Chicon roundup of future Worldcons/Bids
Laurie Mann
Zellich) writes:
> Well, Winnipeg won, and deserves it. They are the only bidder left (out of
> 5, if I remember right, although I can't remember all of them any more),
That's a highly debatable point! While I'm glad to finally see a Canadian
Worldcon in my fannish lifetime, I'm disappointed that they beat a clearly
more-qualified Louisville bid. I do wish them well, though, and I'll probably
be willing to work on it. By the way, I don't remember anyone other than
Louisville (ne Nashville) and Winnipeg bidding.
> The real test
> will be whether they will hike the later rates to ridiculous heights, as did
> the Chicon committee, or whether the highest rates will plateau at something
> reasonable due to the earlier memberships being charged at more realistic
> rates.
I think the initial rate of $60 for the non-voters is already pretty
ridiculous. Three years ago, when Chicago "just" charged $50, people bitched a
lot. I haven't heard too much bitching this time. It's amazing how quickly
things become tradition in fandom.
In fairness to Winnipeg, they will have convention center fees to pay,
something Chicon did not have. And I think they also have exchange rate
problems to consider.
> 1996 - Bids from ????
> (1996 will be voted on at San Francisco, in '93)
LA. Rember the rat movie stickers?!! They've run a nice bid so far, and I
hope they win this time.
> 1997 - Bids from New Orleans (actually being run out of Baton Rouge; not
> the same people who did the last NolaCon.
> This bid is reported to have been withdrawn
> already, though)
Then maybe there were two NO bids, because I understood that many of the
Nolacon folks were quietly behind the 1997 bid last winter.
> 1999 - Bids from ????
Hong Kong :->
> Chicago, Chicago, and Chicago (the Capricon committee, the more-or-
> less Chicon committee with Ross
> Pavlac, and the more-or-less Chicon
> committee _without_ Ross Pavlac!)
Ross wasn't the only reason this last Chicon was so bad. There's plenty of
blame to go around. I'd vote for NO before Chicago again....
*** Keep the lovers in rec.arts.sf-lovers--Vote NO on the reorg! ***
** A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by **
**little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Ralph Waldo Emerson**
*** NeXT mail: lm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com ***
**** Laurie_...@vos.stratus.com * lm...@jjmhome.uucp ****
Brent L. Woods
(Rich Zellich) writes:
>
>Well, Winnipeg won, and deserves it.
*Deserves* it? Personally, I'd dispute that, but that's not
important (I also have subjective reasons for being extremely annoyed
that Winnipeg won--I won't be going, since I refuse to leave the US
again).
>They are the only bidder left
Only bidder left? Hey, what about Louisville? They were still in
there until the very bitter end. Heck, I *voted* for them in site
selection (I've been going to RiverCon for the past nine years, and I
*like* Louisville). I find it rather odd that I've seen lots of people
seemingly thrilled about Winnipeg winning (with one or two exceptions),
and no one seems to be saying any "too bads" about Louisville losing.
Well, I say, "Too bad Louisville lost." I was in Chicon's Program
Ops office when we got the word that Louisville lost (I prefer to think
of it that way, rather than "Winnipeg won"), and I was so irked that I
used an impolite word in the hearing of the person who brought the news
(apparently, one of the Winnipeg bid people).
I guess I just want to say that there's *one* person who's pretty
darn disgruntled about it.
--
Brent Woods
INTERNET: woo...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
USNAIL: 4419 Myrtle Grove Dr. / Indianapolis, IN 46236
PHONE: +1 (317) 895-8690 (voice)
Brad Gibson
>In article <910912190...@rutgers.edu> zel...@stl-07sima.army.mil
>(Rich Zellich) writes:
> >
> >Well, Winnipeg won, and deserves it.
>
> *Deserves* it? Personally, I'd dispute that, but that's not
>important (I also have subjective reasons for being extremely annoyed
>that Winnipeg won--I won't be going, since I refuse to leave the US
>again).
>
Nice to see an open mind like Brent's. Oh well, I guess Canada will simply
have to do there best and cope without his presence.
Congrats Winnipeg. You *did* deserve it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad K. Gibson INTERNET: gib...@geop.ubc.ca
Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy BITNET: user...@ubcmtsg.bitnet
#129-2219 Main Mall
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Winnipeg deserved to lose the bid, going by this year's Westercon....
--
--- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
@netcom.com
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Michael Wallis
> *Deserves* it? Personally, I'd dispute that, but that's not
> important (I also have subjective reasons for being extremely annoyed
> that Winnipeg won--I won't be going, since I refuse to leave the US
> again).
You'll pardon me if I have no sympathy for you. Why, prey tell,
should the *WORLD* SF Con always be in the US? What's wrong with
Canada? Why are you being such and "Ugly American"?
> and no one seems to be saying any "too bads" about Louisville losing.
Part of that has to do with the very grouchy way both Nashvile and
Louisville ran their bid. I suspect Winnipeg's win has at least as
much to do with Louisville's efforts as Winnipeg's. We've seen this
sort of thing before (remember the '78 battle between LA and
Phoenix?) and while I'm concerned about Winnipeg's abilities to run
something the size of a modern worldcon, I have absolutely no
sympathy for the Louisville loss. Given how close the balloting was
(55 votes out of 2107 cast), a *little* bit more levity and less glum
seriousness on the part of the Louisville bid would likely have one
them the worldcon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis |UUCP: mwa...@clubzen.tsoft.sf-bay.ca.us
Computer Consultant |CI$: 75470,1264
Santa Clara, CA |bix: mwallis
"I'd rather be building rockets!" |#include <Standard/Disclaimer.h>
Stephen Hutchison
>On the other hand, if I were to judge by a single con, I'd say that
>Winnipeg deserved to lose the bid, going by this year's Westercon....
