To Ghost or Not To Ghost...
Hazel Boston-Baden
[ Author was Ender ]
[ Posted on 26 May 94 05:40:24 GMT ]
First let me start by introducing myself and Dreamcon. My name is Chris
Anderson, and I am in charge of the Operation Team at Dreamcon. Dreamcon is
a medium sized con (1200 people) in Everett, WA (About 30 miles north of
Everett).
Last year Dreamcon had a problem. We had approx. 150 Ghosts, We sold out of
memberships, and we *packed* the hotel. So, we decided to take a firm
stance on ghosting. The letter below is what we sent out to our membership
to try and inform people about the new policy. I would appreciate any input
regarding this policy, and about the letter.
============================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Open Letter to Ghosts
No, you haven't entered the Twilight Zone. This is still the Dreamcon Zone,
and we have a problem. Two problems in fact, which I'm going to address in
reverse order.
The REM is sent to Dreamcon members within the last two years. If this REM
is addressed to you, the letter below is not directed at you (although you
will find valuable information therein). Instead, the letter is directed
to those of you who "Ghost" Dreamcon, that is, attend without obtaining a
membership. You aren't on our mailing list, so you won't be reading this
letter unless a Dreamcon member has given you their copy of the REM to
read. That's problem number two and only Dreamcon memers can fix it. If
you know someone who "Ghosts" Dreamcon, please show them this letter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ghost,
We know you're out there because you're problem number one. You didn't used
to be a problem. You've only become a problem in the last year or two. In
the past, because your numbers were small, we've pretty much treated you as
invisible, looked staight through you, and ignored your presence. Now there
are so many of you that you've become visible and we can no longer see
through you.
You visibly clog up the hallways and limited open areas of the hotel. The
physical resources of the Hotel and the convention, such as the lounge, the
restaurant, and Hospitality are being overtaxed by your use. The number of
incidents with unidentfied people (no badge) to which hotel and convention
security have had to respond has increased in the last few years. This
strains the limited staff resources of both the hotel and the convention. It
also puts both in an awkward position in regard possible medical emergencies
and to potential insurance claims. Some of you may even rent a room from
the hotel, thereby denying that room to a paying member. Last, but
certainly not least, you take up extremely valuable parking space!
Please don't get me wrong. We're very happy that you want to attend
Dreamcon and we'd be pleased to have you if only you would pay your share!
Unfortunately, other people are paying for your opportunity to come and hang
out with your friends, and have a fun and entertaining weekend. It takes a
lot of money to produce Dreamcon, and a lot of volunteer hours too, both
before and during the convention. You're taking a free ride at the expense
of your friends and other people who have paid with heir money and their
work. If you're comfortable with that there's little we can do about it.
This letter is an attempt to call to your attention the basic unfairness of
your behavior.
There are, on the other hand, some things that can be done to discourage
ghosting. This is what the hotel (who owns the property) and Dreamcon (who
will occupy the property) are cooperating to do. Dreamcon will continue its
policy of limiting membership to 1,000 paying members. The hotel has agreed
that a Dreamcon membership badge will be required for access to ALL areas of
the hotel. This will include hallways, open space, convention areas, the
restaurant, the lounge, the dome, and all open parties. Spot checking of
badges will occur at random times and places throughout the convention by
both Dreamcon and hotel security. Badge inspections will be made at the
entrance to all major events and programming space. Yes, this means that
Dreamcon's Art Show and Vendor's Room will no longer be open to the
public! The hotel has agreed to remove, or have removed, anyone who does not
display their Dreamcon Membership badge following a request to do so by
hotel or convention staff.
We are not pleased to have to do these things, but we feel that we must.
Dreamcon's staff recognized several years ago that we had a choice between
allowing membership to grow without limit or controlling our growth. We
chose to put a cap on membership for two notable reasons. First, we decided
that we wanted to stay in the Everett area. This required a growth limit
because both hotels with any reasonable amount of convention space were
relatively small. Second we wanted to produce a convention with a cozy,
intimate, friendly feel to it. We've been told that until recently we were
succeeding at that. For this reason we will try to implement these new
policies with as little fuss as possible, while still ensuring that they are
enforced.
We expect that we will sell out the convention again this year, sometime
early on Saturday. Register early!
Rick Bligh
Dreamcon 9 Chair
============================================================================
Please respond either in this forum or E-Mail:
Chris Anderson (Operations Team Leader): end...@eskimo.com
Karen Thompson (Asst. Chair/Hotel Liason): ka...@abyss.wa.com
Rick Bligh (Chair): ka...@abyss.wa.com [Karen will forward the mail via
snail mail]
--
hazel...@netcom.com - Home of Margarita Jell-O, an alcoholic use for lime
jello. Email me with "request margarita" as subject or message for recipe.
Hazel Boston-Baden
From: Herbert Leong <gr...@futon.SFSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: To Ghost or Not To Ghost...
In rec.arts.sf.fandom article <hazelCq...@netcom.com> you wrote:
> [ Article crossposted from alt.fandom.cons ]
> [ Author was Ender ]
> [ Posted on 26 May 94 05:40:24 GMT ]
>
<snip>
I understand your problem but I feel that your solution is
one that will make things much worse. Your idea of spot checking
members is quite similar to the "spot checking" done by the SS in
Nazi Germany. (Veare are you-r pay-pars, er badges, please...) You
_force_ people to ghost because they can not get memberships. Then
you complain that they are there because they want to be a part of
fandom. Even if they tried to get a membership and were turned away.
The number of ghosts is growing--that means that your con is
becoming more and more successful!! Congratulations! =) Don't kick
out people who _want_ to come to _your_ con to make _your_ con more
successful.
A better solution is to up the number of "allowed"
memberships (or even to kill the cap altogether). If space is a big
consideration, you may want to think about moving to a larger hotel.
Or having a overflow hotel nearby and a shuttle to and from it, not
unlike a worldcon....
<shrug>
/herb
--
gr...@futon.sfsu.edu
gr...@wet.com
[Paste Standard Disclaimer Here]
Ryan Dancey
> The number of ghosts is growing--that means that your con is
> becoming more and more successful!! Congratulations! =) Don't kick
> out people who _want_ to come to _your_ con to make _your_ con more
> successful.
>
> A better solution is to up the number of "allowed"
> memberships (or even to kill the cap altogether). If space is a big
> consideration, you may want to think about moving to a larger hotel.
> Or having a overflow hotel nearby and a shuttle to and from it, not
> unlike a worldcon....
> <shrug>
> /herb
Point 1: The problem we're having with Ghosts isn't really with the
generic fan off the street who shows up and looks around for a few hours
nand then leaves.
Due in part to our conventions' timeframe (Halloween) and a local
nexus of like minded individuals, we've attracted a large "Gothic"
contingent, who add quite a bit of flavor to our convention. However,
along with these "trufans" we're getting a sizable group of kids from the
local metro area (Everett, WA) who are either homeless, or "mostly"
homeless. For the first time last year, we had a problem with open drug
use in public areas, with "kids" who were under 18 and had no place to
go, no place to sleep, and no one to watch over them while at Dreamcon.
Unfortunetly, these ghosts aren't really there to improve our Con. They
are there to hang out, act cool, pretend to be "undead" (but not to the
extent that they'll join an organized LARP group, or participate in the
open gaming provided by the Convention.) We've got to find a way to
minimize their impact, or either the Hotel, the Police, or (worst case)
some local phycho is going to make us pay for the oversight.
Point 2: Dreamcon is held in the north end of the Puget Sound corridor,
in a small city named Everett. It is the only viable north end
Convention, though the local fan community is served quite well by
several other conventions held about 50 miles further south.
In our chosen geographical area, there is no larger Hotel with more
extensive convetion spaces. There are no other Hotels close to our
existing facility, nor are there plans to build any. There are no
clusters of smaller Hotels which comprise more total space.
We fill our Hotel. We have 1,000 paying members, and about 250 "other"
attendees (guests, panelists, etc.) On top of those 1,250 "legitamate"
attendees, we're estimating about 200 more "ghosts". We've got massive
traffic flow problems, and resource allocation problems that cannot be
solved wihthout moving out of the "north end".
The membership cap is a necessity, not an option.
Ryan S. Dancey
Programming Team Leader
And other Hats
Dreamcon 9
Hazel Boston-Baden
[ Author was Martin Schafer ]
[ Posted on Tue, 31 May 94 19:40:45 GMT ]
Well this is the problem with an attendance cap. The people who
are ghosting do not have the option of paying you for a membership,
once you are over your limit. Given that, your policy, though
somewhat draconian seems like the only solution.
Minor suggestion: work with the hotel to compare the list of
convention members with the list of people reserving rooms.
Require a convention membership in order to get a room.
Martin
Hazel Boston-Baden
[ Author was Ryan Dancey ]
[ Posted on Wed, 01 Jun 94 14:28:27 PDT ]
sch...@raistlan.network.com (Martin Schafer) writes:
> Well this is the problem with an attendance cap. The people who
> are ghosting do not have the option of paying you for a membership,
> once you are over your limit. Given that, your policy, though
> somewhat draconian seems like the only solution.
>
> Minor suggestion: work with the hotel to compare the list of
> convention members with the list of people reserving rooms.
> Require a convention membership in order to get a room.
>
> Martin
Our three year analysis of the Hotel's room rental trends indicates that
the number of persons in the Hotel who are not Convention members is
almost nil.
Most of the Ghosts we are dealing with are people who show up before the
membership sells out (around noon on Saturday, the 2nd day of the con),
and usually are gone by Sunday morning. The number of fans actually
turned away last year was small (around 25).
Ryan S. Dancey
Programming Team Leader
And other Hats
Dreamcon 9
--
Hazel Boston-Baden
[ Author was Michael A. Bloom ]
[ Posted on Thu, 2 Jun 1994 08:17:28 GMT ]
In article <56F0mc...@abyss.wa.com> dan...@abyss.wa.com (Ryan Dancey) writes:
>Most of the Ghosts we are dealing with are people who show up before the
>membership sells out (around noon on Saturday, the 2nd day of the con),
>and usually are gone by Sunday morning. The number of fans actually
>turned away last year was small (around 25).
Forgive me if I'm missing something here (in which case, please
explain), but if the difference between your attendance cap and the
number of fans who want membership in your con is only 25, this policy
seems grossly unfair to those 25 fans (who could easily be absorbed).
On the other hand, if you had to turn away many hundreds, such a cap
would seem more valid. And it might be hard to predict how many
additional people might want to register.
Rather than turning these fans away, you could give them the choice
of being put on a waiting list with "no guarantees". If the waiting
list grows to several hundred, tell everyone on it "Sorry, charlie",
but if there are only a couple of dozen names by the end of the day,
take their money and give them badges.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bloom Citicorp/TTI | if (new_user_error) {
m...@tti.com Santa Monica, CA | fprintf(stderr,"cryptic error message\n");
#include <std_disclaimer.h> | exit(rand(srand(time(0))) >> 1);
Hazel Boston-Baden
Subject: Re: Ghost vs. Membership Limits
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 23:10:54 -0500 (CDT)
> I understand your problem but I feel that your solution is
> one that will make things much worse. Your idea of spot checking
> members is quite similar to the "spot checking" done by the SS in
> Nazi Germany. (Veare are you-r pay-pars, er badges, please...) You
> _force_ people to ghost because they can not get memberships. Then
> you complain that they are there because they want to be a part of
> fandom. Even if they tried to get a membership and were turned away.
Minicon has always felt it had the right to check badges just about
anywhere. For more than 15 years we've been doing it quite
consistently on the con suite, and at other choke points now and then.
