KC in Boston in 2K+1 bid party at BucCONeer
SolarWind1
Thursday, August 6, in the Holiday Inn-Baltimore-Inner-Harbor. The party will
begin at 9:30 PM in the Harbor II (A) room on the 12th floor. All BucCONeer
members are invited.
The BidCom will be serving Wharf Rat Brewery's Irish Red Ale, soft drinks, five
different styles of Kansas City's famous barbeque sauce, sliced beef, sliced
turkey, buns, chips and other goodies, including Bitterman Confectioner's
Boston Baked Beans candy.
Bid fliers, buttons and Sheraton Boston Hotel and Hynes Convention Center
brochures will be available at the party. Supporting, Preopposing,
Pre-Industrial and Postmoderm memberships will also be available there, and at
our bid table in the Baltimore convention center.
And we promise to _ask_ you first before sticking one of our red felt "KC"
heart-shaped stickers on your name badge. We're not pushy, but we will ask.
Nicely.
Ken Keller, Chair
KC in Boston in 2K+1
rec.arts.sf.fandom
Janice Gelb
>The KC in Boston in 2K+1 committee will host its 2001 Worldcon bid party,
>Thursday, August 6, in the Holiday Inn-Baltimore-Inner-Harbor. The party will
>begin at 9:30 PM in the Harbor II (A) room on the 12th floor. All BucCONeer
>members are invited.
>
>The BidCom will be serving Wharf Rat Brewery's Irish Red Ale, soft drinks, five
>different styles of Kansas City's famous barbeque sauce, sliced beef, sliced
>turkey, buns, chips and other goodies, including Bitterman Confectioner's
>Boston Baked Beans candy.
>
You'll be serving ale? Does ale not qualify as an alcoholic beverage
according to the corkage rules?
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
janic...@eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html
"The legal system prevents us from killing each other. The etiquette
system prevents us from driving each other crazy."
-- Miss Manners
********************************************************************************
SolarWind1
>according to the corkage rules?
Yes it does. The BidCom is purchasing a half-barrel (15.5 gallons) of Wharf
Rat's ale through the hotel. The Wharf Rat is a local brewpub, close to the
Holiday Inn. We thought _some_ quality beer is better than no beer at all, even
if it's expensive. (10 oz cups will help control the depletion rate...for
awhile.) You can't have barbeque without beer. Not at a KC bid party.
BTW, our intel shows us that at least one other Worldcon bid will have
microbrew beer at its party. You heard right. Which means we won't be sucked
dry by thirsty fans in the first hour the KC party is open. Maybe we'll have
ale to serve for at least two hours! Maybe three if their quantity is larger
than ours. (Optimistic aren't I?)
--Ken Keller
rec.arts.sf.fandom
SolarWind1
Thursday, August 6, at the Holiday Inn Baltimore Inner-Harbor. The party will
begin at 9:30 PM in the Harbor II (A) room on the 12th floor. All BucCONeer
The BidCom will be serving Wharf Rat Brewery's Irish Red Ale, soft drinks, six
different styles of Kansas City's famous barbeque sauce, sliced beef, sliced
smoked turkey, buns, chips and other goodies, including Bitterman
Confectioner's Boston Baked Beans candy.
Bid fliers, buttons, t-shirts, and Sheraton Boston Hotel and Hynes Convention
Center brochures will be available at the party. $5 Supporting, $10
Preopposing, $20 Pre-Industrial and $50 Postmoderm memberships will also be
available there, and
at our bid table in the Baltimore convention center.
And we promise to *ask* you first before sticking one of our red felt "KC"
heart-shaped stickers on your name badge. We won't be rude about it, but we
will ask. Nicely.
Ken Keller, Chair
KC in Boston in 2K+1
rec.arts.sf.fandom
Bob Webber
...
: BTW, our intel shows us that at least one other Worldcon bid will have
: microbrew beer at its party. You heard right. Which means we won't be sucked
: dry by thirsty fans in the first hour the KC party is open. Maybe we'll have
: ale to serve for at least two hours! Maybe three if their quantity is larger
: than ours. (Optimistic aren't I?)
I wouldn't count on that estimate: Intels are known for their arithmetic
errors.
Bob
Beth Friedman
<199808041011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>The KC in Boston in 2K+1 committee will host its 2001 Worldcon bid party
>on Thursday, August 6, at the Holiday Inn Baltimore Inner-Harbor.
I keep meaning to ask -- what is KC in Boston in 2K+1 actually bidding for?
To support Boston for Orlando? KC in 2049? Or is this like Minneapolis in
73, where you're still having the parties even though the KC in 2K bid lost?
--
Beth Friedman How about those Cubs?
b...@wavefront.com
P Nielsen Hayden
>SolarWind1 wrote in message
><199808041011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>The KC in Boston in 2K+1 committee will host its 2001 Worldcon bid party
>>on Thursday, August 6, at the Holiday Inn Baltimore Inner-Harbor.
>
>I keep meaning to ask -- what is KC in Boston in 2K+1 actually bidding for?
>To support Boston for Orlando? KC in 2049? Or is this like Minneapolis in
>73, where you're still having the parties even though the KC in 2K bid lost?
I think the point is that they support Philadelphia.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
SolarWind1
>SolarWind1 wrote in message
><199808041011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>The KC in Boston in 2K+1 committee will host its 2001 Worldcon bid party on
Thursday, August 6, at the Holiday Inn Baltimore Inner-Harbor.
>
>I keep meaning to ask -- what is KC in Boston in 2K+1 actually bidding for? To
support Boston for Orlando? KC in 2049? Or is this like Minneapolis in '73,
where you're still having the parties even though the KC in 2K bid lost?
>
Do I have to really spell this out? KC in 2049? (Is English a second language
for you?) And for the record, KC did not * lose* it's KC in 2K bid. We
withdrew from the race months before final site-selection, due to promised
hotels that are just *now* materializing in KC. Chicago won by default. The KC
in Boston in 2K+1 is a completely different Worldcon bid, as its name implies.
See our ad in Bucky's PR #4.
--Ken Keller
rec.arts.sf.fandom
Beth Friedman
<199808050400...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>The KC in Boston in 2K+1 committee will host its 2001 Worldcon
>>>bid party on Thursday, August 6, at the Holiday Inn Baltimore
>>>Inner-Harbor.
>>
>>I keep meaning to ask -- what is KC in Boston in 2K+1 actually
>>bidding for? To support Boston for Orlando? KC in 2049? Or is this
>>like Minneapolis in '73, where you're still having the parties even
>>though the KC in 2K bid lost?
>Just what portion of that sentence isn't clear? "2K+1" or "its 2001
>bid Party"? Do I have to really spell this out?
I'm afraid the part that wasn't clear was the fact that I thought I was
familiar with all the extant non-hoax 2001 bids; to wit, Boston for Orlando
and Philadelphia. Those were the only two I'd seen discussed on SMOFS, as
far as I could recall.
So yes, it would have been reasonable for you to spell it out.
I had, in fact, ruled out the inference that appears to be true: that a
group from Kansas City were bidding to hold a Boston Worldcon in 2001 -- I
guess I just assumed that if a local group couldn't find affordable room
space, it would be difficult for an out-of-town group to do so.
>KC in 2049? (Is English a second language for you?)
No, though computer jargon and fanspeak are. This was a little joke based
on that fact that, to a computer, K=1024, and therefore 2K+1 could be
interpreted as 1024+1024+1, or 2049. Keith Stokes and I discussed this on
the Fidonet SF echo back in the days of the KC in 2K bid; it may be a stale
joke, but it's not an unreasonable one.
>And for the record, KC did not * lose* it's KC in 2K bid. We
>withdrew from the race months before final site-selection, due to promised
>hotels that are just *now* materializing in KC. Chicago won by default.
Thanks for the correction. Minneapolis didn't lose in 1973, and I know I
similarly can get a bit sensitive on that subject, even though I wasn't
around then.
>The KC in Boston in 2K+1 is a completely different Worldcon bid, as
>its name implies. See our ad in Bucky's PR #4.
Since I'm not a member of this particular Worldcon, checking the PR is a bit
tricky. Of course, since I'm not a voting member, you can be as nasty to me
as you wish.
If you'd just referred me to http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/6141/,
you would have answered my question with a minimum of effort. Instead, you
resorted to gratuitous snottiness.
I hope you had fun.
Gary Farber
Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: I had, in fact, ruled out the inference that appears to be true: that a
: group from Kansas City were bidding to hold a Boston Worldcon in 2001 -- I
: guess I just assumed that if a local group couldn't find affordable room
: space, it would be difficult for an out-of-town group to do so.
It is, in fact, a non-serious "hoax" bid. With a lot of money and
enthusiasm, and perhaps (it's only an impression of mine) a tiny bit of an
ax to grind against the Boston in Orlando bid.
[. . .]
: Since I'm not a member of this particular Worldcon, checking the PR is a bit
: tricky. Of course, since I'm not a voting member, you can be as nasty to me
: as you wish.
You can check the information in the PR on the bucky website, actually,
though this won't include the ads. Unless, and I forget, and am in a bit
of a hurry at the moment, possibly they include a PDF version.
: If you'd just referred me to http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/6141/,
: you would have answered my question with a minimum of effort. Instead, you
: resorted to gratuitous snottiness.
: I hope you had fun.
Ken *was* snotty, but do keep in mind that they have ambitious plans for
what they're doing in Baltimore, and he was undoubtedly extremely pressed
for time when he wrote his response. Not an excuse for being rude, but
worth mentioning.
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Beth Friedman
>Ken *was* snotty, but do keep in mind that they have ambitious plans for
>what they're doing in Baltimore, and he was undoubtedly extremely
>pressed for time when he wrote his response. Not an excuse for
>being rude, but worth mentioning.
Well, yes -- except that given that he managed to be rude _and_ not answer
my question, he would have come out way ahead by simply ignoring me.
Oh, well. At least it motivated me to do the bit of Web-browsing necessary
to answer my own question.
Irv Koch
<snip re what the KC in Boston in 2001 really is>
> It is, in fact, a non-serious "hoax" bid. With a lot of money and
> enthusiasm, and perhaps (it's only an impression of mine) a tiny bit of an
> ax to grind against the Boston in Orlando bid.
>
> [. . .]
Yes, but, I believe it *DID* get its paperwork in, in time to be
considered an official "write in." Did it not also actually have
letters of agreement or better with the intended facilities? I have
gotten the impression that it's at least a "hoax bid that would be quite
happy and willing to actually win." I don't know of any such that's
actually won a WorldCon but such critters have a significant record of
winning, and then having to run, DeepSouthCons.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
Yes, and it got a few votes. What surprised me was that Boston in
Orlando *never* had more votes than Philly each day. I'll detail all
the yucky parts about convention centers & separate hotels in my trip
report, probably tomorrow, but I'm not at all sure I'll try to go to
Philly.
