censured (that's censured, not censored) as liars and oathbreakers who cannot claim to care about consent.  Perhaps I'm too trusting, but I think if it's set up that way, and care is taken to make sure it's VERY clear what presenters have consented to being recorded, there won't be too many problems.

 

Thoughts?

 

Boston Boy

[maymay]

On Dec 24, 2008, at 4:42 PM, Ben Boston wrote:

> I agree that if people want to make absolutely sure they can't be
> recorded, they shouldn't come, and that's just too bad for them and
> for their potential audience. Because Kink for All can't control
> what happens. But the standards set by the event can strongly
> influence it. And because people may have things to offer other
> attendees but also have very good reasons to want to stay off of
> youtube, I'd suggest Kink for All should try to influence all
> recording to only be made with the presenter's consent.

Boston Boy,

You make really good points—all ones that are pretty common sense when
one thinks about the issues, I think, which is not to say that what
you're saying isn't valuable as it is to say that, yes, of *course* we
should act on all of them.

In general, there is a distinction between "the event" setting
standards and the *participants* setting standards. There is much more
of the latter in this entire concept than the former; that's one of
the distinguishing characteristics of a participants-only event like
KinkForAll. The bottom line is that everyone, at KinkForAll as well as
in their daily routine, should always strive to be clear and
forthright about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to them.

That's where the notion of specially colored name tags to generically
signal one's own preference about this particular (and important)
issue came from. It's also why I argue that there's little an event
like KinkForAll *can* or *should* do to impose these things on the
participants. It's very simply out of scope. Realities and goals being
what they are, it is much more beneficial *as an event* to encourage
recording devices than to discourage them, but the provision of an
individual's consent trumps everything (except practicality).

In other words, it's more important to encourage respect of an
individual's consent in all possible ways more generally than it is to
single out record-ability. The former encourages personal
responsibility and outspokenness, while the latter fails to do this.

> The notion of having different type name tags is a good one, though
> perhaps inadequate. The main sticking point (for me) would be what
> attendees of the event agreed to in advance. If the attendees and
> members agree to be discriminating about what they record, if
> presenters are allowed the choice of whether they are to be
> recorded, with the knowledge that the members of their audience have
> made a commitment not to record without permission, perhaps less
> people will be scared off.

This sounds like it would work in theory but I doubt that it would
work in practice because "in advance" is not something that makes
sense for an unconference (unlike a "real" conference). KinkForAll is
specifically loosely structured enough to make it easy for people who
have never heard about the idea before to hear about it last-minute,
attend, and gain value from it all within mere minutes. Therefore,
expecting or, even worse, requiring people to agree to anything like
this "in advance" is not implementable on an event level.

> Why not make the recordability of each proposed presentation a
> salient part of its description? Let people vote with their feet.
> If being able to record and share presentations is a truly important
> consideration to the attendees, than those are the ones they'll
> choose to watch, that will be given pride of place and be picked out
> of the many possibilities to actually take place. If attendees
> instead ask a presenter to give a talk they know he doesn't want
> recorded, well, they should respect that aspect of the presentation.

If I understand correctly, what you're suggesting basically boils down
to these points:

1. Presenters should be pro-actively describing basic ground rules
for their presentations.
2. Participants at those presentations should be expected to respect
the presenter's preferences for how they wish to present their material.

Well, of course! There's not a single argument any sane person can
concoct that goes against those points. However, neither of these
points have much to do with event-level management. In fact, both of
them will work *far better* in an unconference model if they are left
to individual presenters. This is accounted for by the following
statements on TheRulesOfKinkForAll:

> Presenters are responsible for making sure that notes/slides/audio/
> video of their presentations are published on the web for the

> benefit of all and those who can't attend. They are also principally
> responsible for the health and safety of those who participate in
> their presentations.
>

> Anonymity is not guaranteed or enforced, and recording devices such
> as cameras are allowed. Attendees are given the opportunity to
> signal to others that they do not wish to be photographed with a
> specially colored name tag.

What *can* be done on an event-ish-level, however, is to come up with
socially-recognized signals, such as different colored name tags, so
that people are instantly aware of a particular presenter's stance on
this issue. Maybe a similar thing can be done with sticky notes? That
is, use a yellow sticky note if you're cool with cameras at your
presentation, otherwise use a red one? Also, perhaps the above
paragraph(s) on the wiki could be extended by adding a sentence to
make the above expectation that presenters are also responsible for
requesting that their presentations are not recorded explicit? This
seems unnecessary to me, but perhaps would be useful to others more
generally.