If somebody (say a bartender in the con suite) has any doubts, we
instruct them to ask to see the badge (and real ID, if alcohol is
involved at the bar).
No con has ever forced people to crash it. Sometimes people have
chosen to crash a con because they didn't plan ahead far enough, were
too cheap to pay even the prereg rate, or simply didn't discover
fandom until it was too late. The last group is the only one I have
any sympathy at all for.
And I heard nobody complain that people wanted to be a part of fandom;
stop putting words into our mouths.
> The number of ghosts is growing--that means that your con is
> becoming more and more successful!! Congratulations! =) Don't kick
> out people who _want_ to come to _your_ con to make _your_ con more
> successful.
Bigger != better. And not all members are desirable. I'm convinced
Minicon has about 1000 fans by the most elastic definition I can think
of, and about 2000 other people who come every year. I don't think
this is very good.
> A better solution is to up the number of "allowed"
> memberships (or even to kill the cap altogether). If space is a big
> consideration, you may want to think about moving to a larger hotel.
> Or having a overflow hotel nearby and a shuttle to and from it, not
> unlike a worldcon....
Minicon is in the second biggest hotel in town. The biggest has much
less function space, and nothing vaguely suitable for our hospitality
space (we use the entire 22nd floor, a couple of suites on first floor
around the pool deck, and put people throwing open parties into the
other poolside cabanas). We've been using two overflow hotels for the
last few years.
We could do a convention center convention, but the economics are
pretty horendous. Worse, Minicon is primarily a social event, and a
convention center doesn't offer much in the way of social space. I
don't think we have *any* options. When we fill up the extra function
space our hotel is building, we'll have to limit memberships somehow
or become a very different convention; one I wouldn't much care to
attend.
Ender
: Date: Mon, 30 May 94 22:39:03 -0700
: <snip>
: I understand your problem but I feel that your solution is
: one that will make things much worse. Your idea of spot checking
: members is quite similar to the "spot checking" done by the SS in
: Nazi Germany. (Veare are you-r pay-pars, er badges, please...) You
: _force_ people to ghost because they can not get memberships. Then
: you complain that they are there because they want to be a part of
: fandom. Even if they tried to get a membership and were turned away.
One problem with this argument is that our enforcement of this
policy will *not* be that way. We intend to enforce the policy very low key
and in a polite manor.
: The number of ghosts is growing--that means that your con is
: becoming more and more successful!! Congratulations! =) Don't kick
: out people who _want_ to come to _your_ con to make _your_ con more
: successful.
I appologize for not making this more clear before. We sold out at
approx. 3:00pm on Saturday. Friday niight we probably had 100 ghosts.
Saturday night we probably had 150. Maybe half the extra ghosts were people
who wanted to pay. Upping the membership cap probably wouldn't solve the
majority of our ghosting problem.
: A better solution is to up the number of "allowed"
: memberships (or even to kill the cap altogether). If space is a big
: consideration, you may want to think about moving to a larger hotel.
: Or having a overflow hotel nearby and a shuttle to and from it, not
: unlike a worldcon....
Space is a major consideration. We max out the hotel we currently
occupy. In fact, this year we are renting every room from the hotel. The
second problem is that the extra 100-200 members who might buy memberships
do not make it logical to run a shuttle between two hotels. Also, there is
no other hotel of adequet(SP?) size in our area.
Chris Anderson
end...@eskimo.com
Thomas G. Digby
: From: d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet)
: Subject: Re: Ghost vs. Membership Limits
: Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 23:10:54 -0500 (CDT)
[much deleted]
: Minicon is in the second biggest hotel in town. The biggest has much
: less function space, and nothing vaguely suitable for our hospitality
: space (we use the entire 22nd floor, a couple of suites on first floor
: around the pool deck, and put people throwing open parties into the
: other poolside cabanas). We've been using two overflow hotels for the
: last few years.
: We could do a convention center convention, but the economics are
: pretty horendous. Worse, Minicon is primarily a social event, and a
: convention center doesn't offer much in the way of social space. I
: don't think we have *any* options. When we fill up the extra function
: space our hotel is building, we'll have to limit memberships somehow
: or become a very different convention; one I wouldn't much care to
: attend.
I have no idea how viable this is, but I'm reminded of the idea of keeping
a con's size down by encouraging some competing event to schedule itself
across town on the same weekend to siphon off the extra crowds. If it can
be made to work it seems to me to have less bad vibes than telling people
they can't come to your con.
--
-- Tom
bub...@well.sf.ca.us
L.A.Z. Smith
From: d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet)
>Bigger != better. And not all members are desirable. I'm convinced
>Minicon has about 1000 fans by the most elastic definition I can think
>of, and about 2000 other people who come every year. I don't think
>this is very good.
>
>Minicon is in the second biggest hotel in town. The biggest has much
>less function space, and nothing vaguely suitable for our hospitality
>space (we use the entire 22nd floor, a couple of suites on first floor
>around the pool deck, and put people throwing open parties into the
>other poolside cabanas). We've been using two overflow hotels for the
>last few years.
>
>We could do a convention center convention, but the economics are
>pretty horendous. Worse, Minicon is primarily a social event, and a
>convention center doesn't offer much in the way of social space. I
>don't think we have *any* options. When we fill up the extra function
>space our hotel is building, we'll have to limit memberships somehow
>or become a very different convention; one I wouldn't much care to
>attend.
Some ideas for limiting membership without rigid membership caps:
1. Stop all publicity. No fliers at cons, no posts on the net, no info in
public, period. Ask the prozines, etc., not to publish info about
your con's existence. Require people to write to you to get details
about the con. You can mail fliers to previous members whom you'd like
to have return, and newcomers you think you want.
This works less well if you're stuck in your date and site, like
Minicon, but it will discourage some of the casual drop-ins. Out of
sight, out of mind.
2. Identify the segment of fandom you really want and limit
programming to what interests those people only. Announce this
policy. Dumping the items that appeal to nonfans, like dances, the
masquerade and the movies, will help, too. Of course, these items
also appeal to many fans...and their absence won't help if what
you're trying to discourage is a crowd of drunken rowdies who hang
out at the con but don't buy memberships or go to the programming
anyway.
But focussed cons like Corflu or, for that matter, Midwestcon,
don't have to worry about membership caps, and, despite
beer in the consuite, don't attract rowdies.
3. Take a year off. Then follow no. 1 when you resume.
4. Eliminate at-the-door memberships and, if you fill your hotel,
allow only members to make room reservations. If your hotel will
cooperate, closing the building to non-members seems like a workable
idea. If you can get them to limit parking privileges to hotel
guests, that will help. A little hard on some local fans you do want,
but you can make special arrangements for them -- carpooling,
special passes, whatever.
You could also try selling memberships only at selected other cons
far away from your site and at local club meetings. This would help
to ensure that people buying memberships are actually fans.
5. Become invitational. This will open you up to charges of
elitism, but is the simplest way to get the people you want and not
those you don't.
All these (except no. 2) have the drawback of discouraging protofans
who don't already know an active fan, but I think these gargantuan
cons discourage the people most likely to become real fans. Anyway,
in Mpls., you have Minn-stf if you want to try to attract people who
might actually be interested in SF.
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Jim_...@transarc.com
> 4. Eliminate at-the-door memberships and, if you fill your hotel,
> allow only members to make room reservations.
You can do something like this even if you don't fill the hotel. Most
cons get room rates much lower than rack. Only allow con members to
get rooms at the con rates. Hotels will usually agree to this.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
Football coaches talk about character, gut checks, intensity and
reckless abandon. Tommy Lasorda said, "Managing is like holding a dove
in your hand. Squeeze too hard and you kill it; not hard enough and it
flies away."
-- Tom Boswell, "99 Reasons Why Baseball Is Better than Football"
David E Romm
wrote:
>
> From: d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet)
>
> >Bigger != better. And not all members are desirable. I'm convinced
> >Minicon has about 1000 fans by the most elastic definition I can think
> >of, and about 2000 other people who come every year. I don't think
> >this is very good.
> >
> >Minicon is in the second biggest hotel in town. The biggest has much
> >less function space, and nothing vaguely suitable for our hospitality
> >space (we use the entire 22nd floor, a couple of suites on first floor
> >around the pool deck, and put people throwing open parties into the
> >other poolside cabanas). We've been using two overflow hotels for the
> >last few years.
> >
>
> Some ideas for limiting membership without rigid membership caps:
>
> 1. Stop all publicity. No fliers at cons, no posts on the net, no info in
> public, period. Ask the prozines, etc., not to publish info about
> your con's existence. Require people to write to you to get details
> about the con. You can mail fliers to previous members whom you'd like
> to have return, and newcomers you think you want.
>
> This works less well if you're stuck in your date and site, like
> Minicon, but it will discourage some of the casual drop-ins. Out of
> sight, out of mind.
We do all that (though we do have a phone hotline for info). One of the
advantages of being in the second largest hotel, which is in the 'burbs,
rather than the largest, which is in downtown Mpls, is that we don't get
'casual drop-ins'.
>
> 2. Identify the segment of fandom you really want and limit
> programming to what interests those people only. Announce this
> policy. Dumping the items that appeal to nonfans, like dances, the
> masquerade and the movies, will help, too. Of course, these items
> also appeal to many fans...and their absence won't help if what
> you're trying to discourage is a crowd of drunken rowdies who hang
> out at the con but don't buy memberships or go to the programming
> anyway.
We sort of keep trying that, but the general policy is, 'if you want this
badly enough, you do it', and there's always someone who is more than
willing to run a masquerade, dance, etc. We're really not concerned about
the number of 'drunken rowdies'. They are a problem, but they are not a
membership issue; there's not enough of them.
> 3. Take a year off. Then follow no. 1 when you resume.
>
The closest we came to that was not serving alcohol in the consuite one
year. That was a significant success for it's main purpose. We actually
came up with a definition of a fan, albeit a partial one phrased in the
negative: Anyone who comes to Minicon just because there's free beer in
the consuite is not a fan. That year there was more alcohol and more
kinds* of alcohol than at any Minicon before or since; all the real fans
who liked to drink brought their own and shared. The policy mainly
discouraged the jerks who liked to hang out at the consuite and hit on the
women. We did that for one year and happily went back to serving beer and
blog.
Years ago, we speculated on what would happen if we didn't hold a Minicon.
Didn't send out any flyers, answered all questions truthfully. We figured
that around Easter weekend, several hundred fans would sort of arrive at
the hotel and, not finding a con, would just party the weekend away.
> 4. Eliminate at-the-door memberships and, if you fill your hotel,
> allow only members to make room reservations. If your hotel will
> cooperate, closing the building to non-members seems like a workable
> idea. If you can get them to limit parking privileges to hotel
> guests, that will help. A little hard on some local fans you do want,
> but you can make special arrangements for them -- carpooling,
> special passes, whatever.
We didn't eliminate at-the-door memberships, but we did bump the price
significantly. That helped, and it meant that the latecomers would often
be the profit margin of the con.
We can't close the Radisson to non-members. There are a few rooms which we
don't have (not many, but there are some long-term leases, though someone
closer to Hotel might have more recent info on this), and the hotel has an
Easter Sunday Brunch, which they won't give up and means that mundanes
(nice people, usually, but definately mundane) inundate the pool area
Sunday morning.
>
> 5. Become invitational.
No.
> All these (except no. 2) have the drawback of discouraging protofans
> who don't already know an active fan, but I think these gargantuan
> cons discourage the people most likely to become real fans.
>
That assumes that a person who likes large cons is not a real fan. I very
much disagree with this.