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
*New* Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
AOL keyword: BOOKs > Books Community > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Gary Farber wrote:
> <snip re what the KC in Boston in 2001 really is>
> > It is, in fact, a non-serious "hoax" bid. With a lot of money and
> > enthusiasm, and perhaps (it's only an impression of mine) a tiny bit of an
> > ax to grind against the Boston in Orlando bid.
> >
> > [. . .]
>
> Yes, but, I believe it *DID* get its paperwork in, in time to be
> considered an official "write in." Did it not also actually have
> letters of agreement or better with the intended facilities? I have
> gotten the impression that it's at least a "hoax bid that would be quite
> happy and willing to actually win." I don't know of any such that's
> actually won a WorldCon but such critters have a significant record of
> winning, and then having to run, DeepSouthCons.
I may be mistaken, but as I understand it, they did NOT have their
paperwork in.
They may well have been pencilled in for the appropriate dates at the
Hynes and the Sheraton; that's easy to do, given that the Sheraton WAS
interested in Worldcon business and hadn't yet actually sold those
dates. However, any actual letters of aggreement "or better" would
have involved real numbers which would not have been better than MCFI
got late last year at the culmination of our negotiations with the
Sheraton.
In all their material that I saw, they talked expansively about using
the Sheraton and the Hynes, and MCFI's "lack of imagination" with
regard to the Sheraton, but no hard numbers are anywhere to be found.
On their web site, again, they state that they will be using the
Sheraton and the Hynes, but there is no mention of an agreement with
the Sheraton. The nearest thing to a discussion of it is in their
March 16 press release:
> Facilities Liason, Barbara Walley, announced that the room rates may be
> higher than any previous WorldCon, but that the Committee is working on some
> innovative ways to keep the convention as reasonable as possible.
>
> Chairman Ken Keller explained that there had not been sufficient time for
> the Committee to negotiate favorable terms and meet the deadline for
> inclusion on the ballot. Consequently the Bid will be competing as a
> "write-in' bid. Under the constitution of the World Science Fiction Society,
> to be counted as a valid bid, papers need only be filed with the Baltmore
> WorldCon by the close of voting.
There are, again, no hard numbers, although there is a concession that
the room rates would perhaps be "higher than any previous Worldcon",
and no mention of an actual signed agreement even with the Hynes;
they're quite clear that they're still negotiating with the Sheraton.
There is no later press release or update that I found, and since the
organization of their site seems straightforward, and any such
agreement would have been big news that they'd want to prominently
display, I am tentatively concluding that it's not there and they
never did achieve such an agreement. And therefore I conclude that
this was a genunine hoax bid, all in good fun despite some occasional
infelicities of manner, and that they had no intention of _really_
getting stuck with the job of trying to run a Worldcon in Boston.:)
Lis Carey
Morris M. Keesan
<snip>
> I'll detail all
>the yucky parts about convention centers & separate hotels in my trip
>report, probably tomorrow, but I'm not at all sure I'll try to go to
>Philly.
The Pennsylvania Convention Center and the Philadelphia Marriott Hotel are
*connected*. You can get from one to the other without going outside. And
Millenium Philcon are planning all of their functions for the convention center
and the Marriott, with the Marriott also being the main party hotel. I agree
that the physical layout of Bucconeer was horrid (con suite, main party hotel,
and evening program all in hotels spread out and away from the convention
center), but if Millenium Philcon is too much of "convention center and separate
hotel" for you, you're not likely to go to another Worldcon for many years,
unless and until someone finds or builds a hotel with 2000 to 3000 sleeping
rooms and correspondingly large amounts of function space.
--Morris (got back from Bucconeer 2 hours ago, and just starting to catch up
with Usenet and email) Keesan
--
Morris M. Keesan -- kee...@world.std.com
--
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:49:01 GMT, mjla...@erols.com (Marilee J. Layman) wrote:
> <snip>
> > I'll detail all
> >the yucky parts about convention centers & separate hotels in my trip
> >report, probably tomorrow, but I'm not at all sure I'll try to go to
> >Philly.
>
> The Pennsylvania Convention Center and the Philadelphia Marriott Hotel are
> *connected*. You can get from one to the other without going outside. And
> Millenium Philcon are planning all of their functions for the convention center
> and the Marriott, with the Marriott also being the main party hotel. I agree
> that the physical layout of Bucconeer was horrid (con suite, main party hotel,
> and evening program all in hotels spread out and away from the convention
> center), but if Millenium Philcon is too much of "convention center and separate
> hotel" for you, you're not likely to go to another Worldcon for many years,
> unless and until someone finds or builds a hotel with 2000 to 3000 sleeping
> rooms and correspondingly large amounts of function space.
Note, though, that unless one gets a room IN the Marriott, one will
still be negotiating city streets in Philly. If one winds up with a
room in a different hotel, the condition of the streets and sidewalks,
the number and quality of the curb cuts, and the weather in
Philadelphia during Labor Day weekend will all be relevant
considerations. But having even one major hotel directly connected to
the convention center IS a major gain over Baltimore, and the most
that most Worldcon-capable facilities can offer these days, more's the
pity.
Lis Carey
Jonathan J. Baker
>center), but if Millenium Philcon is too much of "convention center and separate
>hotel" for you, you're not likely to go to another Worldcon for many years,
>unless and until someone finds or builds a hotel with 2000 to 3000 sleeping
>rooms and correspondingly large amounts of function space.
Uh, Chicon V and VI? The Hyatt has 2019 rooms, 60,000 ft**2 of ballrooms,
and 140,000 ft**2 of exhibit space, according to the Chicon VI website.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
John Lorentz
> familiar with all the extant non-hoax 2001 bids; to wit, Boston for
Orlando
> and Philadelphia. Those were the only two I'd seen discussed on SMOFS,
as
> far as I could recall.
>
announced, I'd say that "KC in Boston in 2K+1" was mostly intended to
attack the Boston/Orlando bid from a second front, to ensure that Philly
won.
--John
Joel Rosenberg
I take it that Philly did win?
Danny Lieberman
is "The Millennium Philcon".
The ads and support from Kansas City was a surprise. We didn't know about
their campaign until the ads appeared in the last Bucky PR. Obviously we
welcomed their help and support, but they only received 17 1st place votes.
In <6qpv4m$nms$2...@blackice.winternet.com> jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg) writes:
>I take it that Philly did win?
--
Danny Lieberman
d...@panix.com
Gary Farber
: Joel, yes. The Worldcon will be in Philadelphia in 2001. The convention
: is "The Millennium Philcon".
: The ads and support from Kansas City was a surprise. We didn't know about
: their campaign until the ads appeared in the last Bucky PR. Obviously we
: welcomed their help and support, but they only received 17 1st place votes.
The results, as printed in the Saturday morning issue number nine of THE
FANNISH ARMADA are:
Mail Wed Thurs Fri Total
Magicon 2 169 149 235 387 940
TMP (Philly) 181 184 237 543 1,145
KC in Boston 2 5 4 6 17
Other/N/NP 15 4 12 35 66
Total VB 367 342 488 971 2,168
(Magicon 2 was Boston in Orlando; TMP is "The Millennium Philcon";
Other/N/NP was "Others/None/No Pref.")
Gary Farber
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, [CENSORED] wrote:
> Well, that's kind of too bad. I was looking forward to Boston in Orlando,
> and would have thought it would be a shoo-in.
I preferred Boslando for a number of reasons myself -- largely that I have
more reason to trust that they know what they're doing, and because they
would have been a non-convention-center Worldcon.
But Philly had a number of bidding advantages: no matter how many people
liked the last three Noreascons, some people didn't like them. Philly
didn't have this problem, not having had a Worldcon since '53, and thus
were an empty vessel into which fans could pour their hopes and dreams,
so to speak.
There was also a feeling among many -- not me, but many -- that It Was
Philly's Turn, not having had one since '53. And they threw good parties.
And Boston's shifting to Orlando lost yet more people, for a couple of
different reasons, in that it was further away from the voting site, and
that it made them look "desperate" in some people's eyes, and some voters
thought that It Wasn't Right to move locations, and yet others had doubts
about long-distance-run cons. I think all those reasons are bad reasons,
but they were out there.
And given that the final vote was in Baltimore, a number of people voted
for the closer bid site. (The elimination of the rotation system passed
the Business Meeting, replaced by a 500-mile exclusion zone, by the way,
but still has to be ratified, or not, next year; I'm uneasy about this,
myself.)
So I wasn't, in the end, surprised by Philly beating Boslando by 1145 to
940 (and 17 votes for KC in Boston, and 66 Other/No Preference).
I was disappointed, though, and I'm both sympathetic to my friends on the
Magicon 2 committee-to-be, and relieved that they may, just maybe, have
more time for other fannish projects.
Zev Sero
wrote:
>But Philly had a number of bidding advantages: no matter how many people
>liked the last three Noreascons, some people didn't like them. Philly
>didn't have this problem, not having had a Worldcon since '53, and thus
>were an empty vessel into which fans could pour their hopes and dreams,
>so to speak.
>
>There was also a feeling among many -- not me, but many -- that It Was
>Philly's Turn, not having had one since '53. And they threw good parties.
>And Boston's shifting to Orlando lost yet more people, for a couple of
>different reasons, in that it was further away from the voting site, and
>that it made them look "desperate" in some people's eyes, and some voters
>thought that It Wasn't Right to move locations, and yet others had doubts
>about long-distance-run cons. I think all those reasons are bad reasons,
>but they were out there.
>
>And given that the final vote was in Baltimore, a number of people voted
>for the closer bid site.
Er, you probably didn't mean it this way, but it sounds like you're
dismissing the possibility that a lot of people actually thought that
the Millenium Philcon committee would put on a good con.
And that a lot of people would rather go to Philadelphia than to
Orlando, for reasons other than distance. I heard at least some
talk (I don't know how well-informed) that Disney doesn't allow
any alcohol on its property for any reason.
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
Deb Geisler
> And that a lot of people would rather go to Philadelphia than to
> Orlando, for reasons other than distance. I heard at least some
> talk (I don't know how well-informed) that Disney doesn't allow
> any alcohol on its property for any reason.
For what it's worth, both this rumor (incorrect) and a rumor
that there could be no costumes of any sort in the proposed
hotels for the Orlando site (also incorrect) were
circulating around Baltimore. I've no idea how they got
started. Not only does Disney permit alcohol on its
property (and even have its own *brew pub* on the
Boardwalk), but the Orlando bid had secured a full corkage
waiver, including alcohol, for parties.