I should probably point out that it seems somewhat obvious *to me*
that I shouldn't take a picture of someone wearing a "please don't
photograph me" name tag who is presenting. I mean…that's why they're
wearing that kind of name tag, right? It also seems somewhat obvious
to me that if I were wearing such a no-publicity signal and I was
presenting, I would ensure that I verbalized my desire not to be
recorded before I began my presentation. Again…isn't that just common
sense?

Still, it could very well be worth making these "common sense" things
more explicit on the wiki if there is significant confusion.

> An approach like this doesn't require cameras or audio recorders to
> be banned from the event. It doesn't require kink for all to have a
> security team on stand by ready to tackle people and forcibly erase
> their devices if they violate a presenter's stated wishes (though I
> like tackling people, so, uh, if you are looking to hire...oh,
> nevermind). What it would require is making a commitment to respect
> the wishes of presenters in this matter an integral part of signing
> up for kink for all, so that presenters will know that the audience
> is on their honor not to record without permission, that people who
> release unauthorized recordings can properly be publicly censured
> (that's censured, not censored) as liars and oathbreakers who cannot
> claim to care about consent. Perhaps I'm too trusting, but I think
> if it's set up that way, and care is taken to make sure it's VERY
> clear what presenters have consented to being recorded, there won't
> be too many problems.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Boston Boy

Ultimately, the assumed record-ability of KinkForAll events is
integral to the concept. It just isn't a BarCamp-inspired event if you
lose that. Again, I reiterate that the costs of losing the
participation of those who wish not to be photographed under any
circumstances is not an acceptable mode of operation. What if the
first gay politician never came out about that fact? What if Martin
Luther King Jr. chose to remain anonymous? (Sweeping statements?
Maybe. But I'm dead serious…as was he.)

Moreover, everyone who I've ever spoken to who has been reluctant to
reveal their identity in alternative sexuality contexts has at one
point or another expressed sadness at feeling that way. Well, I'm very
sorry, but it has to start somewhere. It very simply has to. And, if
you're at a KinkForAll, then that's where it starts. That's part of
the point of the event.

At the same time, assuming that participants will respect one
another's wishes is also integral to not only the concept, but every
single goal KinkForAll promotes. However, these are distinct issues
and we need to be careful not to conflate the two inappropriately.

So in the end, I'm not convinced that it's in anyone's best interests
to change the way recording devices are handled at KinkForAll, but I
do think it may be worthwhile to make all of the good points that you
raise more findable on the wiki. A good place to summarize these
conclusions succinctly might be on TheRulesOfKinkForAll and possibly
also the WhatToExpect pages. Since I'm not immediately certain how to
go about writing those sections, I'll encourage you to edit those
pages as you see fit. It is a wiki, after all. :)

Thanks again for your input on this, Boston Boy! As I'm sure you know,
I really appreciate your perspective.

Cheers

[Emily Rutherford]

maymay, I just wanted to emphasize that I agree wholeheartedly with your last few paragraphs, and to add my own perspective on the issue.

Speaking personally (it's the only way I know how), I'm not always the most forthcoming or comfortable person with regards to my sexuality. But I'm working to change that because the first step towards affirming that nothing we are is "wrong" is to not be ashamed of it ourselves. I understand why someone might personally not want to be photographed or recorded, for sure--but that has to be their choice, not the event's collective choice. Otherwise it's still about how everything we do and are is dark and private--and I think we all know that's not true, and we all believe it's not the image we want to present. If I've interpreted it correctly, KinkForAll is about taking collective ownership: of the process of presentation, education, and learning; of the particular skills or concepts we intend to teach and learn; and indeed of sexuality itself (and our respective sexualities themselves). The way to do that, I believe, is to be out--which doesn't have to mean yelling "I'm into X!" from the rooftops, but it does mean not being ashamed.

I do want to reiterate that I respect anyone else's wish not to be photo'd/recorded, but just wanted to explain why I feel very deeply that KinkForAll shouldn't be "private" by default.

-Emily

--
http://www.pushback.org/author/erutherford/
http://echomromeo.wordpress.com

[Sara Eileen]

Hey all,
If I might, some thoughts:

Participants of Kink for All should actively control their own
personal level of public exposure: i.e. wear a differently colored
name tag, verbally express ones preference in being recorded, etc.
Kink for All should create a space in which we hope that everyone
respects the wishes of everyone else.

That said, the Kink for All event will have an element of record,
blogging, and public dialogue. This is because Kink for All is based
off of the BarCamp model. (And I do realize that most of us, myself
included, don't know that model personally.) The purpose of this
element is to encourage conversation and create lasting benefits to
every event in the form of shared knowledge.