> Anyway,
> in Mpls., you have Minn-stf if you want to try to attract people who
> might actually be interested in SF.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
--
Shockwave: The longest running science fiction radio program in Earth's
history. Tapes available.
L.A.Z. Smith
>Most cons get room rates much lower than rack.
>Only allow con members to
>get rooms at the con rates. Hotels will usually agree to this.
But if the hotel isn't full, there are often 2-for-breakfast rates
or other deals that are as cheaper or cheaper than the con rate.
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Marty Brenneis
: I have no idea how viable this is, but I'm reminded of the idea of keeping
: a con's size down by encouraging some competing event to schedule itself
: across town on the same weekend to siphon off the extra crowds. If it can
: be made to work it seems to me to have less bad vibes than telling people
: they can't come to your con.
: --
: -- Tom
: bub...@well.sf.ca.us
Othercon, we only have the overflow. :)
-droid
L.A.Z. Smith
>>
>> 1. Stop all publicity. No fliers at cons, no posts on the net, no info in
>> public, period. Ask the prozines, etc., not to publish info about
>> your con's existence. Require people to write to you to get details
>> about the con.
In article <71443.1447-...@dialup-3-152.gw.umn.edu>
71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
>We do all that (though we do have a phone hotline for info). One of the
>advantages of being in the second largest hotel, which is in the 'burbs,
>rather than the largest, which is in downtown Mpls, is that we don't get
>'casual drop-ins'.
You don't, really. Minicon is publicized all over the net and other
places too. I haven't been to the con in more than a decade and yet
I hear the details of it every year. Now, granted, I belong to the
general class of fans that I assume you want to know about the
con, but if you really want to cut attendance you should make it a
little bit difficult even for people like me to find out about it.
I ought at least to have to make a few phone calls or send somebody
a letter. Every other year or so I still get a flier in the mail.
>We sort of keep trying that, but the general policy is, 'if you want this
>badly enough, you do it', and there's always someone who is more than
>willing to run a masquerade, dance, etc. We're really not concerned about
>the number of 'drunken rowdies'. They are a problem, but they are not a
>membership issue; there's not enough of them.
If your excess membership is not made up of casual drop-ins or
drunken rowdies, who are they? DDB said that maybe 2/3 of your
attendance was nonfans who come only to Minicon. Why are they
coming?
If you really want to reduce attendance, then you either have to get
rid of the elements that attract these nonfans or do something else
to discourage them. Maybe you could lie? Send out a lot of fliers
saying you weren't going to have all that stuff for one year and
that the program would be intensely sercon. Get Fred Levy-Haskell
to write it -- his publicity for Corflu was so daunting I almost
didn't come :-). Talk about how boring it will all be to anyone
with no interest in SF. Then hold the usual con.
>Years ago, we speculated on what would happen if we didn't hold a Minicon.
>Didn't send out any flyers, answered all questions truthfully. We figured
>that around Easter weekend, several hundred fans would sort of arrive at
>the hotel and, not finding a con, would just party the weekend away.
Maybe you should try it.
>> All these (except no. 2) have the drawback of discouraging protofans
>> who don't already know an active fan, but I think these gargantuan
>> cons discourage the people most likely to become real fans.
>>
>That assumes that a person who likes large cons is not a real fan. I very
>much disagree with this.
That isn't what I said. What I said was that someone who is not yet
a fan but has the potential to become one can be discouraged by
large cons. It's harder to meet people at large cons than at small
ones, especially if one is at all shy. And if a majority of the
attendance isn't really part of fandom anyway, it makes it that much
harder to find fandom as you and I know it.
People can and do go to science fiction conventions for years
without ever finding fandom.
>> Anyway,
>> in Mpls., you have Minn-stf if you want to try to attract people who
>> might actually be interested in SF.
>
>Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I said if you want to. The fact that there's an existing club means
you can invite people to come to it. It doesn't mean you actually
have to talk SF once they get there.
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Michael T Pins
>>We sort of keep trying that, but the general policy is, 'if you want this
>>badly enough, you do it', and there's always someone who is more than
>>willing to run a masquerade, dance, etc. We're really not concerned about
>>the number of 'drunken rowdies'. They are a problem, but they are not a
>>membership issue; there's not enough of them.
>If your excess membership is not made up of casual drop-ins or
>drunken rowdies, who are they? DDB said that maybe 2/3 of your
>attendance was nonfans who come only to Minicon. Why are they
>coming?
Because Minicon has become a "hip" thing to do. I know a large number of
people who go to two cons a year, the local one and Minicon. These people
aren't fen by any definition I've ever used. Realize that many of them are
friends of mine, and generally wonderful people, but fen they aren't.
Can you do anything to stop them from coming? I'd instead ask, do you want
to? Some of these people may well become fen, given the chance. Minicon
hasn't been a small local con in years, and unless draconian measure are
taken, never again will be. It's a monster grown of it's own success.
There are small local and/or specialized cons now running in the area for
people who prefer them.
--
*****************************************************************************
* Michael Pins | Internet: mtp...@icaen.uiowa.edu *
* ISCA's Amiga & Unix Librarian | #include <std.disclaimer> *
*****************************************************************************
David E Romm
[some snips]
> Minicon is publicized all over the net and other
> places too. I haven't been to the con in more than a decade and yet
> I hear the details of it every year. Now, granted, I belong to the
> general class of fans that I assume you want to know about the
> con, but if you really want to cut attendance you should make it a
> little bit difficult even for people like me to find out about it.
> I ought at least to have to make a few phone calls or send somebody
> a letter. Every other year or so I still get a flier in the mail.
>
Well, yes. You are indeed in the general class of fans we want to know
about (and encourage to come) to Minicon. We don't advertise locally and
discourage prozine listing, etc. If anyone finds out about Minicon through
the faanish net (which, yes, includes BBSes) then that's okay, as far as
I'm concerned.
I don't mention Minicon on Shockwave... except the week or so afterward
when I air the Minicon Stage Show. And even then, I'll just mention the
name and few details. If anyone remembers after a year, or calls me up to
find out more info, I direct them to the MN-STF Hotline (or, more recently,
the Minicon Hotline) or the Minicon PO Box.
> >We're really not concerned about
> >the number of 'drunken rowdies'. They are a problem, but they are not a
> >membership issue; there's not enough of them.
>
> If your excess membership is not made up of casual drop-ins or
> drunken rowdies, who are they? DDB said that maybe 2/3 of your
> attendance was nonfans who come only to Minicon. Why are they
> coming?
>
Your implication is that "nonfans" = "casual drop-ins or drunken rowdies".
The latter is not 2/3 of the con.
As I mentioned before, drunken rowdies make up something like 1% or less of
the con. This is fairly consistent no matter what the size of the con. At
small cons there's the fugghead & friend who can be ignored or, even
better, gossiped about in conreports. At Minicon, there may be 30 people
who fall into that category. Again, this is an Ops problem, not an
attendence issue. (If it were more of an issue, we'd probably not serve
alcohol in the consuite again.)
And again, we're way off in the comparitive boonies of the Twin Cities.
There is no bus service to/from the con from early Fri eve to Mon am. We
don't get people off the street dropping in to see where those costumes
came from. Perhaps DD-B or someone has more precise numbers, but Minicon
sells roughly 700-800 rooms over two or more hotels per night Fri & Sat
eve. I generally estimate an average of 4 people per room; let's make a
major fudge factor and say for Minicon, 3 per room. That's still 2100
people out of 3000 who stay overnight for the con. They can hardly be
described as 'casual drop-ins'.
As for the general charge of being a "nonfan"... I remember the time, lo
the years pass, when one of the definitions of a fan was that you had been
to a con. Certainly, anyone who has been to several Minicons counts as a
fan by any definition Walt Willis would recognize.
I'm going to throw the ball back to you (and DD-B or anyone else who wants
to try): Define 'fan'.
>
> >Years ago, we speculated on what would happen if we didn't hold a Minicon.
> >Didn't send out any flyers, answered all questions truthfully. We figured
> >that around Easter weekend, several hundred fans would sort of arrive at
> >the hotel and, not finding a con, would just party the weekend away.
>
> Maybe you should try it.
>
That's what we have fallcons for.
> >That assumes that a person who likes large cons is not a real fan. I very
> >much disagree with this.
>
> That isn't what I said. What I said was that someone who is not yet
> a fan but has the potential to become one can be discouraged by
> large cons. It's harder to meet people at large cons than at small
> ones, especially if one is at all shy. And if a majority of the
> attendance isn't really part of fandom anyway, it makes it that much
> harder to find fandom as you and I know it.
>
By sheer statistical probability, a larger con will encourage more
protofans than smaller ones. I very much disagree that it's harder* to
meet people at larger cons. There are more entry points. There are more
programming items to use as icebreakers, are more parties to go to, more
conversations casually taking place near the elevators. At a small con, a
single person who doesn't know anyone is going to have a very hard time
breaking into the clusters of friends who are using fanspeak and
reminiscing about previous cons. Reinconation has a major problem with
this.
> People can and do go to science fiction conventions for years
> without ever finding fandom.
>
You need a dose of Midwest Side Story. Have you read the sequels to The
Enchanted Duplicator? Science fiction conventions ARE part of fandom.
(And this coming from someone who Moshe Feder talked into signing the
letter complaining about the treatment of fanzine fans in Midwest Side
Story....)
By the way... I hear there's an excellent con over Easter weekend over in
England. Highly thought of. Closer to home, there's a con that weekend in
Baltimore.
--
Pies! We made pies! -- Animaniacs
no depression
=le...@smith.CHI.IL.US (L.A.Z. Smith)
=wrote:
=>> Some ideas for limiting membership without rigid membership caps:
=>>
=>> 1. Stop all publicity. [details deleted]
=
=71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
=>We do all that (though we do have a phone hotline for info). One of the
=>advantages of being in the second largest hotel, which is in the 'burbs,
=>rather than the largest, which is in downtown Mpls, is that we don't get
=>'casual drop-ins'.
=
=You don't, really. Minicon is publicized all over the net and other
=places too. I haven't been to the con in more than a decade and yet
=I hear the details of it every year. Now, granted, I belong to the
=general class of fans that I assume you want to know about the
=con, but if you really want to cut attendance you should make it a
=little bit difficult even for people like me to find out about it.
=I ought at least to have to make a few phone calls or send somebody
=a letter. Every other year or so I still get a flier in the mail.
I think David was saying that the publicity budget was rather small
if not non-existant. Most of the publicit is word of mouth.
There is little you can do to stop people from talking which is
one of the best ways to promote your convention. Word of mouth is
very powerful especially in the fandom comunity and its perifery (sp?).
If you throw a good con with 3,000 people attending, a _lot_ of people
are going to know that you threw a good con. It's as simple as that.
Maybe one could try debriefing every attendee after the con?
=>We sort of keep trying that, but the general policy is, 'if you want this
=>badly enough, you do it', and there's always someone who is more than
=>willing to run a masquerade, dance, etc. We're really not concerned about
=>the number of 'drunken rowdies'. They are a problem, but they are not a
=>membership issue; there's not enough of them.
=
=If your excess membership is not made up of casual drop-ins or
=drunken rowdies, who are they? DDB said that maybe 2/3 of your
=attendance was nonfans who come only to Minicon. Why are they
=coming?
Well DDB is off by a longshot. I went this year and to be honest I could
not find many people who could not find one thing [non party] of
interest to them. Granted the world of sci-fi includes many many things
from books to zines, from comics to games. The convention has gone
_way_ beyond being a literary convention and it shows. Not that I mind,
I kind of like the mix.