Deb Geisler
--
Every normal man must be tempted, at times,
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
and begin slitting throats.
-- H. L. Mencken
rwh...@nr.infi.net
>to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
>and begin slitting throats.
> -- H. L. Mencken
A problem arises however, when junior-high-school age "normal men"
actually DO this, with automatic weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"I would predict that there are far greater mistakes waiting
to be made by someone with your obvious talent for it."
Orac to Vila. [City at the Edge of the World.]
-----------------------------------------------
R.W. Hutchinson. | rwh...@nr.infi.net
Zev Sero
>Zev Sero wrote:
>> And that a lot of people would rather go to Philadelphia than to
>> Orlando, for reasons other than distance. I heard at least some
>> talk (I don't know how well-informed) that Disney doesn't allow
>> any alcohol on its property for any reason.
>For what it's worth, both this rumor (incorrect) and a rumor
>that there could be no costumes of any sort in the proposed
>hotels for the Orlando site (also incorrect) were
>circulating around Baltimore. I've no idea how they got
>started. Not only does Disney permit alcohol on its
>property (and even have its own *brew pub* on the
>Boardwalk), but the Orlando bid had secured a full corkage
>waiver, including alcohol, for parties.
I suspected as much; surely no bid committee as experienced as MCFI
would have mised something as obvious as that. But it was circulating
and may have influenced some people. The major factors besides Philly's
win, though, would include the fact that lots of people just thought
that the committee would put on a good con.
Elspeth Kovar Burgess
> I suspected as much; surely no bid committee as experienced as MCFI
> would have mised something as obvious as that. But it was circulating
> and may have influenced some people. The major factors besides Philly's
> win, though, would include the fact that lots of people just thought
> that the committee would put on a good con.
I suspect that the fact that Orlando in August/September is even worse
than Baltimore in August may also have been a factor, given how many
folks complained about the heat.
Elspeth
Danny Lieberman
>I suspect that the fact that Orlando in August/September is even worse
>than Baltimore in August may also have been a factor, given how many
>folks complained about the heat.
It could be. Baltimore was sweltering in August.
I'm sure many voters remember how hot/humid Orlando was six years ago.
And yet...
I still think we sold the voters on the merits of the city of Philadelphia
and convinced them that we want to throw a good Worldcon. That's what the
bid parties are for.
Fact is that both groups worked extremely hard on this election for years.
Was there ever a larger voter turnout for a site selection? (I kind of
doubt it.)
What we know is there was an enormous increase in site voting Friday,
with lines much of the time (would not have been so bad but we only
had one credit card swipe box).
--
Danny Lieberman
d...@panix.com
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: Er, you probably didn't mean it this way, but it sounds like you're
: dismissing the possibility that a lot of people actually thought that
: the Millenium Philcon committee would put on a good con.
: And that a lot of people would rather go to Philadelphia than to
: Orlando, for reasons other than distance.
No, I didn't mean it that way, and yes, these are true and excellent
points. And I didn't mention that a fair number of people didn't want to
go to Orlando for a number of different reasons, including not wanting to
have to drive to off-site food. And, yes, Philadelphia does have some
attractions as a city, particularly in comparison to Orlando. :-)
: I heard at least some
: talk (I don't know how well-informed) that Disney doesn't allow
: any alcohol on its property for any reason.
Er, there was a quite ugly (and I'd like to hope false) rumor that some
Philly supporters were spreading this false (as applied to Worldcon) rumor
in an attempt to damage the Magicon bid. Obviously this slander *was* out
there, and I expect it *did* hurt the Magicon bid at least a bit.
The truth is, of course, is that there's no problem whatever with having
alcohol in the convention hotels/site that Magicon bid with.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: For what it's worth, both this rumor (incorrect) and a rumor
: that there could be no costumes of any sort in the proposed
: hotels for the Orlando site (also incorrect) were
: circulating around Baltimore. I've no idea how they got
: started. Not only does Disney permit alcohol on its
: property (and even have its own *brew pub* on the
: Boardwalk), but the Orlando bid had secured a full corkage
: waiver, including alcohol, for parties.
In fact, authoritative rumor had it that Magicon had a full contract
signed by the hotels, ready to be signed by the bid as soon as the vote
were won.
Deb Geisler
>
> In fact, authoritative rumor had it that Magicon had a full contract
> signed by the hotels, ready to be signed by the bid as soon as the > vote were won.
Yep. In the front of the Orlando parties, there was a
"Shrine to Ye Holy Blueprints," which included the first
page and the signature page from the contract, signed both
by the hotels & the bid. The contract would only have been
executed in the event that Orlando had won.
Deb Geisler
--
Out the 10Base-T, through the router, down the T1, over the
leased line, off the bridge, past the firewall...nothing but
Net.
Deb Geisler
>
> >Every normal man must be tempted, at times,
> >to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
> >and begin slitting throats.
> > -- H. L. Mencken
>
> A problem arises however, when junior-high-school age "normal men"
> actually DO this, with automatic weapons.
Wow. That's the first time someone's responded to my
*.sig*. How does one "slit throats" with an automatic
weapon? Would that be, like, an electric carving knife?
*blonde hair flip thing* I'm confused.
Deb
Kimiye
>Zev Sero wrote:
>
>> And that a lot of people would rather go to Philadelphia than to
>> talk (I don't know how well-informed) that Disney doesn't allow
>> any alcohol on its property for any reason.
>
>that there could be no costumes of any sort in the proposed
>hotels for the Orlando site (also incorrect) were
>circulating around Baltimore. I've no idea how they got
>started. Not only does Disney permit alcohol on its
>property (and even have its own *brew pub* on the
>Boardwalk), but the Orlando bid had secured a full corkage
>waiver, including alcohol, for parties.
As someone who's gotten totally and pleasantly toasted at the Rose and
Crown Pub in EPCOT, I can assure you that Disneyworld is not dry. I've
never taken the "beer tour" of the EPCOT countries, but supposedly so
many brews are available around the lake that the most stalwart fan might
not be capable of chugging their way around the circuit.
As far as I know, Magic Kingdom is the only park that does not serve liquor
(but you may be able to buy wine with your meal at King Stefan's Castle
even there). What a bad rumor!
As sad as I am that we won't have another WorldCon in Orlando soon,
I wish I could remember if I presupported Philly... Our son Benjamin will
be excited-- maybe I can convince him to dress up as a mini-Franklin.
Kimiye
ki...@gate.net
http://www.gate.net/~kimi (NX: Where are they now?)
Aahz Maruch
You're a blonde? That's funny, you don't sound like one.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
What if there were no rhetorical questions?
Deb Geisler
>
> In article <35D19819...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Deb Geisler <dgei...@acad.suffolk.edu> wrote:
> >
> >*blonde hair flip thing* I'm confused.
>
> You're a blonde? That's funny, you don't sound like one.
I converted. *snicker*
Sharon L Sbarsky
>
>Was there ever a larger voter turnout for a site selection? (I kind of
>doubt it.)
>
Winnipeg/Louisville selection in 1991 had about the same total number of
voters that we did (I'll have to check the records for the exact numbers)
but Winnipeg won by a much closer margin: 50+ votes.
Sharon
The Person Your Mother Warned You About
ebur...@radix.net was heard to remark:
>I suspect that the fact that Orlando in August/September is even worse
>than Baltimore in August may also have been a factor, given how many
>folks complained about the heat.
I can personally guarantee that it figured heavily in *my* Worldcon
vote. (And lest some of you cry, "But the con is *indoors*!" I remind you
that some of us want to occasionally *leave* the con and see the area
we're in, even if it's only a walk to a restaurant for lunch.
Besides, I hate Florida <g,d&r>
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK "Go not to the programmers for counsel,
mailto:phyd...@liii.com for they will say both 1 and 0"
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux -- Elvish saying
Danny Lieberman
Thanks, Sharon. My memories of the site selection at Magicon (1) are
extremely fuzzy. (Must be the heat from the past week).
Thanks again to you and your committee for working so hard for so long.
--
Danny Lieberman
d...@panix.com
Julie Holm
> While muttering something about 'Worldcon Bid Results (was Re: KC in Boston in 2K+1 bid party)'
> ebur...@radix.net was heard to remark:
>>I suspect that the fact that Orlando in August/September is even worse
>>than Baltimore in August may also have been a factor, given how many
>>folks complained about the heat.
> I can personally guarantee that it figured heavily in *my* Worldcon
> vote. (And lest some of you cry, "But the con is *indoors*!" I remind you
> that some of us want to occasionally *leave* the con and see the area
> we're in, even if it's only a walk to a restaurant for lunch.
> Besides, I hate Florida <g,d&r>
Does this bode ill for the Cancun Bid? And well for Toronto. Unless
Cancun pulls a switch like Bucconeer did and gets new dates.
Attention Cancun bid. Columbus Day might be a good choice.
Julie
;-)
Elisabeth Carey
<snip>
> And that a lot of people would rather go to Philadelphia than to
> Orlando, for reasons other than distance. I heard at least some
> talk (I don't know how well-informed) that Disney doesn't allow
> any alcohol on its property for any reason.
Disney sells alcohol on its property. The non-Disney properties at the
site also sell alcohol.
And Magicon 2 had a signed corkage waiver which included alcohol.
You may judge from this just how well-informed those rumors were--but
the fact that those rumors were going around undoubtedly did hurt us
somewhat.
Lis Carey
Mary Kay Kare
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> In all their material that I saw, they talked expansively about using
> the Sheraton and the Hynes, and MCFI's "lack of imagination" with
> regard to the Sheraton, but no hard numbers are anywhere to be found.
> On their web site, again, they state that they will be using the
> Sheraton and the Hynes, but there is no mention of an agreement with
> the Sheraton. The nearest thing to a discussion of it is in their
> March 16 press release:
The numbers some of the KC people told me were $167/night for the hotel.
I couldn't get out of them exactly what they had said and whom they'd
asked because neither Ken nor Keith were there. Their general feeling,
however, was that Boston should be stopped from holding a con somewhere
other than Boston because it would be a bad thing for fandom to set this
precedent.
MK
--
Mary Kay Kare
Abandon hope all ye who
Press Enter Here.
Ed Dravecky III
<SNIP> (The elimination of the rotation system passed the Business
> Meeting, replaced by a 500-mile exclusion zone, by the way, but
> still has to be ratified, or not, next year; I'm uneasy about
> this, myself.)
(pfffft!) They passed _what_ at the business meeting?