But because everyone at the event is a participant, we all take on an
equal level of responsibility. This means it's not likely to have
participants who are there is bad faith, or people who are not
personally familiar with the issues we're discussing. It's unlikely
that people will be sneaking in to snap photographs or write
articles. We will have created a space of mutual commitment.

Finally, might I point out that while we wish to generate long-
lasting content and accessible information, there's nothing that
prevents this from being done in an anonymous or semi anonymous
manner. I might choose to record my presentation, or take photographs
of it, or create an audio recording. Someone else might chose to
create a PDF handout, or a series of slides. This knowledge can be
generated and preserved in ways that protect the preferences of
individuals.

As Emily so articulately put it, Kink for All is not private *by
default.* At the same time, we will hope that everyone is respectful,
and strive to create a space that fosters that respect.

Cheers,
Sara Eileen

[maymay]

Thanks, Emily.

Briefly, a resounding YES on the notion that KinkForAll shouldn't be private by default. To use that phrasing, it must in fact be "public by default."

-M

(Terse email sent from my iPod.)

[Clarisse Thorn]

Just to clarify my earlier suggestion of a "no-camera zone", it is not exactly that I think this should be instituted in order to make it easier to force people not to have cameras.  I am not pro baying "No cameras!" and leaping upon people (potentially hilarious though that is).

My reasoning behind a no-camera zone is simply that it will be easier for people to tell if they're in a no-camera zone, than if the people they're recording are wearing nametags.  I am not concerned about people deliberately taking pictures of other people wearing no-camera nametags; I am concerned about people accidentally taking pictures of no-camera folks.  So essentially, I think that the "zone" thing is not about making a no-camera preference easier to enforce.  It is about making a no-camera preference easier to observe.

Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with both sides.  I am just hoping that a compromise might be possible that not only encourages cameras, but makes non-out folks feel safe.  I will try to attend KinkForAll regardless, but I confess that I'll feel more nervous about it if my only way to express my no-camera preference is via nametag.

Clarisse
clarissethorn.wordpress.com

[maymay]

On Dec 25, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Clarisse Thorn wrote:

Just to clarify my earlier suggestion of a "no-camera zone", it is not exactly that I think this should be instituted in order to make it easier to force people not to have cameras.  I am not pro baying "No cameras!" and leaping upon people (potentially hilarious though that is).

My reasoning behind a no-camera zone is simply that it will be easier for people to tell if they're in a no-camera zone, than if the people they're recording are wearing nametags.  I am not concerned about people deliberately taking pictures of other people wearing no-camera nametags; I am concerned about people accidentally taking pictures of no-camera folks.  So essentially, I think that the "zone" thing is not about making a no-camera preference easier to enforce.  It is about making a no-camera preference easier to observe.

I think I see where you're coming from, Clarisse, but the idea still heavily erodes one of the primary goals of the event: sharing information openly, publicly, and sending a positive message. Among the other drawbacks already mentioned there are also additional problems with providing a "no camera zone." Some of these are:

 * More physical space is required—our most limited resource at this juncture. But how much space to provide?

 * Too much space and we risk fragmenting the event into two: a "no-camera" and "yes-camera" event space.

 * Too little space and the purpose you're suggesting of having the segregation in the first place is lost anyway.

 * Enforcement of this rule in this space would be important, despite what some people are saying that it wouldn't be high maintenance. That's not entirely true.

How many times have you seen a cell phone camera flash where cell phones are explicitly disallowed? BDSM clubs are good examples, as are ordinary museums. I've seen it hundreds of times—and these are people who supposedly know better. I can guarantee you that this will eventually happen, and when it does, who polices that? Again, the point of a no-camera space suddenly becomes moot. Someone needs to be ready to at least respond to (if not "police") a breach like that, and if the event provides a physical place for this sort of thing without also making some kind of provision for its enforcement then what message does that send? "We'll go through the trouble of getting the space for you but not to make sure the space is used as intended?" That's not the message I want to be sending.

I've already heard from two people privately that they're reconsidering (and in one case, canceling) their attendance at KinkForAll because they aren't willing to take the risk of being photographed. A no-camera zone may make those people more likely to attend the event, but at what cost? It's more likely that they'll simply remain in the no-camera zone. We fragment our efforts, they lose the benefits of the event, and it just becomes less valuable for everyone.

I strongly believe it's important *not* to fragment this way. Again, there are already many events you can go to if you're specifically interested in protecting your anonymity, and KinkForAll is not—not to mention, can not be—one of them. Our focus should remain on creating a valuable place to be, not on minimizing costs. To borrow a phrase, "You have to spend money to make money." Minimizing metaphorical costs in this respect doesn't make the event significantly more valuable for anyone.

Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with both sides.  I am just hoping that a compromise might be possible that not only encourages cameras, but makes non-out folks feel safe.  I will try to attend KinkForAll regardless, but I confess that I'll feel more nervous about it if my only way to express my no-camera preference is via nametag.

Clarisse
clarissethorn.wordpress.com

I do understand that there is a social cost for some people to attend an event where photography is "on by default," but I don't see how this is unduly pressuring. People want to come to KinkForAll because they understand the value it has. They make a personal choice to pay whatever costs are associated with attendance (time, effort, money for transportation, social costs for being seen in public with other people at a sexuality unconference, whatever), and that choice is theirs to make freely, regardless of the decision they come to.

I should also point out that the more diverse topics we get at KinkForAll, the harder it will be for anyone to pigeonhole any particular participant who doesn't present a session as "being into" any particular thing without other knowledge of that person's interests. This is a level of protection that the diversity of KinkForAll can provide which many other single-themed events like BDSM conferences or swingers parties can never hope to give you—and you're still potentially going to be photographed whether you consent to it or not at those events, too!

By way of example: I enjoy some forms of sex that I'm sure would be considered inappropriate, if not downright evil, by a large group of people. If I were concerned about this, rather than choose to present on a topic such as "how to enjoy being whipped 'til you bleed" I might instead present on a topic such as "How making your marketing copy friendlier to other-gendered people improves your sales." Both of these are probably presentations I could actually give, and my point is that everyone involved in sexuality communities has more to share than just their penchant for non-mainstream sex. So, KinkForAll is a place to share that—and have an audience diverse enough to appreciate it, unlike other sex-themed events.

Creativity and intelligence is always a better protection against being negatively "outed" than not being photographed, and that holds for every industry, not just technology.

So again, I really don't feel that we are pressuring people to be unduly suffering for their participation in KinkForAll. This is really *not* an issue of "if you want to come you must be out, or you can't join." You can out yourself as much or as little as you want. Cameras will tell your story, but you still choose what story you want to tell. And if you're not willing to tell a story, so to speak, then KinkForAll is by definition not the event for you.

[Sara Eileen]

Hi Clarisse et. all,

Perhaps once the event is a little closer, we can revisit this nametag idea. It may be that we will have the resources or an idea at that point that will allow for a more obvious "marker" of photographic preference. Perhaps a wristband, wearing a certain color, a larger nametag? 

We still have a lot of time to figure this out, and I think we can probably brainstorm some ideas of markers that people can carry on their person easily and comfortably. 

Like you, I'd also like to find a space that will make everyone feel comfortable. I think that will come, as we develop our ideas and see more details on the venue and participants.

Also, as we keep up discussions about the way the event will shape up, we can be sure to remind people to stay aware of the preferences of others. We'll definitely also remind people on the day, as well.

Cheers,

Sara Eileen

[maymay]

On Dec 25, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Sara Eileen wrote:

> Hi Clarisse et. all,
> Perhaps once the event is a little closer, we can revisit this
> nametag idea. It may be that we will have the resources or an idea
> at that point that will allow for a more obvious "marker" of
> photographic preference. Perhaps a wristband, wearing a certain
> color, a larger nametag?

Agreed; I'll keep brainstorming on the idea—I know already that
wristbands are somewhat difficult to spot, since that's used in many
other events and doesn't often work well. Perhaps something one can
wear closer to the face (like a necklace?), since we're more concerned
about faces being photographs than wrists.

But yeah…we have lots of time to figure this out.

> We still have a lot of time to figure this out, and I think we can
> probably brainstorm some ideas of markers that people can carry on
> their person easily and comfortably.
>
> Like you, I'd also like to find a space that will make everyone feel
> comfortable. I think that will come, as we develop our ideas and see
> more details on the venue and participants.
>
> Also, as we keep up discussions about the way the event will shape
> up, we can be sure to remind people to stay aware of the preferences
> of others. We'll definitely also remind people on the day, as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Sara Eileen

Again, seconded.

I also just wanted to add that, yes, a lot of these things are very
different than what we're probably used to and therefore they may even
be uncomfortable for lots of people. There is the potential for real
change inherent in this; there are *ideals* behind KinkForAll that
sadly may not be realized fully in any of our lifetimes because they
are big and difficult and painful. But at the same time, KinkForAll is
not that hard—it's just an unconference event. *Our* event. I want to
see everyone able to make the most of it.

Best,