There are those who say "those gamers aren't fans" or some other silly
drivel, but that is totally unfounded in every sense of the word. I'll
grant you that maybe only half the people there read sf/f on any kind
of regular basis, but most people there have read something.
I seem to get the impression here that many of the people who I consider
"fans" might not fit DDBs definintion, or maybe even yours.
=If you really want to reduce attendance, then you either have to get
=rid of the elements that attract these nonfans or do something else
=to discourage them. Maybe you could lie? Send out a lot of fliers
=saying you weren't going to have all that stuff for one year and
=that the program would be intensely sercon. Get Fred Levy-Haskell
=to write it -- his publicity for Corflu was so daunting I almost
=didn't come :-). Talk about how boring it will all be to anyone
=with no interest in SF. Then hold the usual con.
Well this is just stupid. The problem is that people may believe you.
Two dangers here: most of the "non-fans" come to the con through
word of mouth so this would not affect them, and the people who
get fliers and mailings are usually hardcore fiawol fans who might
not come then.
=>Years ago, we speculated on what would happen if we didn't hold a Minicon.
=>Didn't send out any flyers, answered all questions truthfully. We figured
=>that around Easter weekend, several hundred fans would sort of arrive at
=>the hotel and, not finding a con, would just party the weekend away.
=
=Maybe you should try it.
Hmmm well this might work but I would hope such a move would be
greatly publicized I know that I would be caught off guard since I live
in California and not privy to much of the local goings on in
Minnesota.
=>> All these (except no. 2) have the drawback of discouraging protofans
=>> who don't already know an active fan, but I think these gargantuan
=>> cons discourage the people most likely to become real fans.
=>>
=>That assumes that a person who likes large cons is not a real fan. I very
=>much disagree with this.
=
=That isn't what I said. What I said was that someone who is not yet
=a fan but has the potential to become one can be discouraged by
=large cons. It's harder to meet people at large cons than at small
=ones, especially if one is at all shy. And if a majority of the
=attendance isn't really part of fandom anyway, it makes it that much
=harder to find fandom as you and I know it.
I don't think people become fans because of a convention. It is a lot
more subtle than that. You might become a fan of conventions from going
to them but being a sf/f fan does not start that way. You keep saying
that most at Minicon aren't fans. I'm quite sure they are. Even if
they are not deep in the inner circles of the concom they do enjoy
the con. I mean to be honest I don't think anyone who is not literate
in the genre of sf/f could honestly enjoy Minicon. I have seen people
try and most end up just being annoyed by all the bad puns and constumes.
=People can and do go to science fiction conventions for years
=without ever finding fandom.
Finding fandom? You seem to imply that there is something more to
fandom than enjoying sf/f. I dissagree entirely.
=
=>> Anyway,
=>> in Mpls., you have Minn-stf if you want to try to attract people who
=>> might actually be interested in SF.
=>
=>Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
=
=I said if you want to. The fact that
=there's an existing club
=means you can invite people to come to it. It doesn't mean you actually
=have to talk SF once they get there.
Yes but Minn-stf is only a very small cross section of all of fandom
in Mpls. It does not have that much sway over who attends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Prock "There's a bottle of asprin
pr...@teetot.acusd.edu on the table by the Playboys.
Did you seen Miss April,
God I feel so old." - The Rugburns
Jim_...@transarc.com
Not if you word your contract correctly. Boskone has for years had a
clause in the contract that says we have the lowest rate available to
the public. That way, if the hotel tries to run such a special, they
have to give us con rates at that rate also. (As a result, the hotels
we've dealt with typically don't run such promotions on our weekend.)
Seth Breidbart
>le...@smith.CHI.IL.US (L.A.Z. Smith) writes:
>> But if the hotel isn't full, there are often 2-for-breakfast rates
>> or other deals that are as cheaper or cheaper than the con rate.
>
>Not if you word your contract correctly. Boskone has for years had a
>clause in the contract that says we have the lowest rate available to
>the public. That way, if the hotel tries to run such a special, they
>have to give us con rates at that rate also. (As a result, the hotels
>we've dealt with typically don't run such promotions on our weekend.)
That's a standard clause.
It is _often_ violated (including at at least one Boskone).
Furthermore, the 2-for-breakfast rates are normally capacity
controlled (limited number of rooms), so the hotel claims they aren't
really available to the general public, but only to a few of them.
Seth
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> le...@smith.chi.il.us (L.A.Z. Smith) writes:
[her remarks on Minicon deleted, Andrew responds:]
> Granted the world of sci-fi includes many many things
> from books to zines, from comics to games. The convention has gone
> _way_ beyond being a literary convention and it shows. Not that I mind,
> I kind of like the mix.
>
> There are those who say "those gamers aren't fans" or some other silly
> drivel, but that is totally unfounded in every sense of the word.
Uh-oh.
I suspect, Andrew, that you are an innocent who has never discussed
The True Nature Of Fandom with Leah before.
I'm getting out my asbestos umbrella. Don't want to get hit by a
ricochet.
> I seem to get the impression here that many of the people who I consider
> "fans" might not fit DDBs definintion, or maybe even yours.
It's sinking in...
> =People can and do go to science fiction conventions for years
> =without ever finding fandom.
>
> Finding fandom? You seem to imply that there is something more to
> fandom than enjoying sf/f. I dissagree entirely.
I anticipate a ripe response from our Hugo nominee.
O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
- ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/ \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ / Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET
- - Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43009::HIGGINS
Evelyn C. Leeper
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnalv.fnal.gov> wrote:
> In article <1994Jun12.0...@teetot.acusd.edu>, pr...@teetot.acusd.edu (no depression) writes:
> > le...@smith.chi.il.us (L.A.Z. Smith) writes:
> [her remarks on Minicon deleted, Andrew responds:]
> > Granted the world of sci-fi includes many many things
> > from books to zines, from comics to games. The convention has gone
> > _way_ beyond being a literary convention and it shows. Not that I mind,
> > I kind of like the mix.
> >
> > There are those who say "those gamers aren't fans" or some other silly
> > drivel, but that is totally unfounded in every sense of the word.
>
> Uh-oh.
>
> I suspect, Andrew, that you are an innocent who has never discussed
> The True Nature Of Fandom with Leah before.
>
> > =without ever finding fandom.
> >
> > Finding fandom? You seem to imply that there is something more to
> > fandom than enjoying sf/f. I dissagree entirely.
>
> I anticipate a ripe response from our Hugo nominee.
Of course, the ripeness of the response is a function of *which* of
our Hugo nominees you ask....
IMHO, to say "those gamers aren't fans" *is* totally unfounded unless
you know more about the gamers in question, since there are gamers
I know who are also fans.
But does being a fan imply one is in fandom? I suspect not.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"Am I politically correct today? Do I do crystals and New Age?
Obviously, women's music's for me--Edith Piaf, Bessie Smith, and Patti Page."
--Lynn Lavner
David A. Z.
> In article <Bm-x5uR....@delphi.com>, stan...@delphi.com wrote:
>
> > David E Romm <71443...@compuserve.com> writes:
>
> > I'm not sure how giving you free hotel rooms
> > and memberships would add 100 people to the convention.
>
> If it were arranged far enough in advance for Shockwave to be mentioned
> in flyers and PRs, we might attract that many additional people or more.
> Dragoncon puts on a radio play, but they make sure it's well advertised.
Obviously compensating special guests to attend can generate
extra revenue if the guests are chosen carefully.
What this very much reminds me of that the 1st time I attended
DragonCon was the 1st time I travelled more than 500 miles for a
non-Worldcon convention. (DragonCon is somewhere between 850 to a 1000
miles from Boston.)
What really drew me to that convention was the fact that
Dr. Timothy Leary was the GoH. There is little chance that I would
have attended otherwise.
(I'd say no chance, except that they also allegedly managed to
get Ralph Bakshi (sp?) to attend. [Which he didn't, but that's another
long story {which I've only heard 3rd or 4th hand <How come you
don't see more than 2 levels of parentheticals more often?-grin->}])
Funny thing is that although Dr. Timothy Leary, to the best of
my knowledge, hasn't been a WorldCon guest, he was actually in Chicago
lecturing at another convention AT THE SAME TIME as the last Chicon
was going on.
His schedule at that convention looked somewhat sparce. I'd
be willing to bet that if Chicon had made him a reasonable offer (Ie:
probably some reasonable amount of cash) they could have gotten him
to do a special appearance or two in the evening/weekend or whenever
he had a free moment. Even having him there as a "Special Guest Appearance"
would have undouptably generated lots of extra income for the convention,
esp. with $100+ per head for at the door memberships.
Actually, not only did Dr. T. L's appearance draw me to that one
DragonCon, but since I had a good time and made friends down in Atlanta
that 1st time, I've been wanting to attend Dragoncon's since. (I'm all
set to go this year. Last year I couldn't make it, but planned on it
seriously enough to have gotten stuck with non-refundable airline tickets.)
I suppose this repeat-draw aspect doesn't apply to only-care-about-
this-one-year Worldcon set of mind, but it definetely applies to other Cons.
In practice though, good Worldcons build goodwill toward all future
Worldcons, and esp. Worldcons that are held in the same city/by the same
people 6 or 9 years later.
Lastly, I wanted to comment that since WorldCon is a not-for-
profit organization, it's real goals ought to be to break-even, not
turn a profit. Although I understand that allowing for a margin or
error is prudent, money should be spent there is a good chance that
money spent will generate the same amount of revenue as the cost, not
just when there's a good change it'll likely to turn a profit.
Btw, in the event the only some guests are paid, a writen contract
requiring them not to disclose the nature of compensation (to anyone
other than the IRS) might be appropriate.
- Daz
(Fan telling smoffs what
to do. [: )
P.s. DragonCon is July 15th-17th. Although this is less than a week away,
Delta, United and TWA have some good rates with 7 days notice ($219
from Boston) and Continental has some Ok "Peanuts" no-advance notice
rates ($200 each way, Boston to Atlanta.) Simular rates seem to apply
to most Eastern/Central cities, varying accourding to distance.
P.p.s. Goodwill caused by good guests, also includes free plugs like the
"P.s." above. :)
Keith F. Lynch
David A. Z. <d...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
> Funny thing is that although Dr. Timothy Leary, to the best of my
> knowledge, hasn't been a WorldCon guest, he was actually in Chicago
> lecturing at another convention AT THE SAME TIME as the last Chicon
> I'd be willing to bet that if Chicon had made him a reasonable offer
> (Ie: probably some reasonable amount of cash) they could have gotten
> him to do a special appearance or two ...
But he did appear at least once at Chicon, in a panel along with Robert
Anton Wilson.
--
Keith Lynch, k...@access.digex.com
f p=2,3:2 s q=1 x "f f=3:2 q:f*f>p!'q s q=p#f" w:q p,?$x\8+1*8
David A. Z.
Keith F. Lynch <k...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>But [Dr. Timothy Leary] did appear at least once at Chicon, in a panel
>along with Robert Anton Wilson.
But I didn't notice his appearance. Since the topic we were
discussing was generating revenue, the real question would become:
How much was his appearance advertised before (and during?) the
convention?
My friends and I noticed lots of ads for some other convention
with Dr. Leary appearing posted all about, but never noticed anything
about him being at Worldcon.
Speaking of which, I remeber one Worldcon (Chicon or MagicCon)
had Francis Ford Copola [sp?] do an introduction to one his films, in a small
movie room, with standing room prohibited by the staff. His appearance
was mentioned in small print in the program, in such a way that I noticed
it and figured that "presented by Francis Ford Copola" was a typo for
"directed by Francis Ford Copola." My mistake didn't mean much though,
since two friends who did get in said that hordes of people were turned
away from the small room as is. Although he only seemed interested in
making that one quick appearance, I haven't seen or heard any evidence
that the movie/appearance couldn't have been scheduled in a much larger
room.