A quick look at the ol' map on the wall tells me that you could
have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
Coast. True, the voters tend to be "smart" enough to add some
variety to their locations but the Eastern Time Zone still holds
almost half of the US population and people *do* like to vote for
a convention they see as nearby.
I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
parts of the country. :-<
--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2727/
Dan Goodman
Only if 1) the Eastern Time Zone bidders don't make too many mistakes; 2)
people who live nearer than they like to a particular city don't vote
against it; 3) there isn't any effective effort to get fans in the Midwest
or Texas or wherever to join the Worldcon at which a bid is to be voted
on.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Virginia Ferguson
>Does this bode ill for the Cancun Bid? And well for Toronto. Unless
>Cancun pulls a switch like Bucconeer did and gets new dates.
>Attention Cancun bid. Columbus Day might be a good choice.
>Julie
>;-)
Columbus Day is right in the middle of hurricane season.
Virginia
David G. Bell
dshe...@netcom.com "Ed Dravecky III" writes:
> Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
> <SNIP> (The elimination of the rotation system passed the Business
> > Meeting, replaced by a 500-mile exclusion zone, by the way, but
> > still has to be ratified, or not, next year; I'm uneasy about
> > this, myself.)
>
> (pfffft!) They passed _what_ at the business meeting?
>
> A quick look at the ol' map on the wall tells me that you could
> have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
> then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
> Coast. True, the voters tend to be "smart" enough to add some
> variety to their locations but the Eastern Time Zone still holds
> almost half of the US population and people *do* like to vote for
> a convention they see as nearby.
>
> I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
> parts of the country. :-<
It's make it possible (in terms of the rules if not fannish opinion) for
a Brighton worldcon to vote on a bid from Glasgow.
NO! Tim!
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
David G. Bell
It seems to work in Britain, but the Eastercons usually involve most of
the active con-runners anyway, and the distances are much smaller.
Boston to Orlando is a long way. And if there is an Eastercon in
Glasgow, the Londoners are probably working on the next committee.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <35CF3684...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > In all their material that I saw, they talked expansively about using
> > the Sheraton and the Hynes, and MCFI's "lack of imagination" with
> > regard to the Sheraton, but no hard numbers are anywhere to be found.
> > On their web site, again, they state that they will be using the
> > Sheraton and the Hynes, but there is no mention of an agreement with
> > the Sheraton. The nearest thing to a discussion of it is in their
> > March 16 press release:
>
> The numbers some of the KC people told me were $167/night for the hotel.
> I couldn't get out of them exactly what they had said and whom they'd
> asked because neither Ken nor Keith were there.
$167/night for single/double--in 1998 dollars--is exactly what the
Sheraton told us. And with the inflator, that would have been an
average room rate of just over $200/night in 2001. That number is why
we concluded that a Worldcon in Boston in 2001 wasn't possible.
<snip>
Lis Carey
Perrianne Lurie
>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
><SNIP> (The elimination of the rotation system passed the Business
>> Meeting, replaced by a 500-mile exclusion zone, by the way, but
>> still has to be ratified, or not, next year; I'm uneasy about
>> this, myself.)
>(pfffft!) They passed _what_ at the business meeting?
>A quick look at the ol' map on the wall tells me that you could
>have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
>then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
>Coast. True, the voters tend to be "smart" enough to add some
>variety to their locations but the Eastern Time Zone still holds
>almost half of the US population and people *do* like to vote for
>a convention they see as nearby.
>I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
>parts of the country. :-<
If you don't like this, I recommend that you come to Aussiecon next
year and vote against it. If it is not ratified, it dies.
If we had more participation in the WSFS business meetings, these
things wouldn't come as such a surprise.
Perrianne Lurie
BucCONeer, the 56-th World Science Fiction Convention
August 5-9, 1998, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
P.O. Box 314, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
bucc...@bucconeer.worldcon.org
http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org
Personal E-mail: bucc...@pipeline.com
Mike Scott
Bell") wrote:
>It's make it possible (in terms of the rules if not fannish opinion) for
>a Brighton worldcon to vote on a bid from Glasgow.
No it doesn't. This is one of the city pairs that were specifically
discussed. Brighton is less than 500 miles from Glasgow (as is the
Hague), so this would not be allowed.
--
Mike Scott
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk
http://www.moose.demon.co.uk
P Nielsen Hayden
>The numbers some of the KC people told me were $167/night for the hotel.
>I couldn't get out of them exactly what they had said and whom they'd
>asked because neither Ken nor Keith were there. Their general feeling,
>however, was that Boston should be stopped from holding a con somewhere
>other than Boston because it would be a bad thing for fandom to set this
>precedent.
Leaving aside the question of whether it would be a "precedent" (7 for '77
didn't hold their worldcon in "7-land"), I think it would be a fine
precedent. There are arguably more capable Worldcon committees than there
are good sites. Why continually fuck up the Worldcon with lousy sites like
Baltimore's? Why not simply have good committees bid for good sites?
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Aahz Maruch
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Leaving aside the question of whether it would be a "precedent" (7 for
>'77 didn't hold their worldcon in "7-land"), I think it would be a fine
>precedent. There are arguably more capable Worldcon committees than
>there are good sites. Why continually fuck up the Worldcon with lousy
>sites like Baltimore's? Why not simply have good committees bid for
>good sites?
Hell, I'll even stick my oar in and suggest that it might be a good idea
to completely separate bidding and con-running. When I hear Kevin
Standlee talking about the bidding process, I think, "Why isn't someone
else doing the bidding?"
Six years out of a person's life makes little sense to me, particularly
when there's a serious chance that six-year tenure might be chopped
short at the the three-year mark.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
B. Vermo
Deb Geisler <pun...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|
|Wow. That's the first time someone's responded to my
|*.sig*. How does one "slit throats" with an automatic
|weapon? Would that be, like, an electric carving knife?
Well - when I took my SMG markmanship badge, I cut a cardboard
figure in two. I guess a full 32-round magazine of 9mm rounds would
do quite nicely to slit a throat to the point of decapitation.
This is, of course, not the recommended way to use an SMG.
Gary Farber
: In article <35CF3684...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
: <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
:>
:> In all their material that I saw, they talked expansively about using
:> the Sheraton and the Hynes, and MCFI's "lack of imagination" with
:> regard to the Sheraton, but no hard numbers are anywhere to be found.
:> On their web site, again, they state that they will be using the
:> Sheraton and the Hynes, but there is no mention of an agreement with
:> the Sheraton. The nearest thing to a discussion of it is in their
:> March 16 press release:
: The numbers some of the KC people told me were $167/night for the hotel.
: I couldn't get out of them exactly what they had said and whom they'd
: asked because neither Ken nor Keith were there. Their general feeling,
: however, was that Boston should be stopped from holding a con somewhere
: other than Boston because it would be a bad thing for fandom to set this
: precedent.
This strikes me as a ridiculous idea, as portrayed here. If there were a
credible local fandom in a local, and others wanted to run a Worldcon bid
against the locals wishes, I would agree that that would be a negative
factor, likely sufficient for me to oppose such a bid. But absent that,
contemporary Worldcon bids are *already* national and international in
scope, so the "localness" factor generally doesn't matter much.
Signed, a member of the SunCon Committee.
Gary Farber
: Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
: <SNIP> (The elimination of the rotation system passed the Business
:> Meeting, replaced by a 500-mile exclusion zone, by the way, but
:> still has to be ratified, or not, next year; I'm uneasy about
:> this, myself.)
: (pfffft!) They passed _what_ at the business meeting?
: A quick look at the ol' map on the wall tells me that you could
: have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
: then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
: Coast. True, the voters tend to be "smart" enough to add some
: variety to their locations but the Eastern Time Zone still holds
: almost half of the US population and people *do* like to vote for
: a convention they see as nearby.
: I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
: parts of the country. :-<
This proposal, and off-shoots from it (none of which were put forth as
formal motions), was heavily discussed on the "smofs" mailing list in
recent weeks, but come to think of it, was never broached here. Oh, well.
I favored a larger exclusion zone, of 700 miles, myself, since I want to
see the absolutely minimal taint of "oh, we can drive to it" bias. But I
was clearly in a tiny minority in seeing that distance as it, and the
overwhelming majority thought 500 miles sufficient.
I'm also concerned that this change takes away the only advantage that non
North American bids had: that with the rotation system, NA bids were
restricted to one out of three years, and non-NA bids were free to cherry
pick any year. Given that non-NA bids still suffer under major
disadvantages of having vastly greater expense in bidding, and in being so
far from the mass of voters, and thus have vastly greater problems and
expense in reaching them, getting to know them, and getting familiar with
them in both directions, I'm concerned that this change does them harm and
has no corresponding compensation.
(I gather that a last-minute addition to the proposal, calling for one out
of every eight Worldcons to be in a different country, was voted down, but
I missed the Business Meeting, and may have a garbled notion, at this
time, of that addition: may we hear from someone who was there?)
Still, there seemed no overwhelming protest from non-NA fans.
Lastly, I'm simply concerned about the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Having said all this, I don't (at this time) oppose the change. There are
good arguments for it -- the main idea being to allow for a greater choice
of bids, given that NA bids won't have to be as restricted as they
currently are if their facilities have their dates already taken. I'm
more or less neutral and cautious on this issue at this time.
Michael T Pins
>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
><SNIP> (The elimination of the rotation system passed the Business
>> Meeting, replaced by a 500-mile exclusion zone, by the way, but
>> still has to be ratified, or not, next year; I'm uneasy about
>> this, myself.)
>(pfffft!) They passed _what_ at the business meeting?
>A quick look at the ol' map on the wall tells me that you could
>have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
>then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
>Coast. True, the voters tend to be "smart" enough to add some
>variety to their locations but the Eastern Time Zone still holds
>almost half of the US population and people *do* like to vote for
>a convention they see as nearby.
{sigh}
Here we go again.
When was the last time a Worldcon was held in Richmond?
Atlanta (other than Dragon*Con) claims they won't be bidding any time in
the forseeable future. If there is any interest in Miami for bidding,
it's news to me. Which leaves Boston and Orlando, and Orlando doesn't seem
interested in bidding themselves just now.
Even if all four of the above wanted to host a Worldcon, none of them is
stupid enough to want to do it every four years.
The three "gorilla sites" (Boston/Chicago/LA) hosted Worldcons 9/9/12 years
apart. The only one I know of to try to bid earlier than that (LA) was
soundly defeated. The shortest timespan between Worldcons in over three
decades is 8 years, for Brighton.
Yes, people do like to vote for a convention nearby, hence the extending of
the exclusion zone to 500 miles.
>I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
>parts of the country. :-<
I still wonder about the myth of the "wimpy zone". Looking at 1980-2001,
the Worldcon has been held in: Eastern=6, Central=6, Western=4, non-NA=5.
If anyone needs to be concerned, it's the Western zone, but I still don't
believe it.
--
************************************************************************
* Michael T Pins | mtp...@visi.com *
* keeper of the nn sources | mtp...@isca.uiowa.edu *
* ftp.isca.uiowa.edu | #include <std.disclaimer> *
Mike Scott
wrote:
>(I gather that a last-minute addition to the proposal, calling for one out
>of every eight Worldcons to be in a different country, was voted down, but
>I missed the Business Meeting, and may have a garbled notion, at this
>time, of that addition: may we hear from someone who was there?)
A number of amendments were proposed, and mostly voted down, at the
Business Meeting. Disclaimer: While I was there for both sessions at
which this motion was discussed, I am not an official representative of
the Business Meeting or of WSFS, and my memory is as fallible as anyone
else's (except Leo Doroschenko):
Amendments to the exclusion zone were proposed to increase it to 600
miles, to reduce it to 400 miles, to express it in kilometres instead of
miles and to change it to 2^12 furlongs (thanks to Seth Breidbart for
that one). I believe that it was agreed that the zone would be expressed
in both miles and km (luckily 500 miles is very close to 800 km), but
all the rest failed.
An amendment whose exact wording I forget but whose effect would be that
no bid for could be on the ballot if its success would lead to more than
seven successive Worldcons on the same continent was also defeated.
It was also proposed that the Worldcon should not be in the same city
more than once in a ten year period, or more than twice in a twelve year
period. Both of these were defeated.
It should be noted that most (all?) of these proposed amendments cannot
be passed while ratifying the motion at Aussiecon 3, as any amendment to
a motion being ratified must lead it to have a lesser effect. Exactly
what *is* a lesser effect may cause a lot of discussion next year, but I
don't think any of these amendments would strictly lessen the effect of
the original motion. Of course, the original motion could be killed and
one exactly the same but including one of these amendments could be
passed, but then it would have to be ratified in Chicago in 2000.
Kim Campbell
>
> It's make it possible (in terms of the rules if not fannish opinion) for
> a Brighton worldcon to vote on a bid from Glasgow.
>
>
In practical terms, I would support a move to define the "British Isles"
as one Metropolitan Unit, because if it is obvious to you, it may be
obvious to others at a later date. And I keep hearing about the plans for
a whiz-bang conference site up in Aberdeen....
Kim :-)
--
KIM Campbell
Convener: UK in '05
A bid for the World Science Fiction Convention
Morris M. Keesan
Mike Scott <mi...@moose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Aug 98 07:14:52 GMT, db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G.
>Bell") wrote:
>
>>It's make it possible (in terms of the rules if not fannish opinion) for
>>a Brighton worldcon to vote on a bid from Glasgow.
>
>discussed. Brighton is less than 500 miles from Glasgow (as is the
>Hague), so this would not be allowed.
On the other hand, Perth, Melbourne, and Brisbane are all more than
500 miles each from the others, and Adelaide is more than 500 miles
from both Sydney and Brisbane (I can't tell, from the small map in
my World Almanac, whether Sydney is inside the exclusion zone relative
to Brisbane and Melbourne). I think it was either Stephen Boucher or
Perry Middlemiss who was speculating, during one of my shifts working at
the Aussiecon 3 table, how long it would take for the rules to get
changed if Australian fandom attempted to take advantage of this for
a few consecutive years.
--
Morris M. Keesan -- kee...@world.std.com
Ed Dravecky III
Actually, this is a new topic for RASFF. (No, really.)
> When was the last time a Worldcon was held in Richmond?
> Atlanta (other than Dragon*Con) claims they won't be bidding any time in
> the forseeable future. If there is any interest in Miami for bidding,
> it's news to me. Which leaves Boston and Orlando, and Orlando doesn't seem
> interested in bidding themselves just now.
Okay, I'll confess that I just flipped open the Atlas and picked
four big cities each just over 500 miles apart in a chain down the
East Coast. There were at least a dozen cities I could have
grabbed but I like the symmetry of the Boston-to-Orlando chain.
> Even if all four of the above wanted to host a Worldcon, none of
> them is stupid enough to want to do it every four years. The
> three "gorilla sites" (Boston/Chicago/LA) hosted Worldcons 9/9/12
> years apart. The only one I know of to try to bid earlier than
> that (LA) was soundly defeated. The shortest timespan between
> Worldcons in over three decades is 8 years, for Brighton. Yes,
> people do like to vote for a convention nearby, hence the
> extending of the exclusion zone to 500 miles.
You could easily bounce the convention up and down the East
Coast a dozen times or more before repeating a city. Again, let
me state that I'm *sure* that the members are *smart* enough to
avoid doing this but I've been wrong about things in the past.
> I still wonder about the myth of the "wimpy zone". Looking at
> 1980-2001, the Worldcon has been held in: Eastern=6, Central=6,
> Western=4, non-NA=5. If anyone needs to be concerned, it's the
> Western zone, but I still don't believe it.
That 500 mile zone is too darned small. (Of course, I live in
Texas where we'll drive 50 miles for really good barbecue and
250 miles to Houston is "down the road a piece"...)
Bernard Peek
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> writes
>It seems to work in Britain, but the Eastercons usually involve most of
>the active con-runners anyway, and the distances are much smaller.
The Eastercons don't involve most of the active con-runners, until the
last minute.
>
>Boston to Orlando is a long way. And if there is an Eastercon in
>Glasgow, the Londoners are probably working on the next committee.
Some of them would be working on the Glasgow con too. There are few
enough good venues here that the committee will probably search the
whole country anyway. A group from London might well select a hotel in
Glasgow, or even Jersey.
There's no requirement for the committee to be based near the site. What
will help a lot is if the committee has the right site-liaison person
living near the site. The rest of the committee could live almost
anywhere, they only need to visit the site a few times over the three
years or so that the bid operates.
A geographically defined group in one part of the country running a con
elsewhere would not set a precedent, it's not a new idea.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Evelyn C. Leeper
Morris M. Keesan <kee...@world.std.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, Perth, Melbourne, and Brisbane are all more than
> 500 miles each from the others, and Adelaide is more than 500 miles
> from both Sydney and Brisbane (I can't tell, from the small map in
> my World Almanac, whether Sydney is inside the exclusion zone relative
> to Brisbane and Melbourne). I think it was either Stephen Boucher or
> Perry Middlemiss who was speculating, during one of my shifts working at
> the Aussiecon 3 table, how long it would take for the rules to get
> changed if Australian fandom attempted to take advantage of this for
> a few consecutive years.
More people vote in site selection than at the business meeting anyway.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
All work and no play makes Jack a valued employee.
David G. Bell
kcam...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Kim Campbell" writes:
> In article <902992...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>, db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk
> ("David G. Bell") wrote:
> >
> > It's make it possible (in terms of the rules if not fannish opinion) for
> > a Brighton worldcon to vote on a bid from Glasgow.
> >
> > NO! Tim!
> >
> In practical terms, I would support a move to define the "British Isles"
> as one Metropolitan Unit, because if it is obvious to you, it may be
> obvious to others at a later date. And I keep hearing about the plans for
> a whiz-bang conference site up in Aberdeen....
It turns out that I over-estimated the distance by about 25 miles.
To be honest, I've never heard any claims that the current system is
broken, except for a suspicion about the interlocking of the 3-year
bidding and the 3-year rotation in North America.
If the rule were amended to restrict the 500-mile rule to the area
covered by the current rota system, could it still be ratified next
year?
Arthur Hlavaty
: I'm also concerned that this change takes away the only advantage that non
: North American bids had: that with the rotation system, NA bids were
: restricted to one out of three years, and non-NA bids were free to cherry
: pick any year. Given that non-NA bids still suffer under major
: disadvantages of having vastly greater expense in bidding, and in being so
: far from the mass of voters, and thus have vastly greater problems and
: expense in reaching them, getting to know them, and getting familiar with
: them in both directions, I'm concerned that this change does them harm and
: has no corresponding compensation.
The corresponding compensation is that no region will have to feel "if the
foreign bid wins, there won't be a con we can get to for 6 years."
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
Mary Kay Kare
> In <kare-12089...@ppp-asok03--152.sirius.net> ka...@sirius.com
(Mary Kay Kare) writes:
>
> >The numbers some of the KC people told me were $167/night for the hotel.
> >I couldn't get out of them exactly what they had said and whom they'd
> >asked because neither Ken nor Keith were there. Their general feeling,
> >however, was that Boston should be stopped from holding a con somewhere
> >other than Boston because it would be a bad thing for fandom to set this
> >precedent.
>
> Leaving aside the question of whether it would be a "precedent" (7 for '77
> didn't hold their worldcon in "7-land"), I think it would be a fine
> precedent. There are arguably more capable Worldcon committees than there
> are good sites. Why continually fuck up the Worldcon with lousy sites like
> Baltimore's? Why not simply have good committees bid for good sites?
Hey, I agree with you. In fact I exchanged rather heated words with some
very old KC friends on this topic. I'm just passing along what they said
to me.
Mary Kay Kare
<gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
> In <kare-12089...@ppp-asok03--152.sirius.net>
> Mary Kay Kare <ka...@sirius.com> wrote:
> : The numbers some of the KC people told me were $167/night for the hotel.
> : I couldn't get out of them exactly what they had said and whom they'd
> : asked because neither Ken nor Keith were there. Their general feeling,
> : however, was that Boston should be stopped from holding a con somewhere
> : other than Boston because it would be a bad thing for fandom to set this
> : precedent.
>
> This strikes me as a ridiculous idea, as portrayed here. If there were a
> credible local fandom in a local, and others wanted to run a Worldcon bid
> against the locals wishes, I would agree that that would be a negative
> factor, likely sufficient for me to oppose such a bid. But absent that,
> contemporary Worldcon bids are *already* national and international in
> scope, so the "localness" factor generally doesn't matter much.
Well, yeah, I think it's ridiculous too, but that's what they (KC) thought.
a. m. boardman
>have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
>then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
>Coast.
Richmond?! Does it actually have the facilities for a Worldcon?
(Leaving aside the problem that it's 473 miles from Boston and 480 from
Atlanta.) I'd love to see the DC crew bid it for Discon IV sometime;
Orlando in August is certainly a bit warm for my tastes.