Quite honestly, I get the impression that is the product of
snobery of one of two types: Either the ConCom figures that no-one will
be interested in Leary/Copola/whoever because they're not big SF writers
and give them small billings, or the ConCom really likes Leary/Copola/whoever
and deliberately schedule their short appearances into small rooms so
that they can have the special guest more to themselves.
Even if a really big name is going to show up for a couple of
hours, I don't see why they can't be stuck into one of the biggest
rooms available (I'm pretty sure much bigger rooms capable of projection
were available in Copola's case) and give it big "SPECIAL GUEST: ..."
billing. (Including advance advertisement for the convention when possible.)
And lastly, on a related flame, (guess i'm not in good mood today [: )
I remember at least one small one-guest convention where the ConCom absolutely
insisted that everyone get into line for GoH autographing and that anyone
leaving the line for any reason, getting into line late, or not in the
GoH lecture room when the line started, would not be allowed back in. Since
the end result was about 87% of the attending body lining up, the net result
was getting the guest out up to 12% quicker while requiring everyone to
stand around in line when they could have been milling about (and going to
their rooms/dealer room to get stuff to be signed) if it wasn't for the
stupid policy.
- Daz
P.s. I take these newgroups seriously. If you think I'm going too off
topic, please Email me and i'll take it into consideration.
Bernard Peek
71443...@compuserve.com "David E Romm" writes:
>
> Many cons do things for their guests on the QT. Not everything a con does
> is publicized.
Sometimes it can't be. There are a couple of authors who really don't
want their name used.
A fan who organised his first one-day con as a student couldn't name
his "Surprise" guest. Arthur C. Clarke said that he wouldn't show if
his name was publicised.
--
Bernard Peek
Science Fiction Foundation database jockey.
I.T. & Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Gary P. Agin
:[comments deleted]
: Speaking of which, I remeber one Worldcon (Chicon or MagicCon)
It was MagicCon in Orlando
: had Francis Ford Copola [sp?] do an introduction to one his films, in a small
: movie room, with standing room prohibited by the staff. His appearance
: was mentioned in small print in the program, in such a way that I noticed
: it and figured that "presented by Francis Ford Copola" was a typo for
: "directed by Francis Ford Copola." My mistake didn't mean much though,
: since two friends who did get in said that hordes of people were turned
: away from the small room as is. Although he only seemed interested in
: making that one quick appearance, I haven't seen or heard any evidence
: that the movie/appearance couldn't have been scheduled in a much larger
: room.
It was scheduled in the main movie room which was quite large. My recollection
is that there was room for almost a thousand there. Someone on the committee
can correct me, I'm sure. I arrived about 15 minutes before the scheduled time
of the presentation and got a seat in the middle of the room. There were people
arriving (and getting seats) until just before the start time. Of course, they
started a few minutes late, so there were people turned away before the
presentation actually started.
: Quite honestly, I get the impression that is the product of
: snobery of one of two types: Either the ConCom figures that no-one will
: be interested in Leary/Copola/whoever because they're not big SF writers
: and give them small billings, or the ConCom really likes Leary/Copola/whoever
: and deliberately schedule their short appearances into small rooms so
: that they can have the special guest more to themselves.
There are some other possibilities:
1. The ConCom realizes that not all attendees are media fans (I am one) and
that the entire con will not want to attend the presentation. They
schedule the event in a reasonable sized room based on expected attendance.
They do not want to embarrass the con or the guest by putting them in a
nearly empty room.
2. The ConCom figures that everyone will want to attend the presentation.
There is no room with projection equipment large enough to seat everyone.
Limit attendance by limiting publicity (small type listing in program) and
closing doors when the room is full. This keeps the guest from being
mobbed (or feeling that way).
In neither of these cases, do I see any snobery. In case 1, a mistake was
made in estimating attendance--people were turned away rather than there being
empty seats. In case 2, people such as you missed the presentation because
the publicity was too obscure.
*************************************************************************
/ | \
/ Gary P. Agin | \
/ Department of Physics | Phone: (906) 487-2907 \
/ Michigan Technological University | Fax: (906) 487-2933 \
/ 1400 Townsend Dr. | \
/ Houghton, MI 49931-1295 | ga...@phy.mtu.edu \
/ USA | \
/ | \
/ Opinions expressed are my own and not nec. those of the University \
*************************************************************************
Hazel Boston-Baden
> publicity was too obscure.
It sounds like the newszine editor could have made a big difference here,
as could the Programming dept. (Disclaimer: I ran the daily newsletter
at Westercon 47 last weekend.) The newszine is a good vehicle for
highlighting the featured event of the evening, especially if the
convention is spread over more than one facility or floor. If the
newsletter dept. didn't know what was going on, it was the Programming
dept.'s responsibility to get a notice to the newszine editor to publish
in the daily newsletter. As one of the lead stories, of course;it's a Big
Deal when you have the producer or director there to introduce any film,
let alone Coppola.
I realize that newszine could have dropped the ball; Programming could
have dropped the ball; or the con might not have wanted to publicize it
much. In the third case, I would view that as a mistake.
--
hazel...@netcom.com - Home of Margarita Jell-O, an alcoholic use for lime
jello. Email me w/ "request margarita" in subject or as 1st line of message
and a robot will send you the recipe. More recipes, ftp.netcom.com:/pub/hazel
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In article <2v95ff...@life.ai.mit.edu>,
> David A. Z. <d...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Funny thing is that although Dr. Timothy Leary, to the best of my
>> knowledge, hasn't been a WorldCon guest, he was actually in Chicago
>> lecturing at another convention AT THE SAME TIME as the last Chicon
>> was going on. ...
> Anton Wilson.
Correct. I missed this, though, since in the next room Clifford Stoll
was giving a talk. He was *tremendous*, so I don't regret missing Leary and
Wilson.
In response to another question, I don't recall how long in advance
the Leary-Wilson appearance was arranged. It wasn't one of the panels
I was responsible for. I think it was fairly short notice, maybe less
than a month, but I'm just guessing.
They were in town along with the 1991 Libertarian Party convention.
(Pardon me if you've heard me tell this before.) When I heard about
this convention, I thought it was a neat coincidence and alerted
Chicon program people so they could investigate possibly "borrowing"
speakers for our con.
Later I learned that this was *not* a coincidence. The Libertarians
actually intended to attend both the party convention and Worldcon in
Chicago in the same week.
A party that deliberately schedules its national convention to
dovetail with the World Science Fiction Convention is not, in my
opinion, ready to be taken seriously in American politics.
_-_ _-_
/ -\__/- \ Chicon V Bill Higgins
/ \(..)/ \ 49th World Science Fiction | Track Manager
| | | | Convention | Science & Technology
| \\\ \/ /// | |
\ \\\ /// / 29 August-2 September 1991 |
\ () / Hyatt Regency Chicago Hotel | hig...@fnal.fnal.gov
\ || / Chicago, Illinois, USA hig...@fnal.bitnet
\__{ }__/
( ) [apologies to Pablo Picasso...]
----------
David Dyer-Bennet
>In article <15...@smith.CHI.IL.US>, le...@smith.CHI.IL.US (L.A.Z. Smith)
>wrote:
>> >We're really not concerned about
Those room figures aren't unreasonable. The Radisson is 575 rooms,
and we essentially fill them. I don't have accurate figures for the
Sofitel or the Bradbury, but at least 125 between them is in the
ballpark. I'm not so sure about 3 per room. There are a number of
packed rooms, but there are also a number of 1 and 2 person rooms,
just among people I can point to. Still, the average has to be
somewhat above 2 per room, which gives 1400 and doesn't substantially
change your point, I don't think.
>As for the general charge of being a "nonfan"... I remember the time, lo
>the years pass, when one of the definitions of a fan was that you had been
>to a con. Certainly, anyone who has been to several Minicons counts as a
>fan by any definition Walt Willis would recognize.
I seriously question the fannish status of somebody who has been to
three Minicons *and no other cons, and no Minn-Stf or other fan club
meetings, and reads no fanzines, and doesn't participate in net
groups*. In other words, people who do this one thing a year and have
no other connection to fandom.
I worked with most of a department full of them back in Massachusetts.
Some definite fans, most SF readers. I'd see half the department at
Boskone, but most of them did nothing else remotely fannish ever.
Now, I don't think they caused trouble at the con, either. And they
were all friends of multiple fans. I know a few Minicon-only people
at my current work also, and they're not bad for the con either.
Understand, I'm not using "fan = good, nonfan = bad". But, if there's
a shortage of resources to run the con, where should you start
cutting? Given that the true troublemakers are a small number and
hard to identify?
>I'm going to throw the ball back to you (and DD-B or anyone else who wants
>to try): Define 'fan'.
Quite fair. I don't believe there is or can be any really definite
definition, but I think part of it includes making fannish activities
a significant part of your life. I don't consider going to one con a
year (as your *entire* fannish activity) to reach that level, at least
if you live in Minneapolis where there are at least two general fan
groups plus media groups and at least 3 or 4 cons a year just in town.
(Somebody who lived 800 miles from the nearest con, and was poor, and
managed to get to one con a year, I'd call that a significant part of
*his* life.) We can also pick nits about people who through force of
circumstances (often children) have had to essentially drop all
out-of-town cons. As I said, I don't believe I can draw a hard and
fast line (and if somebody else tries I'll probably pick nits too).
>By sheer statistical probability, a larger con will encourage more
>protofans than smaller ones. I very much disagree that it's harder* to
>meet people at larger cons. There are more entry points. There are more
>programming items to use as icebreakers, are more parties to go to, more
>conversations casually taking place near the elevators. At a small con, a
>single person who doesn't know anyone is going to have a very hard time
>breaking into the clusters of friends who are using fanspeak and
>reminiscing about previous cons. Reinconation has a major problem with
>this.
I'm not sure I buy the statistical argument. That's only true if the
probabilities are equal, which we have not established. However, I
agree that it's actually pretty easy to meet people at a large con.
There's another point: You're much more likely to *hear about* a
large con. That's why my first convention was the Worldcon in LA in
1972. I'd never heard of minicon at the time.
>> People can and do go to science fiction conventions for years
>> without ever finding fandom.
>You need a dose of Midwest Side Story. Have you read the sequels to The
>Enchanted Duplicator? Science fiction conventions ARE part of fandom.
>(And this coming from someone who Moshe Feder talked into signing the
>letter complaining about the treatment of fanzine fans in Midwest Side
>Story....)
Talk to Eric Heidemann, who describes attending Minicons for many
years without ever discovering fandom. I don't find this in conflict
with saying that cons *are* part of fandom. They're just a part. In
terms of number of days, a very small part.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard 4242 Minnehaha Ave. S.
d...@network.com, d...@terrabit.mn.org Minneapolis, MN 55406
Don't waste your time arguing about allocating +1-612-721-8800
blame; there'll be enough to go around. Fax +1-612-724-3314
David Dyer-Bennet
>If your excess membership is not made up of casual drop-ins or
>drunken rowdies, who are they? DDB said that maybe 2/3 of your
>attendance was nonfans who come only to Minicon. Why are they
>coming?
We've got a large tie-in to local groups that serve as their own
fandoms, so to speak -- the Ren Fest, for example, and various much
smaller highschool social groups. I also think we *do* have a serious
drunken rowdie contingent.