>I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
>parts of the country. :-<
I'd think Chicago could make a go of it. Speaking of which, Chicago (the
2000 site) is well under 500 miles from Toronto (a 2003 bid, and my
favorite by far). Does the proposed 500 mile rule have an exception for
already-established bids? The "passed on business" section of the WSFS
page still lists business passed on to LSC II.
andrew
(And if you don't like the weather in Baltimore in August, you're gonna
*hate* Cancun; vote Toronto!)
Mark Bernstein
wrote:
>Aahz Maruch wrote:
>>
>> You're a blonde? That's funny, you don't sound like one.
>
>I converted. *snicker*
>
(Image of a ceremony presided over by three Orthodox Blondes,
involving incantations in Valspeak and ritual immersion in L'Oreal.)
Mark Bernstein
markbe...@hotmail.com
Ann Arbor, MI
Morris M. Keesan
wrote:
>Morris M. Keesan wrote:
<snip>
>> The Pennsylvania Convention Center and the Philadelphia Marriott Hotel are
>> *connected*. You can get from one to the other without going outside.
<snip>
>Note, though, that unless one gets a room IN the Marriott, one will
>still be negotiating city streets in Philly.
It should be fairly easy, though, to get a room in the Marriott. At Bucconeer,
someone (perhaps one of the bidders at the Fannish Inquisition?) mentioned the
statistic of an average of 1.8 people per hotel room. I asked about Millenium
Philcon's room block, having heard the false rumor that only half of the
Marriott was reserved. According to a MillPhil committee member, they currently
have all 1000 regular rooms in the Marriott blacked, with the possibility of
getting the 200 "Concierge" rooms. Counting only the 1000 rooms, and taking the
Bucconeer count of about 5500 attendees and rounding up to 6000, and assuming
that all of those warm bodies will need hotel rooms, that still means that
almost one third of the convention members can get rooms in the Marriott. Since
some will be locals not staying in the hotels, and others will want to stay in
other cheaper hotels, my personal expectation is that anyone who really wants to
stay in the Marriott and gets their reservation request in relatively early
shouldn't have any trouble. The closest hotel to the Convention Center/Marriott
complex is about as far away as the Holiday Inn is to the Baltimore Convention
Center.
--
Morris M. Keesan -- kee...@world.std.com
--
Morris M. Keesan
>Beth Friedman <b...@wavefront.com> wrote in article
>> I'm afraid the part that wasn't clear was the fact that I thought I was
>> familiar with all the extant non-hoax 2001 bids; to wit, Boston for
>Orlando
>> and Philadelphia. Those were the only two I'd seen discussed on SMOFS,
>as
>> far as I could recall.
>>
>Based on some of its ads, and postings by Keith Stokes after the vote was
>announced, I'd say that "KC in Boston in 2K+1" was mostly intended to
>attack the Boston/Orlando bid from a second front, to ensure that Philly
>won.
It seemed clearly obvious to me that the point of the KC bid was to support the
Philadelphia bid. One had only to look at their sample ballots, which
demonstrated how to vote for Philadelphia as first choice and write in KC
second.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Ed Dravecky III <dshe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>A quick look at the ol' map on the wall tells me that you could
>>have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
>>then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
>>Coast.
>
>Richmond?! Does it actually have the facilities for a Worldcon?
>(Leaving aside the problem that it's 473 miles from Boston and 480 from
>Atlanta.) I'd love to see the DC crew bid it for Discon IV sometime;
>Orlando in August is certainly a bit warm for my tastes.
>
>>I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
>>parts of the country. :-<
>
>I'd think Chicago could make a go of it. Speaking of which, Chicago (the
>2000 site) is well under 500 miles from Toronto (a 2003 bid, and my
>favorite by far). Does the proposed 500 mile rule have an exception for
>already-established bids?
Yes. Toronto in 2003 has nothing to worry about from the "no zone"
proposal.
Ed Dravecky III
> Richmond?! Does it actually have the facilities for a Worldcon?
Not an ideal one, no. But I was picking major cities along the
seaboard to make a point, not proposing bid sites.
> (Leaving aside the problem that it's 473 miles from Boston and
> 480 from Atlanta.)
Huh. My Exxon Travel Atlas claims that it's 540 miles from Boston
to Richmond and 535 from Richmond to Atlanta.
Oh, no! Has the WSFS decided if the "500 mile" exlcusion zone will
be determined "as the crow flies" by air mileage or "as the crow
hops into his '91 Ford Explorer and hotfoots it out of there" by
highway mileage? This could (as illustrated) be an important note.
<rest snipped>
Ben Yalow
kee...@world.std.com (Morris M. Keesan) wrote:
>In article <35d2e044...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Mike Scott <mi...@moose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Bell") wrote:
>>
>>>It's make it possible (in terms of the rules if not fannish opinion) for
>>>a Brighton worldcon to vote on a bid from Glasgow.
>>
>>discussed. Brighton is less than 500 miles from Glasgow (as is the
>>Hague), so this would not be allowed.
>
>500 miles each from the others, and Adelaide is more than 500 miles
>from both Sydney and Brisbane (I can't tell, from the small map in
>my World Almanac, whether Sydney is inside the exclusion zone relative
>to Brisbane and Melbourne). I think it was either Stephen Boucher or
>Perry Middlemiss who was speculating, during one of my shifts working at
>the Aussiecon 3 table, how long it would take for the rules to get
>changed if Australian fandom attempted to take advantage of this for
>a few consecutive years.
Since the Worldcon would be getting held in Australia that often (in this
hypothetical), I suspect it would get changed very fast. The last time the
system was changed to have lots more non-NA Worldcons (1969), the non-NA
voters at Heidelberg insisted that it be changed back to prevent the non-NA
people from being stuck with holding one that often.
Ben
------
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Ben Yalow
>> >
>> > It's make it possible (in terms of the rules if not fannish opinion) for
>> > a Brighton worldcon to vote on a bid from Glasgow.
>> >
>> >
>> In practical terms, I would support a move to define the "British Isles"
>> as one Metropolitan Unit, because if it is obvious to you, it may be
>> obvious to others at a later date. And I keep hearing about the plans for
>> a whiz-bang conference site up in Aberdeen....
>
>It turns out that I over-estimated the distance by about 25 miles.
>
>To be honest, I've never heard any claims that the current system is
>broken, except for a suspicion about the interlocking of the 3-year
>bidding and the 3-year rotation in North America.
Actually, this discussion has been going on at the Business Meetings for much
of the decade, since people began to think the system was pretty badly broken
(it means that, even if a city has facility and committee avilability for a
given year, it's disqualified two out of every three years -- but only if it's
in North America). This means that it's harder to find options in any given
year (look at the dramatic increase in the number of years with relatively
uncontested bids, and compare that to the situation when the rotation was
first invented).
>
>If the rule were amended to restrict the 500-mile rule to the area
>covered by the current rota system, could it still be ratified next
>year?
It would be a lesser change, IMHO, and could be ratified. It wouldn't pass,
of course -- a 500 mile exclusion zone, with the current zone system, would
mean that (to look at a NA West example) only Seattle (or Hawaii) could run in
a year where the Worldcon is in LA.
Ben Yalow
bucc...@pipeline.com (Perrianne Lurie) wrote:
>If you don't like this, I recommend that you come to Aussiecon next
>year and vote against it. If it is not ratified, it dies.
>
>If we had more participation in the WSFS business meetings, these
>things wouldn't come as such a surprise.
As I mentioned in another post, it's been discussed many times, and shouldn't
be a surprise to anyone.
The Business Meetings are open to everyone, and this one had about the same
attendance as they usually do. And there was a panel before the Business
Meeting to tell people all about the meeting -- it had a few dozen people
there, which was a lot fewer than the 100+ people at the Business Meeting
itself.
>
>
>Perrianne Lurie
Ben Yalow
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>In <dsheldonE...@netcom.com> Ed Dravecky III
><dshe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
>: <SNIP> (The elimination of the rotation system passed the Business
>:> Meeting, replaced by a 500-mile exclusion zone, by the way, but
>:> still has to be ratified, or not, next year; I'm uneasy about
>:> this, myself.)
>
>: (pfffft!) They passed _what_ at the business meeting?
>
>: have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
>: then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
>: variety to their locations but the Eastern Time Zone still holds
>: a convention they see as nearby.
>
>: I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
>: parts of the country. :-<
>
>formal motions), was heavily discussed on the "smofs" mailing list in
>recent weeks, but come to think of it, was never broached here. Oh, well.
>
>I favored a larger exclusion zone, of 700 miles, myself, since I want to
>see the absolutely minimal taint of "oh, we can drive to it" bias. But I
>was clearly in a tiny minority in seeing that distance as it, and the
>overwhelming majority thought 500 miles sufficient.
>
An exclusion zone of much more than about 500 miles makes it even harder to
find sites. The purpose of this amendment is to make as many sites as
possible eligible in as many years as possible, so that if a site/committee
combination can be found, then they have as few restrictions on when they can
bid as possible, with the exclusion zone only serving to keep geographic bias
out of the race. Very few people see much goegraphic bias at distances much
over 500 miles (and the vote to change it to 400 almost succeeeded, since
there was a question as to how much bias would be found even at that
distance).
>I'm also concerned that this change takes away the only advantage that non
>North American bids had: that with the rotation system, NA bids were
>restricted to one out of three years, and non-NA bids were free to cherry
>pick any year. Given that non-NA bids still suffer under major
>disadvantages of having vastly greater expense in bidding, and in being so
>far from the mass of voters, and thus have vastly greater problems and
>expense in reaching them, getting to know them, and getting familiar with
>them in both directions, I'm concerned that this change does them harm and
>has no corresponding compensation.
Since, with the obvious exception of Sydney 83 (which was somewhat undercut by
Australia having made it clear that there would be a Melbourne 85 bid
announced the instant Sydney lost), I don't remember a lot of serious non-NA
bids that lost to NA bids (Zagreb lost -- but they lost to Melbourne).
>
>(I gather that a last-minute addition to the proposal, calling for one out
>of every eight Worldcons to be in a different country, was voted down, but
>I missed the Business Meeting, and may have a garbled notion, at this
>time, of that addition: may we hear from someone who was there?)
>
Correct -- it was opposed by all of the European members who spoke on the
issue.
>Still, there seemed no overwhelming protest from non-NA fans.
In fact, the motion would have failed without the votes in favor from the
European members.
<snip>
Ben Yalow
>>(pfffft!) They passed _what_ at the business meeting?
>
>>A quick look at the ol' map on the wall tells me that you could
>>have Worldcons in Boston then Richmond, Virginia, then Atlanta
>>then Miami (or *maybe* Orlando), all without leaving the East
>>Coast. True, the voters tend to be "smart" enough to add some
>>variety to their locations but the Eastern Time Zone still holds
>>almost half of the US population and people *do* like to vote for
>>a convention they see as nearby.
>
>{sigh}
>Here we go again.
<snip>
>
>>I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
>>parts of the country. :-<
>
>I still wonder about the myth of the "wimpy zone". Looking at 1980-2001,
>the Worldcon has been held in: Eastern=6, Central=6, Western=4, non-NA=5.
>If anyone needs to be concerned, it's the Western zone, but I still don't
>believe it.
The last time somebody was worried about the "foreigners stealing our
Worldcons" (a notion I consider absurd, in many ways), it was when the Western
rotation zone has lost two Worldcons in a row (87 & 90), and someone
introduced a motion to prohibit non-NA bids if it would result in a zone being
skipped too often (I think it was more than twice in a row, but I'd need to
check). We voted that one down, by a large margin.
Ben Yalow
>> Here we go again.
>
<snip>
>> Even if all four of the above wanted to host a Worldcon, none of
>> them is stupid enough to want to do it every four years. The
>> three "gorilla sites" (Boston/Chicago/LA) hosted Worldcons 9/9/12
>> years apart. The only one I know of to try to bid earlier than
>> that (LA) was soundly defeated. The shortest timespan between
>> Worldcons in over three decades is 8 years, for Brighton. Yes,
>> people do like to vote for a convention nearby, hence the
>> extending of the exclusion zone to 500 miles.
>
>You could easily bounce the convention up and down the East
>Coast a dozen times or more before repeating a city. Again, let
>me state that I'm *sure* that the members are *smart* enough to
>avoid doing this but I've been wrong about things in the past.
And, if you think there are enough committees on the East Coast who are
prepared to run a dozen Worldcons in a row, or a dozen cities on the East
Coast with facilities to hold a Worldcon at prices that fandom finds
tolerable, then you're wrong again. Given the current facilities, the East
Coast has Boston (priced out, with $200+ rooms), New York (even more
expensive), Atlantic City (which doesn't want weekend business, since that's
when the gamblers come), Philadelphia, Baltimore/Washington, Atlanta, and
Orlando. You might be able to stretch to include a few more places, but don't
stand a chance of coming up with a dozen, or even close.
<snip>
Ben Yalow
<snip>
>>I wonder if this could be the "end" of Worldcons in the "flyover"
>>parts of the country. :-<
>
>I'd think Chicago could make a go of it. Speaking of which, Chicago (the
>2000 site) is well under 500 miles from Toronto (a 2003 bid, and my
>favorite by far). Does the proposed 500 mile rule have an exception for
>already-established bids? The "passed on business" section of the WSFS
>page still lists business passed on to LSC II.
Since Chicago has held more Worldcons than any other city, I feel pretty
confident you're right.
And the rule that was passed has a transition clause that says that anyone
running in 2000-2002 (which means the 2003-2005 Worldcon sites) is eligible if
they are covered by either the old rules or the new ones. So that, for those
three years, the only places not eligible will be those within 60 miles of the
administering sites (since the old exclusion zone was 60 miles).
>
>andrew
Ben Yalow
>> Richmond?! Does it actually have the facilities for a Worldcon?
>
>Not an ideal one, no. But I was picking major cities along the
>seaboard to make a point, not proposing bid sites.
>
>> (Leaving aside the problem that it's 473 miles from Boston and
>> 480 from Atlanta.)
>
>Huh. My Exxon Travel Atlas claims that it's 540 miles from Boston
>to Richmond and 535 from Richmond to Atlanta.
>
>Oh, no! Has the WSFS decided if the "500 mile" exlcusion zone will
>be determined "as the crow flies" by air mileage or "as the crow
>hops into his '91 Ford Explorer and hotfoots it out of there" by
>highway mileage? This could (as illustrated) be an important note.
>
The distance for the exclusion zone has always been a "crow flies" distance,
not a "road miles" distance. So that The Hague would have been ineligible in
Brighton, even though the English Channel was between the two sites, making it
hard to get there in an Explorer (although you could take the ferry).
Great circle distances are unambiguous and unchanging -- the distance between
two sites shouldn't change if somebody builds a new Interstate, or shuts one
down for construction.
><rest snipped>
David G. Bell
dshe...@netcom.com "Ed Dravecky III" writes:
> a. m. boardman (a...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu) wrote:
> > Richmond?! Does it actually have the facilities for a Worldcon?
>
> Not an ideal one, no. But I was picking major cities along the
> seaboard to make a point, not proposing bid sites.
>
> > (Leaving aside the problem that it's 473 miles from Boston and
> > 480 from Atlanta.)
>
> Huh. My Exxon Travel Atlas claims that it's 540 miles from Boston
> to Richmond and 535 from Richmond to Atlanta.
>
> Oh, no! Has the WSFS decided if the "500 mile" exlcusion zone will
> be determined "as the crow flies" by air mileage or "as the crow
> hops into his '91 Ford Explorer and hotfoots it out of there" by
> highway mileage? This could (as illustrated) be an important note.
One of the DIY stores in Grimsby offers free delivery within a certain
distance of the store, and has a neat map on display showing the
distances.
The circle includes a fair chunk of land on the far side of the Humber
estuary. The round trip distance could be close to 100 miles.
David G. Bell
Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that the 500 mile rule would apply only
to those places where the rota system is currently applied. Which is
basically the USA and near neighbours. Or have they changed that? Not
that the 500 mile rule would apply in addition to the rota, which is
what you seem to think.
So the out-of-area bids, from Europe and Australia and wherever else
there might be sufficient lunatics, would carry on as before.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@lucent.com> wrote:
> In article <Exn7B...@world.std.com>,
> Morris M. Keesan <kee...@world.std.com> wrote:
> > 500 miles each from the others, and Adelaide is more than 500 miles
> > from both Sydney and Brisbane (I can't tell, from the small map in
> > my World Almanac, whether Sydney is inside the exclusion zone relative
> > to Brisbane and Melbourne). I think it was either Stephen Boucher or
> > Perry Middlemiss who was speculating, during one of my shifts working at
> > the Aussiecon 3 table, how long it would take for the rules to get
> > changed if Australian fandom attempted to take advantage of this for
> > a few consecutive years.
>
What I didn't even think of was that any non-NA country *now* can get
the Worldcon every year as long as the sites are more than 60 miles
apart. So this proposed amendment actually makes it tougher for
Australia to commandeer the Worldcon. :-)
Gary Farber
:> Richmond?! Does it actually have the facilities for a Worldcon?
: Not an ideal one, no. But I was picking major cities along the
: seaboard to make a point, not proposing bid sites.
:> (Leaving aside the problem that it's 473 miles from Boston and
:> 480 from Atlanta.)
: Huh. My Exxon Travel Atlas claims that it's 540 miles from Boston
: to Richmond and 535 from Richmond to Atlanta.
: Oh, no! Has the WSFS decided if the "500 mile" exlcusion zone will
: be determined "as the crow flies" by air mileage or "as the crow
: hops into his '91 Ford Explorer and hotfoots it out of there" by
: highway mileage? This could (as illustrated) be an important note.
Not only was it determined to be "as the bird flies," but a *lovely*
amount of time was spent debating whether it should be measured from the
main entrance of the main facility, or the center of that facility, or the
center of the city, or the nearest border of that city, or by GPS, or by
designated official listing, or what-have-you, and so on. And we debated
if a rule as to how this rule should be interpreted should be added, such
as saying that the rule should be interpreted, in cases of doubt, towards
an interpretation favoring acceptance, or towards declination. And then
we debated the possible interpretations.
Oh, it was *fascinating*.
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Brenda Daverin
> In article <6quugr$7...@news1.panix.com>,
> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >Leaving aside the question of whether it would be a "precedent" (7 for
> >'77 didn't hold their worldcon in "7-land"), I think it would be a fine
> >precedent. There are arguably more capable Worldcon committees than
> >there are good sites. Why continually fuck up the Worldcon with lousy
> >sites like Baltimore's? Why not simply have good committees bid for
> >good sites?
>
> Hell, I'll even stick my oar in and suggest that it might be a good idea
> to completely separate bidding and con-running. When I hear Kevin
> Standlee talking about the bidding process, I think, "Why isn't someone
> else doing the bidding?"
>
> Six years out of a person's life makes little sense to me, particularly
> when there's a serious chance that six-year tenure might be chopped
> short at the the three-year mark.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'm working on the SF in '02 bid because I
want to work on a Worldcon in San Francisco. My motivation would be gone
if I knew that, after all the time, financial deprivation, emotional
stress, and effort, the most I could get is a free pass in provided I
voted in the site selection. To put it another way, should a different
person run for a political office than the one who ends up holding it? I
don't think so. Whoever does the work should get the fruits of the labor,
good, bad, or ugly.
--
Brenda Daverin
bdav...@best.com
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen
Perrianne Lurie
Exactly my point. If people are upset about the decisions made at the
Business Meetings, they should ATTEND the Business Meetings and vote
against these things.
Perrianne Lurie
BucCONeer, the 56-th World Science Fiction Convention
August 5-9, 1998, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
P.O. Box 314, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
bucc...@bucconeer.worldcon.org
http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org
Personal E-mail: bucc...@pipeline.com
Perrianne Lurie
(quoting Gary Farber:)
>>(I gather that a last-minute addition to the proposal, calling for one out
>>of every eight Worldcons to be in a different country, was voted down, but
>>I missed the Business Meeting, and may have a garbled notion, at this
>>time, of that addition: may we hear from someone who was there?)
>>
>Correct -- it was opposed by all of the European members who spoke on the
>issue.
>>Still, there seemed no overwhelming protest from non-NA fans.
>In fact, the motion would have failed without the votes in favor from the
>European members.
All the Australians at the Business Meeting (and those I spoke to at
the Aussiecon 3 table afterwards) opposed this.
Morris M. Keesan
Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@lucent.com> wrote:
>What I didn't even think of was that any non-NA country *now* can get
>the Worldcon every year as long as the sites are more than 60 miles
>apart. So this proposed amendment actually makes it tougher for
>Australia to commandeer the Worldcon. :-)
I was wondering whether anyone would notice that.
Kim Campbell
Farber) wrote:
You were *at* the Business Meeting!? And I *missed* you? For three days?
You bastard!