David Dyer-Bennet
>In article <15...@smith.CHI.IL.US>, le...@smith.CHI.IL.US (L.A.Z. Smith)
>wrote:
>>
>> Some ideas for limiting membership without rigid membership caps:
>>
>> 1. Stop all publicity. No fliers at cons, no posts on the net, no info in
>> public, period. Ask the prozines, etc., not to publish info about
>> your con's existence. Require people to write to you to get details
>> about the con. You can mail fliers to previous members whom you'd like
>> to have return, and newcomers you think you want.
>>
>> This works less well if you're stuck in your date and site, like
>> Minicon, but it will discourage some of the casual drop-ins. Out of
>> sight, out of mind.
>We do all that (though we do have a phone hotline for info). One of the
>advantages of being in the second largest hotel, which is in the 'burbs,
>rather than the largest, which is in downtown Mpls, is that we don't get
>'casual drop-ins'.
We don't do most of Leah's suggestions, DavE. Minicon routinely
appears in the magazine lists these days, for example. And our
mailing list is by no means as restricted as Leah suggests, either.
I suspect that being in Bloomington / Edina (two rich suburbs; and the
hotel really does fall in both; for those not familiar with the area)
gets us more casual teenagers than being downtown would.
>> 2. Identify the segment of fandom you really want and limit
>> programming to what interests those people only. Announce this
>> policy. Dumping the items that appeal to nonfans, like dances, the
>> masquerade and the movies, will help, too. Of course, these items
>> also appeal to many fans...and their absence won't help if what
>> you're trying to discourage is a crowd of drunken rowdies who hang
>> out at the con but don't buy memberships or go to the programming
>> anyway.
>We sort of keep trying that, but the general policy is, 'if you want this
>badly enough, you do it', and there's always someone who is more than
>willing to run a masquerade, dance, etc. We're really not concerned about
>the number of 'drunken rowdies'. They are a problem, but they are not a
>membership issue; there's not enough of them.
Some of us are *very* concerned about the number of drunken rowdies,
and about the fact that the consuite is not a place that I or many of
my friends spend any time Friday or Saturday nights.
It also sounds *far* too similar to just-pre-meltdown Boskones.
I was seriously supporting the proposals to make an actual attempt to
scale back, but that was voted down, which has pretty much settled
that for some time now.
>> 4. Eliminate at-the-door memberships and, if you fill your hotel,
>> allow only members to make room reservations. If your hotel will
>> cooperate, closing the building to non-members seems like a workable
>> idea. If you can get them to limit parking privileges to hotel
>> guests, that will help. A little hard on some local fans you do want,
>> but you can make special arrangements for them -- carpooling,
>> special passes, whatever.
>We didn't eliminate at-the-door memberships, but we did bump the price
>significantly. That helped, and it meant that the latecomers would often
>be the profit margin of the con.
>We can't close the Radisson to non-members. There are a few rooms which we
>don't have (not many, but there are some long-term leases, though someone
>closer to Hotel might have more recent info on this), and the hotel has an
>Easter Sunday Brunch, which they won't give up and means that mundanes
>(nice people, usually, but definately mundane) inundate the pool area
>Sunday morning.
And nobody mentioned one-day memberships. Minicon has never to my
knowledge had them. We certainly haven't had them *recently*.
Limiting access to the convention hotel rate can help control things,
and we do that. The hotel registration list actually gets checked
against the Minicon registration list. Of course, that only requires
*one* minicon membeship per room :-)
>> 5. Become invitational.
>No.
Not a Minicon type of thing, no. But definitely a "possible" way to
reduce size.
no depression
=71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
=
=appears in the magazine lists these days, for example. And our
=mailing list is by no means as restricted as Leah suggests, either.
=
=I suspect that being in Bloomington / Edina (two rich suburbs; and the
=hotel really does fall in both; for those not familiar with the area)
=gets us more casual teenagers than being downtown would.
Hmm, being a recent teenager (23) and one who still talks to them on a
regular basis I would have to say that most of the teenagers are not from
edina, or if they are did not come because it was the neat con down the
street weekend. I think that this would happen much more downtown where
the con would be much more visible. In fact I have never met anyone who
was a teenager and was attending Minicon and was from edina/bloomington.
And a couple of years ago I talked to most every one in the age range of
16-20 who was not gaming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Prock "I'm going where theres no depression,
pr...@teetot.acusd.edu to a better land that's free from care.
I'm gonna leave this world of toil and trouble
my home's in heaven I'm going there" - Uncle Tupelo
no depression
=>If your excess membership is not made up of casual drop-ins or
=>drunken rowdies, who are they? DDB said that maybe 2/3 of your
=>attendance was nonfans who come only to Minicon. Why are they
=>coming?
=
=We've got a large tie-in to local groups that serve as their own
=fandoms, so to speak -- the Ren Fest, for example, and various much
=smaller highschool social groups. I also think we *do* have a serious
=drunken rowdie contingent.
Not to mention that awfully exclusive concom group, and those ever so
boistrous people over at Musicland. DDB, you seem to be getting a few
things confused. For many years I was a part of, and still am to some
extent, that smaller highschool social group. But we were there for a
reason, we shared particular interests that we could indulge in at
Minicon. Now granted it may not have been Asimov classics or Harry
Harrisons new novel, but our interests were reflected at Minicon to
a greater, or sometimes lesser, extent. And of course you seem to
forget that the con serves alcohol and incurage room parties. Thus drunken
is almost a given. Now the rowdiness we could all do with out. But
then again I'm not sure your definition of rowdy and my definition of
rowdy are the same. Maybe I have been in a hole for the last 10 Minicons,
but I do not recall many incidents of rowdiness. And when they did
occur it was the exception, not the norm. Of course this year seem
to have been exceptional in the exceptions which is not good. And
we of course must let the truth be known. Fen are not the socially
elite who are immune to alcoholism, extreme temper, flagarent behavior,
sexual monagomy, and pedophelia.
Of course it would be nice if all cons were free of this, but if your
invited guests...
well one bad apple can spoil the bushel,
or was it never count your eggs before they're hatched,
or maybe it was an old soldier never dies, he just fades away.
Crispin Cowan
no depression <pr...@teetot.acusd.edu> wrote:
>Fen are not the socially elite who are immune to alcoholism, extreme
>temper, flagarent behavior, sexual monagomy, and pedophelia.
Yeah, that sexual monagomy[sic] is a really nasty habit that we have to
get rid of :-)
Crispin
-----
Crispin Cowan, CS PhD student, searching for a research position
University of Western Ontario
Phyz-mail: Middlesex College, MC28-C, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7
E-mail: cri...@csd.uwo.ca Voice: 519-661-3342
"A distributed system is one in which I cannot get something done
because a machine I've never heard of is down" --Leslie Lamport
David A. Z.
David Dyer-Bennet <d...@terrabit.mn.org> wrote:
)71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
)> [...] Perhaps DD-B or someone has more precise numbers, but Minicon
)>sells roughly 700-800 rooms over two or more hotels per night Fri & Sat
)>eve. I generally estimate an average of 4 people per room; let's make a
)>major fudge factor and say for Minicon, 3 per room. That's still 2100
)>people out of 3000 who stay overnight for the con. They can hardly be
)>described as 'casual drop-ins'.
>Those room figures aren't unreasonable. The Radisson is 575 rooms,
>and we essentially fill them. I don't have accurate figures for the
>Sofitel or the Bradbury, but at least 125 between them is in the
>ballpark. I'm not so sure about 3 per room. There are a number of
>packed rooms, but there are also a number of 1 and 2 person rooms,
>just among people I can point to. Still, the average has to be
>somewhat above 2 per room, which gives 1400 and doesn't substantially
>change your point, I don't think.
I haven't attended Minicon, but I have a quickie flame for you:
Good party cons tend to have "packed" rooms 6, 8, 12, or even
more people in them. There are also lots of 1 and 2 people rooms.
You also left out that some people might stay with friends or end
up wandering the con without ever sleeping to save money, but still
take the con very seriously. (I used to stay awake for 60 hours at
Boskone when I was young and it was huge.)
My basic point it this: The number of people staying there
(vs being "Casual drop-ins") can not be easily predicted just from just
the number of rooms sold without doing some pretty-serious-surveys and
and statistics and math to get a semi-accurate ratio of Non-"casual"
fen to rooms. Mosly because the number of "packed" rooms go too
far in offsetting the average number of people per room
Your attempt to do so with wild guesses at average room
denisty without a proper survey/sampling (which would mean asking
people RANDOMLY, not just the people you hang with) is a total load
of mental-masterbation self-serving bullshit, and can only serve
to confuse the issue.
Thanks for reading -- Daz
P.s. To confuse things further, people sharing/forging/losing badges
or sneaking around without badges also confuses statistics of
how many people actually attended.
David E Romm
(David Dyer-Bennet) wrote:
[snips throughout]
> 71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
>
> >In article <15...@smith.CHI.IL.US>, le...@smith.CHI.IL.US (L.A.Z. Smith)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. Stop all publicity. No fliers at cons, no posts on the net, no info in
> >> public, period. Ask the prozines, etc., not to publish info about
> >> your con's existence. Require people to write to you to get details
> >> about the con. You can mail fliers to previous members whom you'd like
> >> to have return, and newcomers you think you want.
> >We do all that (though we do have a phone hotline for info). One of the
> >advantages of being in the second largest hotel, which is in the 'burbs,
> >rather than the largest, which is in downtown Mpls, is that we don't get
> >'casual drop-ins'.
>
> We don't do most of Leah's suggestions, DavE. Minicon routinely
> appears in the magazine lists these days, for example. And our
> mailing list is by no means as restricted as Leah suggests, either.
When did we start sending info to magazines? We used to avoid them and try
to pull our listings. Did we simply get so big that they could ask around
and fine a flyer? And while we don't restrict the mailing list quite that
much, we have purged it recently so that only those people who have
attended a recent con or responded directly were left.
> I suspect that being in Bloomington / Edina (two rich suburbs; and the
> hotel really does fall in both; for those not familiar with the area)
> gets us more casual teenagers than being downtown would.
I know quite a few of these teeneagers. Of those that I know, few live in
the B/E area. Most talk of Minicon all year and plan their membership and
room reservations months in advance. I can't really consider these kids to
be 'casual' drop ins.
> >We sort of keep trying that, but the general policy is, 'if you want this
> >badly enough, you do it', and there's always someone who is more than
> >willing to run a masquerade, dance, etc. We're really not concerned about
> >the number of 'drunken rowdies'. They are a problem, but they are not a
> >membership issue; there's not enough of them.
>
> Some of us are *very* concerned about the number of drunken rowdies,
> and about the fact that the consuite is not a place that I or many of
> my friends spend any time Friday or Saturday nights.
As others in this newsgroup have responded, the drunken rowdies don't
impact the majority of the attendees. This demonstrates my point that they
are an Ops problem, not a Registration problem. It's not the number* of
drunken rowdies that concern us; it's handling the few who are causing
trouble.
> It also sounds *far* too similar to just-pre-meltdown Boskones.
I didn't follow the politics of Boskone too closely, but wasn't the main
reason for the meltdown problems with the hotel? We have excellent
relations with the Radisson (and Karen will keep them that way), including
how we handle the rowdies.
> Limiting access to the convention hotel rate can help control things,
> and we do that. The hotel registration list actually gets checked
> against the Minicon registration list. Of course, that only requires
> *one* minicon membeship per room :-)
I think that's quite reasonable. Hasn't that been looked into?
--
Shockwave: The longest running science fiction radio program in Earth's
history. Tapes available.
"Who says you have to be a coyote to set traps?"
-- Walter Wolf, Animaniacs .
David E Romm
> 71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
>
> >And again, we're way off in the comparitive boonies of the Twin Cities.