Kim :-)
--
KIM Campbell
Convener: UK in '05
A bid for the World Science Fiction Convention
Rob Hansen
wrote:
>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
>
>: I'm also concerned that this change takes away the only advantage that non
>: North American bids had: that with the rotation system, NA bids were
>: restricted to one out of three years, and non-NA bids were free to cherry
>: pick any year. Given that non-NA bids still suffer under major
>: disadvantages of having vastly greater expense in bidding, and in being so
>: far from the mass of voters, and thus have vastly greater problems and
>: expense in reaching them, getting to know them, and getting familiar with
>: them in both directions, I'm concerned that this change does them harm and
>: has no corresponding compensation.
>
>The corresponding compensation is that no region will have to feel "if the
>foreign bid wins, there won't be a con we can get to for 6 years."
And this is a corresponding compensation for foreign bids how,
exactly?
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Vicki Rosenzweig
Or, at the very least, should have right of first refusal on the fruits of
that labor. If someone feels, say, that they want a Worldcon in their
hometown, and that bidding is something they can do well, but isn't
sure they'd run a worldcon well, I don't think you should chase them
off the bid committee.
In reality, of course, Stuff Happens and people resign from Worldcon
committees because they suddenly find themselves on another
continent, or responsible for a small child, or seriously ill.
When we vote, we vote for a committee, but that doesn't mean
everyone listed as part of the committee in the Millennium Philcon
mailing I got last month will be involved in three years.
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Informed citizenship in our great nation requires a certain
flexibility." -- Molly Ivins
Richard Brandt
> I favored a larger exclusion zone, of 700 miles, myself, since I want to
> see the absolutely minimal taint of "oh, we can drive to it" bias. But I
> was clearly in a tiny minority in seeing that distance as it, and the
> overwhelming majority thought 500 miles sufficient.
Then Texas can have it *every* year!
--
====== Richard Brandt is at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8720 ======
"Andreessen...taking a jab at Microsoft's announcement that Windows was
going to be used in...heart monitors--'a product that creates its own
market [because] you have heart problems just thinking about it." --
INFOWORLD, May 4, 1998
Vicki Rosenzweig
>On 13 Aug 1998 22:02:12 -0400, hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty)
>wrote:
>
>>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
>>
>>: I'm also concerned that this change takes away the only advantage that non
>>: North American bids had: that with the rotation system, NA bids were
>>: restricted to one out of three years, and non-NA bids were free to cherry
>>: pick any year. Given that non-NA bids still suffer under major
>>: disadvantages of having vastly greater expense in bidding, and in being so
>>: far from the mass of voters, and thus have vastly greater problems and
>>: expense in reaching them, getting to know them, and getting familiar with
>>: them in both directions, I'm concerned that this change does them harm and
>>: has no corresponding compensation.
>>
>>The corresponding compensation is that no region will have to feel "if the
>>foreign bid wins, there won't be a con we can get to for 6 years."
>
>And this is a corresponding compensation for foreign bids how,
>exactly?
>
Possibly that fans in, say, New York might be more likely to vote
for a non-US bid that was running against Philadelphia, Boston,
or Washington if there was the chance of a nearby bid the following
year.
Old scenario--in 1992 we chose Glasgow. That meant the earliest
a Worldcon could be close to New York was 1998.
Under the new scenario, suppose we choose a UK bid for 2005
(which is an Eastern zone year under the current rules). East Coast
fandom, or some part thereof, could also be bidding for 2006.
I'm just speculating--I suspect my motivations when I vote are
idiosyncratic (my preferences are for a competent committee,
a decent site (nearby hotels, good transport, ceilings, etc.), and
an interesting city. "Nearby" is low on my list: all else being
equal, I'd choose (say) Boston over Texas, but all else is rarely
equal.
Ben Yalow
r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk (Rob Hansen) wrote:
>On 13 Aug 1998 22:02:12 -0400, hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty)
>wrote:
>
>>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
>>
>>: I'm also concerned that this change takes away the only advantage that non
>>: North American bids had: that with the rotation system, NA bids were
>>: restricted to one out of three years, and non-NA bids were free to cherry
>>: pick any year. Given that non-NA bids still suffer under major
>>: disadvantages of having vastly greater expense in bidding, and in being so
>>: far from the mass of voters, and thus have vastly greater problems and
>>: expense in reaching them, getting to know them, and getting familiar with
>>: them in both directions, I'm concerned that this change does them harm and
>>: has no corresponding compensation.
>>
>>The corresponding compensation is that no region will have to feel "if the
>>foreign bid wins, there won't be a con we can get to for 6 years."
>
>And this is a corresponding compensation for foreign bids how,
>exactly?
In two ways:
1. It means that if a strong NA bid wants to avoid running against a weak NA
bid, it can move without being forced to wait three extra years.
2. It means that if the voters at the NA con where the selection is taking
place feel that they could get to a con in their part of the country two or
four years later, instead of waiting for six years, it means that they won't
vote against the non-NA bid to avoid the six year wait. In general, it means
that the NA voters (who are still the largest voting group by far, even when
the Worldcon is located outside NA) won't have to vote for a worse NA bid,
rather than a better non-NA bid, just to avoid having to wait six years to be
able to get to a "nearby" Worldcon again.
>Rob Hansen
Ben Yalow
bucc...@pipeline.com (Perrianne Lurie) wrote:
>yb...@panix.com (Ben Yalow) wrote:
>
>>>Still, there seemed no overwhelming protest from non-NA fans.
>
>>In fact, the motion would have failed without the votes in favor from the
>>European members.
>
>All the Australians at the Business Meeting (and those I spoke to at
>the Aussiecon 3 table afterwards) opposed this.
>
The differences seem to be that the British have won an opposed bid (against
very strong US opposition), and have a lot of people who regularly attend
Worldcons, and NA regionals. But the Australians don't, and so they're
concerned that, without a weak year, they're unlikely to win.
However, given the history of having NA bids deliberately avoid years when an
Australian Worldcon is bidding (and, with no-zone, it'll be even easier for
them, since they can move one or two years, instead of having to delay their
bid by three years) I don't feel that Australia is likely to be shut out from
running Worldcons in the late 2000s-early 2010s, which is the earliest they
could be ready to bid again.
>
>Perrianne Lurie
LynnieK
Lynn E. Cohen Koehler
Lynn E. Cohen Koehler
Ed Dravecky III
<out of the night, when the full moon is bright, comes the
editing mark known as Snippo. Snippo! Snippo! Snippo!>
>
> Under the new scenario, suppose we choose a UK bid for 2005
> (which is an Eastern zone year under the current rules). East Coast
> fandom, or some part thereof, could also be bidding for 2006.
So, let's say you're running the "Boston for Austin" bid in
2006. You lose to, let's say, "Telluride for Tuva". And then
you run the 2007 Boston/Austin bid. And lose...to "Atlanta
for (the Republic of) Georgia". When you gear up for the
2008 bid race, are voters more likely to:
A) Vote for Boston/Austin because you've been at it
for five years?
B) Vote *against* Boston/Austin because you been at it
for five years without success?
C) Vote for Boston/Austin because you're "due"?
D) Find a burned-out shell of a committee who can see
spending years six, seven, and eight planning the con?
I anticipate the answer lies here or in some combination of
these things. Do feel free to correct my perceptions.
(Point to ponder: Would "Mpls in '73" be as fun a tradition
if it was changed to "Mpls in (current bid year)" and the date
advanced every year until fandom capitulated?)
<son of snippo> "Nearby" is low on my list: all else being equal,
> I'd choose (say) Boston over Texas, but all else is rarely equal.
I'd choose Dallas over Boston but that's because I'm working
on a not-a-hoax bid (that still lacks a bit in the "firmly
grounded in reality" department) for the "near" future. YMMV.[1]
[1] Your "Mpls in '73"-variant May Vary.
Gary Farber
"Kim Campbell" <kcam...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
[. . .]
: You were *at* the Business Meeting!?
No, I slept through them, despite my best intentions. Something about
going to sleep around 5 a.m. or later, on average.
I was referring to the recent months of debate on the "smofs" mailing
list.
: And I *missed* you? For three days?
: You bastard!
Er, I did come up to you at a quiet moment late one night (Saturday?) in
your party, and chat momentarily, but you disengaged yourself after thirty
seconds, or so; I figured you were busy and wanted to be hostly for your
party.
Mike Scott
wrote:
>Under the new scenario, suppose we choose a UK bid for 2005
>(which is an Eastern zone year under the current rules). East Coast
>fandom, or some part thereof, could also be bidding for 2006.
2005 is Western.
--
Mike Scott
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk
http://www.moose.demon.co.uk
Geri Sullivan
>
> Vicki Rosenzweig (v...@interport.net) wrote:
> <out of the night, when the full moon is bright, comes the
> editing mark known as Snippo. Snippo! Snippo! Snippo!>
> >
> > (which is an Eastern zone year under the current rules). East Coast
> > fandom, or some part thereof, could also be bidding for 2006.
>
> 2006. You lose to, let's say, "Telluride for Tuva".
I *want* the bid sticker for Telluride for Tuva, even though I haven't
yet figured out the ideal fanartist to create the logo.
<snip>
> (Point to ponder: Would "Mpls in '73" be as fun a tradition
> if it was changed to "Mpls in (current bid year)" and the date
> advanced every year until fandom capitulated?)
Heck, no. The fun tradition behind Minneapolis in '73 is that we don't
*want* fandom to capitulate.
Until 2015, that is. Not only is that the year of the 73rd Worldcon, it
will also be time for Minicon 50, presuming we succeed in keeping this
puppy going *and* don't go back to playing with the numbers overly much.
<snip again>
> YMMV.[1]
>
> [1] Your "Mpls in '73"-variant May Vary.
Grin,
Geri
--
Geri Sullivan g...@toad-hall.com
===================================
Minneapolis in '73 Post-supporting Chair S/u/c/k/e/r/ since 1984
Arthur Hlavaty
: On 13 Aug 1998 22:02:12 -0400, hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty)
: wrote:
: >Gary Farber (gfa...@panix2.panix.com) wrote:
: >
: >: I'm also concerned that this change takes away the only advantage that non
: >: North American bids had: that with the rotation system, NA bids were
: >: restricted to one out of three years, and non-NA bids were free to cherry
: >: pick any year. Given that non-NA bids still suffer under major
: >: disadvantages of having vastly greater expense in bidding, and in being so
: >: far from the mass of voters, and thus have vastly greater problems and
: >: expense in reaching them, getting to know them, and getting familiar with
: >: them in both directions, I'm concerned that this change does them harm and
: >: has no corresponding compensation.
: >
: >The corresponding compensation is that no region will have to feel "if the
: >foreign bid wins, there won't be a con we can get to for 6 years."
: And this is a corresponding compensation for foreign bids how,
: exactly?
I owuld think it would result in less opposition to foreign bids.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///