> >There is no bus service to/from the con from early Fri eve to Mon am. We
> >don't get people off the street dropping in to see where those costumes
> >came from. Perhaps DD-B or someone has more precise numbers, but Minicon
> >sells roughly 700-800 rooms over two or more hotels per night Fri & Sat
> >eve. I generally estimate an average of 4 people per room; let's make a
> >major fudge factor and say for Minicon, 3 per room. That's still 2100
> >people out of 3000 who stay overnight for the con. They can hardly be
> >described as 'casual drop-ins'.
>
> Those room figures aren't unreasonable. The Radisson is 575 rooms,
> and we essentially fill them. I don't have accurate figures for the
> Sofitel or the Bradbury, but at least 125 between them is in the
> ballpark. I'm not so sure about 3 per room. There are a number of
> packed rooms, but there are also a number of 1 and 2 person rooms,
> just among people I can point to. Still, the average has to be
> somewhat above 2 per room, which gives 1400 and doesn't substantially
> change your point, I don't think.
To clarify: 4 to 1 is my rule of thumb of attendence vs. rooms. That's to
estimate the size of the con, or, alternately, to estimate the number of
rooms needed for a con of a projected size. Not all attendees get rooms.
And those that do get rooms don't always get them at the Rad or the
designated overflow. When it was the Bradbury, there were always a few who
chose the Sofitel because it was closer. When it was the Sofitel, there
were always a few who chose the Bradbury (or another) because it was
cheaper. This year, I estimate that in addition to the numbers you cite,
there were at least 40 rooms in other hotels (mainly the Sofitel) that
should be added in.
However, Minicon is not a convention many commute to. Some, but not many.
(Compare Balticon, where maybe half to a third commute.) I don't think
there are many single rooms. I would be willing to bet that there are more
4+ people rooms than singles.
> >As for the general charge of being a "nonfan"... I remember the time, lo
> >the years pass, when one of the definitions of a fan was that you had been
> >to a con. Certainly, anyone who has been to several Minicons counts as a
> >fan by any definition Walt Willis would recognize.
>
> I seriously question the fannish status of somebody who has been to
> three Minicons *and no other cons, and no Minn-Stf or other fan club
> meetings, and reads no fanzines, and doesn't participate in net
> groups*. In other words, people who do this one thing a year and have
> no other connection to fandom.
>
> I worked with most of a department full of them back in Massachusetts.
> Some definite fans, most SF readers. I'd see half the department at
> Boskone, but most of them did nothing else remotely fannish ever.
>
> Now, I don't think they caused trouble at the con, either. And they
> were all friends of multiple fans. I know a few Minicon-only people
> at my current work also, and they're not bad for the con either.
>
> Understand, I'm not using "fan = good, nonfan = bad". But, if there's
> a shortage of resources to run the con, where should you start
> cutting? Given that the true troublemakers are a small number and
> hard to identify?
I would regard your department (and any serious reader) to be more
proto-fans than fans. These are the ranks that most of us came from. That
they have other interests and don't Make The Plunge Into Trufandom means we
have been inefficient in our prosyletizing.
On the other hand, the 'true troublemakers' are probably more 'fans' by
your definition that your department. Of the ones I know (mostly by second
and third hand accounts), they have been to other cons or BBS or even pub
zines.
> >I'm going to throw the ball back to you (and DD-B or anyone else who wants
> >to try): Define 'fan'.
>
> Quite fair. I don't believe there is or can be any really definite
> definition, but I think part of it includes making fannish activities
> a significant part of your life. I don't consider going to one con a
> year (as your *entire* fannish activity) to reach that level. [snip]
What if you only went to one con a year but have made the last 10-15
Minicons? I know people like that. There are quite a few people I might
legitimately count as a 'fringefan', but that makes them none the less a
fan and definately welcome at Minicon. For example, Chuck Holst.
[snip]
> >> People can and do go to science fiction conventions for years
> >> without ever finding fandom.
>
> >You need a dose of Midwest Side Story. Have you read the sequels to The
> >Enchanted Duplicator? Science fiction conventions ARE part of fandom.
> >(And this coming from someone who Moshe Feder talked into signing the
> >letter complaining about the treatment of fanzine fans in Midwest Side
> >Story....)
>
> Talk to Eric Heidemann, who describes attending Minicons for many
> years without ever discovering fandom. I don't find this in conflict
> with saying that cons *are* part of fandom. They're just a part. In
> terms of number of days, a very small part.
Talk to Karen Cooper, who had a chance encounter with Nate Bucklin, went to
a local con and within three years was on the Minicon Exec.
I have no problem with describing cons as a part* of fandom. But then
again, I'm one of those who don't consider you a Trufan until you've pubbed
your ish in hecto...
--
Shockwave: The longest running science fiction radio program in Earth's
history. Tapes available.
Pinky: "What if the dragon should eat us?"
Brain: "That would alter our plans."
Crispin Cowan
David E Romm <71443...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>I have no problem with describing cons as a part* of fandom. But then
>again, I'm one of those who don't consider you a Trufan until you've pubbed
>your ish in hecto...
What an archaic notion. I've been a fan for 14 years, never pub'd my
ish, never will. I haven't even *read* a fanzine in ten years. I
consider it to be one of those quaint things that fans used to do, and
some still enjoy.
I don't think there's any one thing that can be cited as a necessary
condition to being a fan. We are too diverse, it is far to easy to
come up with two people who are obviously fans and have completely
disjoint interests. Instead, I use the definition that fans are those
people who socialize in some form with other fans. Thus Fandom is
nothing more than the connected graph of fans.
This definition also fairly clearly identifies the "unwanted" element
we've been discussing. The unwanted are undesirable because:
1. They cause trouble
and
2. They don't know any fans, and don't want to.
The "and don't want to" is important, because neofans don't know any
fans, either, but they do want to.
David Dyer-Bennet
>In article <1994Jul6.2...@terrabit.mn.org> d...@terrabit.mn.org (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>=le...@smith.CHI.IL.US (L.A.Z. Smith) writes:
>=>If your excess membership is not made up of casual drop-ins or
>=>drunken rowdies, who are they? DDB said that maybe 2/3 of your
>=>attendance was nonfans who come only to Minicon. Why are they
>=>coming?
>=
>=We've got a large tie-in to local groups that serve as their own
>=fandoms, so to speak -- the Ren Fest, for example, and various much
>=smaller highschool social groups. I also think we *do* have a serious
>=drunken rowdie contingent.
>Not to mention that awfully exclusive concom group, and those ever so
>boistrous people over at Musicland. DDB, you seem to be getting a few
>things confused.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. For the record, the
Minicon concom continues to be one of the most open in the field.
There are, as usual, a lot of participants including department heads
with only a few years exposure to the con. I don't get the Musicland
reference at all.
>For many years I was a part of, and still am to some
>extent, that smaller highschool social group. But we were there for a
>reason, we shared particular interests that we could indulge in at
>Minicon.
Perhaps you think I was suggesting that the groups I mentioned were
somehow bad people or something? I didn't mean that (and I don't
think I said it, either).
>Now granted it may not have been Asimov classics or Harry
>Harrisons new novel, but our interests were reflected at Minicon to
>a greater, or sometimes lesser, extent.
Since fans have a wide range of interestes, of course a wide range of
interests are represented at conventions. For example, when I was
first attending worldcons there was routinely a Regency dance and / or
a Heyer tea, for fans of Georgette Heyer. Tradition. Doesn't mean
that being interested in Regency dancing is inherently a fannish
activity.
The precise statement of Minicon's problem, in my opinion, is that the
peripheral areas have developed strong enough constituencies that they
are attracting significant numbers of their own people. These groups
are politically powerful enough that it would be impossible to strip
off a lot of things.
This isn't inherently and inescapably bad -- but we overflow the
function space of the largest convention hotel in town. What can we
do from here?
>And of course you seem to
>forget that the con serves alcohol and incurage room parties. Thus drunken
>is almost a given. Now the rowdiness we could all do with out. But
>then again I'm not sure your definition of rowdy and my definition of
>rowdy are the same.
Drinking doesn't require drunken, and drunken doesn't require
obnoxious, loud, or rowdy. Most people I know don't enter the
con-suite Friday or Saturday night except on duty. That part of the
con has essentially been taken away from us already. The noise level,
and level of boorishness, that I've seen in the consuite on the peak
nights is in my opinion far past the tolerable. So I don't go there
any more.
If I can't talk to somebody sitting at a 4-person table with me
without yelling, it's MUCH too loud in the room. Often it's that loud
not just because there are 500 people talking, but because drunken
boors are roaring at the tops of their lungs. Often people bring in
boom boxes and blare away at volumes their gear can't handle, thus
distorting whatever quality the music may once have had (I think this,
at least, is going to be shut down).
>Maybe I have been in a hole for the last 10 Minicons,
>but I do not recall many incidents of rowdiness. And when they did
>occur it was the exception, not the norm. Of course this year seem
>to have been exceptional in the exceptions which is not good.
It's not mostly exception situations actually requiring action; it's
the total mass effect of being just a *little* louder.
>And
>we of course must let the truth be known. Fen are not the socially
>elite who are immune to alcoholism, extreme temper, flagarent behavior,
>sexual monagomy, and pedophelia.
In fact fen were, mostly, the intellectual social outcasts. I think
part of my generation's unhappiness stems from the fact that science
fiction is now mainstream. Finding fandom is no longer the defining
experience in people's lives. So the people entering fandom don't fit
with the people already there as well as they used to.
>Of course it would be nice if all cons were free of this, but if your
>invited guests...
>well one bad apple can spoil the bushel,
>or was it never count your eggs before they're hatched,
>or maybe it was an old soldier never dies, he just fades away.
He just buys the farm. What's this about guests?
David Dyer-Bennet
I said *precisely* the same thing you did. You even quoted it. Nor
did I or DavE (and this estimate and the argument from it is DavE's,
not mine; this is obvious from the parts you quoted, so I don't see
how you could have missed it) claim to be computing an *accurate*
number of people taking the con seriously; DavE was attempting to
compute a *minimum* number, to show that my 2/3 figure was silly.
Since the sources of error you list (the "you also left out") would
*increase* the number, the presence of this error *strengthens* DavE's
argument, it does not weaken it.
> My basic point it this: The number of people staying there
>(vs being "Casual drop-ins") can not be easily predicted just from just
>the number of rooms sold without doing some pretty-serious-surveys and
>and statistics and math to get a semi-accurate ratio of Non-"casual"
>fen to rooms. Mosly because the number of "packed" rooms go too
>far in offsetting the average number of people per room
> Your attempt to do so with wild guesses at average room
>denisty without a proper survey/sampling (which would mean asking
>people RANDOMLY, not just the people you hang with) is a total load
>of mental-masterbation self-serving bullshit, and can only serve
>to confuse the issue.
The estimate to which you object was made by DavE Romm, not by me. If
you're going to engage in ad hominem attacks, you could at least
address them to the correct person.
I have no idea why you're so enraged, but as a bit of friendly advice
I'd suggest that if you ever stick your dim bulb into this newsgroup
again you drop your pecker for a few minutes and actually *read* the
messages you're going to respond to. Sorry, I don't think I can
actually come down to you're level, but I'm trying hard, in hopes of
achieving some sort of communication.
David E Romm
Cowan) wrote:
> In article <71443.1447-...@dialup-2-196.gw.umn.edu>,
> David E Romm <71443...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >I have no problem with describing cons as a part* of fandom. But then
> >again, I'm one of those who don't consider you a Trufan until you've pubbed
> >your ish in hecto...
>
> What an archaic notion. I've been a fan for 14 years, never pub'd my
> ish, never will. I haven't even *read* a fanzine in ten years. I
> consider it to be one of those quaint things that fans used to do, and
> some still enjoy.
Just for the record... I was kidding* about hecto as a faannish qualifier.
My argument in this thread has been that at one time fandom was such a
special place that attending one con qualified you as a fan. While this is
no longer true, many have taken the diametrically opposite viewpoint that
congoing by itself doesn't count as faannish activity. I wanted to poke
fun at those people who consider themselves fans without having done some
of the Goshwowboyohboy stuff I did before I learned better. Apparently, I
struck home.
On the other hand, one of my long-lost projects was to do an issue of Rune
using Desktop Publishing and offset printing, and have a hecto cover.
--
Shockwave: The longest running science fiction radio program in Earth's
history. Tapes available.
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded" -- Yogi Berra (?)
David A. Z.
David Dyer-Bennet <d...@terrabit.mn.org> wrote:
>I said *precisely* the same thing you did. You even quoted it. Nor
>did I or DavE (and this estimate and the argument from it is DavE's,
>not mine; this is obvious from the parts you quoted, so I don't see
>how you could have missed it) claim to be computing an *accurate*
>number of people taking the con seriously; DavE was attempting to
>compute a *minimum* number, to show that my 2/3 figure was silly.
>Since the sources of error you list (the "you also left out") would
>*increase* the number, the presence of this error *strengthens* DavE's
>argument, it does not weaken it.
>The estimate to which you object was made by DavE Romm, not by me. If
>you're going to engage in ad hominem attacks, you could at least
>address them to the correct person.
I attacked the discussion, not DavE's comments specifically.
My objection was to the silly discussion about how many people
were casual drop-ins based on the allegedly reported figures of 3000
people and 700-800 rooms. On one end, maybe there were 5 people per
room on the average, all fen at the con were staying at the hotel.
On the other end, maybe you average 2 people per room, and maybe
shared/fraudlent/non-existing badges accounted for 1000 more people than
offically reported attending the con.
So simply put, the numbers you're tossing around imply that
"Casual" fen accounted for between 0% and 65% of attendance. Since 0%
is a very low number, and 65% is a very high number, this neither supports
nor disproves anything said, leading to my comment that attempting to prove
just about anything from those numbers is merely "Mental masterbation".
- Daz
djba...@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com
[...]
> I haven't attended Minicon, but I have a quickie flame for you:
> Your attempt to do so with wild guesses at average room
> denisty without a proper survey/sampling (which would mean asking
> people RANDOMLY, not just the people you hang with) is a total load
> of mental-masterbation self-serving bullshit, and can only serve
> to confuse the issue.
>
> Thanks for reading -- Daz
>
> P.s. To confuse things further, people sharing/forging/losing badges
> or sneaking around without badges also confuses statistics of
> how many people actually attended.
We collect registration figures each year and we can find out from the
hotel how large our room block was. For the past ten years, we have
found that a figure of about 4 people per room reconciles these two
values pretty well. If we put some effort into it, such as the sampling
you suggest, we could probably get more than one significant digit, but
the value is going to be somewhere between 3 and 5 people per room for
Minicon, unless we have a vastly bigger ghost problem than is likely.
One can produce useful estimates without detailed sampling as long as
we recognize the limited accuracy of such estimates. It's also important
to keep in mind what assumptions are necessary for your estimates.
If you want to come to Minicon, do some sampling and report, we can
arrange for you to get the Committee rate on your registration.
(That is $20 until Halloween, $25 until Valentine's day, or $55 afterward.)
(If you just want to come, the rates are $20, $25, and $55 respectively.)
Want to do an entertaining panel on statictics? Send a proposal to us.
-- Don J. Bailey for Minicon 30
David E Romm
wrote:
> In article <1994Jul10....@terrabit.mn.org>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <d...@terrabit.mn.org> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> >The estimate to which you object was made by DavE Romm, not by me. If
> >you're going to engage in ad hominem attacks, you could at least
> >address them to the correct person.
>
> I attacked the discussion, not DavE's comments specifically.
>
> My objection was to the silly discussion about how many people
> were casual drop-ins based on the allegedly reported figures of 3000
> people and 700-800 rooms. On one end, maybe there were 5 people per
> room on the average, all fen at the con were staying at the hotel.
> On the other end, maybe you average 2 people per room, and maybe
> shared/fraudlent/non-existing badges accounted for 1000 more people than
> offically reported attending the con.
I suppose I should thank you for not taking DD-B's suggestions of "let's
you and him fight", but I think some basic math clears things up. As Don
says, the 4 per room ratio seems to be pretty consistent. Unless our
ghosting problem is much worse than we think, the number of commuters is
much greater than the number of ghosters who stay at the hotel. So let's
just stick with those figures. (If Don or anyone has more specific numbers
to plug in here, you are encouraged to do so.)
Anyway, with Minicon having an approximate attendence of 3000 and the
number of rooms sold to attendees at around 700, the maximum* people per
room is therefore 3000/700 or 4.3. A figure of 5 people per room is out of
line. Since I think the actual figures will show a greater increase in
room nights than in attendees, that figure will go down. And that doesn't
subtract the commuters or one-day visitors (ie the 'casual drop ins' that
DD-B was commenting on).
Ben Burch
hig...@fnalv.fnal.gov writes:
> A party that deliberately schedules its national convention to
> dovetail with the World Science Fiction Convention is not, in my
> opinion, ready to be taken seriously in American politics.
Bill! You cut me to the quick! Isn't this *just* the sort of
synergistic planning we all wish our elected leadership was able
to pull off?
"I don't speak for Motorola; They don't speak for me."
-Ben Burch | Motorola Wireless Data Group:
Ben_...@wes.mot.com | Makers of the Envoy(R) Personal
| Wireless Communicator
Seth Breidbart
> Often people bring in
>boom boxes and blare away at volumes their gear can't handle, thus
>distorting whatever quality the music may once have had (I think this,
>at least, is going to be shut down).
Several years ago, Disclave declared that boom boxes were a violation
of the weapons policy. It worked.
Seth
Krikket
>In article <1994Jul6.2...@terrabit.mn.org>, d...@terrabit.mn.org
>(David Dyer-Bennet) wrote:
>[snips throughout]
>> 71443...@compuserve.com (David E Romm) writes:
>>
>> Some of us are *very* concerned about the number of drunken rowdies,
>> and about the fact that the consuite is not a place that I or many of
>> my friends spend any time Friday or Saturday nights.
>As others in this newsgroup have responded, the drunken rowdies don't
>impact the majority of the attendees. This demonstrates my point that they
>are an Ops problem, not a Registration problem. It's not the number* of
>drunken rowdies that concern us; it's handling the few who are causing
>trouble.
Is there some reason it's shouldn't be a con-security problem?
>I didn't follow the politics of Boskone too closely, but wasn't the main
>reason for the meltdown problems with the hotel? We have excellent
>relations with the Radisson (and Karen will keep them that way), including
>how we handle the rowdies.
And how do you handle them that the hotel likes all so much?
--
<><><><><><>
Krikket kri...@mcs.com (<- Regular Inbound Mail)
Pager (708)324-6928 an6...@anon.penet.fi (<- True Anon Mail)
Voice (708)665-9732 #include<std.disclaimers> #include<sig.virus>
"We're all for basic human rights, but it makes you wonder
what they built the Berlin Wall for? Who do these forign
chappies think they are?" --- Chess
P Nielsen Hayden
> So simply put, the numbers you're tossing around imply that
>"Casual" fen accounted for between 0% and 65% of attendance. Since 0%
>is a very low number, and 65% is a very high number, this neither supports
>nor disproves anything said, leading to my comment that attempting to prove
>just about anything from those numbers is merely "Mental masterbation".
You know, from the frequency with which people on Usenet accuse one another
of various forms of masturbation, you'd think they'd learn to spell it.
Of course, most dictionaries _are_ a touch difficult to hold open with just
one hand.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com
senior editor, Tor Books : opinions mine
Krikket
>In article <1994Jul7...@fnalv.fnal.gov> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey,
>hig...@fnalv.fnal.gov writes:
>> A party that deliberately schedules its national convention to
>> dovetail with the World Science Fiction Convention is not, in my
>> opinion, ready to be taken seriously in American politics.
>Bill! You cut me to the quick! Isn't this *just* the sort of
>synergistic planning we all wish our elected leadership was able
>to pull off?
Who says that you have to be taken seriously in the world of politics
to get a point made? Take, as an example, when Jello Biafra ran for
Maror. He did it "as a prank" and yet got enough of the votes to get
the leading politicians to come to him to make concessions on their
political platforms to get his support in the election.
And besides, ya gotta admit that there is a certain logic in a
politician going where he knows his supporters are. This time it just
happened to be at a WSFC...
Beth Friedman
I believe Minicon has been doing that for the past several years.
Martin Schafer
>The precise statement of Minicon's problem, in my opinion, is that the
>peripheral areas have developed strong enough constituencies that they
>are attracting significant numbers of their own people. These groups
>are politically powerful enough that it would be impossible to strip
>off a lot of things.
I would go further and say that many of these "not fannish precisely
but strongly related to sf fandom" groups, feel as much ownership
some of them with quite a bit of justification, of the convention
as the fannish core does.
Part of the problem is that Minstf, in its official version, is nearly
dead as a social organization. I can still enjoy meetings becaus
I know everybody and there are very few people that I can't tolerate.
People going to there first Minstf meeting are frequently, permanently
turned off to the organization. Corwin and his friends do not
consider Minstf "a cool place to hang out" the way I did when I was
his age. They've built up their own social networks and many of them
are clearly fans, but the organized groups they belong to are frequently
these peripheral groups.
>
>Drinking doesn't require drunken, and drunken doesn't require
>obnoxious, loud, or rowdy. Most people I know don't enter the
>con-suite Friday or Saturday night except on duty. That part of the
>con has essentially been taken away from us already. The noise level,
>and level of boorishness, that I've seen in the consuite on the peak
>nights is in my opinion far past the tolerable. So I don't go there
>any more.
I do cruise through regularly, but since, as you say, most people
I know stay away Fridan and Saturday night, I usually don't stay
because I don't see anyone I want to talk to. I'm afraid I'm
terrible at just starting to chat with people I don't know, so
if there isn't at least one familiar face I just keep walking.
>
>If I can't talk to somebody sitting at a 4-person table with me
>without yelling, it's MUCH too loud in the room. Often it's that loud
>not just because there are 500 people talking, but because drunken
>boors are roaring at the tops of their lungs. Often people bring in
>boom boxes and blare away at volumes their gear can't handle, thus
>distorting whatever quality the music may once have had (I think this,
>at least, is going to be shut down).
I think you exaggerate a bit here. I haven't seen boom boxes in
the con suite often. Every time I have seen one being played its
been shut down pretty promptly (by me if nobody else did it).
Martin
Randolph Fritz
>d...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (David A. Z.) writes:
>
>You know, from the frequency with which people on Usenet accuse one another
>of various forms of masturbation, you'd think they'd learn to spell it.
>
SATTL (sitting at the terminal laughing) & a loud raspberry. Sigh.
You're right. (Dear gods, I hope we don't get a spelling flame war
over that remark.)
By the way, been reading *Making Book*. Good stuff & the parts I've
already read hold up very well on re-reading. Even enjoyed the
article on copy-editing--not a subject ordinarly of interest to me. I
think Teresa could probably make laundry lists interesting. (& would
you please let her know I said so.)
Randolph Fritz
rand...@netcom.com