EXTREMELY unfair! The Winnipeg people had little, if anything, to do
with Westercon. Other than to volunteer considerable in the way of
time and money, the Winnipeg people I saw were not responsible for any
of the problems at Westercon 40+10%GST - they did a lot to make what
DID work, work right.
Hutch
Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer
>On the other hand, if I were to judge by a single con, I'd say that
>Winnipeg deserved to lose the bid, going by this year's Westercon....
Aahz, that's like saying that Chicago should not get a worldcon because New
Orleans puts on a bad convention. Check out a map.
--
Chuq Von Rospach >=< ch...@apple.com >=< GEnie:CHUQ or MAC.BIGOT >=< ALink:CHUQ
SFWA Nebula Awards administrator =+= SF Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories
Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Brent L. Woods
Wallis) writes:
>woo...@helios.ecn.purdue.edu (Brent L. Woods) writes:
>
>> *Deserves* it? Personally, I'd dispute that, but that's not
>> important (I also have subjective reasons for being extremely annoyed
>> that Winnipeg won--I won't be going, since I refuse to leave the US
>> again).
>
>You'll pardon me if I have no sympathy for you. Why, prey tell,
>should the *WORLD* SF Con always be in the US? What's wrong with
>Canada? Why are you being such and "Ugly American"?
*Sigh*. I reckon that'll teach me not to follow up when I'm in
a peevish mood. There's nothing wrong with Canada. The times I've been
there (a number of places) it's been fairly pleasant (a little bland,
maybe, but that's another story). My problem is with other *Americans*,
not Canada. I just don't want to give some random US Customs pinhead
another chance to tell me that I can't go back into my own native
country (ever cool your heels for six hours at a customs barrier? Ain't
fun).
I still don't think that Winnipeg deserved to win the bid--from
what I saw at Chicon, they didn't win the bid so much as *buy* it.
Doesn't matter any more, though, I suppose.
Michael Wallis
> On the other hand, if I were to judge by a single con, I'd say that
> Winnipeg deserved to lose the bid, going by this year's Westercon....
I fail to see the connection as WesterCon had little or nothing to do
with the Winnipeg bid. Or are you claiming all Canadians are
incompetant?
Michael Wallis
> I still don't think that Winnipeg deserved to win the bid--from
> what I saw at Chicon, they didn't win the bid so much as *buy* it.
> Doesn't matter any more, though, I suppose.
And how did they 'buy it'? They ran good parties, they showed good
initiative in some of their silliness, they talked with people about
their city, their convention and their plans. These are all standard
bidding practices. Not their fault if the Louisville party was boring.
Michael
Paul Moloney
>woo...@helios.ecn.purdue.edu (Brent L. Woods) writes:
>> (I also have subjective reasons for being extremely annoyed
>> that Winnipeg won--I won't be going, since I refuse to leave the US
>> again).
>You'll pardon me if I have no sympathy for you. Why, prey tell,
>should the *WORLD* SF Con always be in the US?
Why, for the same reason that World Series Baseball is always in the
US; because..uh..I'll get back to that.
>What's wrong with Canada? Why are you being such and "Ugly American"?
Canada's hardly a geographical improvement.
Worldcon in Dublin '98 - that's what I'd like.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%VAX1....@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> *Deserves* it? Personally, I'd dispute that, but that's not
> important (I also have subjective reasons for being extremely annoyed
> that Winnipeg won--I won't be going, since I refuse to leave the US
> again).
>
Is this a way of saying you don't think there should be any Worldcons outside
the USA (and you're not prepared even to extend this to the same *continent*)?
If not then forgive me for my next statement...
There are supposed to be *World*cons, and there's an awful lot more to SF than
just US SF (or even English language SF).
For example, Poland has an SF magazine with a circulation of *150,000*!
This beats almost all of even the US magazines!
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain...
================================================================================
Kiran Wagle
> I still don't think that Winnipeg deserved to win the bid--from
>what I saw at Chicon, they didn't win the bid so much as *buy* it.
No, _we_ bought it--paying $20 to vote and _then_ another $40 to
convert.
I think that $60 for the first rate for a worldcon is steep... and I
don't want to think about what the rest of their rate schedule will be.
And if, as you suggest, they bought the bid, they did it by
"borrowing" against the money people are paying to convert. If they
had been a bit more frugal, perhaps we would be paying less to convert.
Louisville's bid made a profit, or so i'm told. Did Winnipeg's?
--
...kiran
_______...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu________________
From the corrections column in a July Fresno, CA _Bee_:
"An item in Thursday's [issue] about the Massachusetts budget crisis
made reference to new taxes that will help put Massachusetts 'back in
the African-American.' The item should have said 'back in the black.'"
Laurie Mann
> woo...@helios.ecn.purdue.edu (Brent L. Woods) writes:
> > I still don't think that Winnipeg deserved to win the bid--from
> > what I saw at Chicon, they didn't win the bid so much as *buy* it.
> > Doesn't matter any more, though, I suppose.
> And how did they 'buy it'? They ran good parties, they showed good
> initiative in some of their silliness, they talked with people about
> their city, their convention and their plans. These are all standard
> bidding practices. Not their fault if the Louisville party was boring.
The Louisville parties I went to were always very pleasant and fun. They
weren't quite as innovative as the Chicon Winnipeg parties, but pre-Chicon,
both sets of bid parties were pretty equivalent.
Voters have got to look more at the facilities and committee and less
at the parties. Both the facilities and committee for Louisville were
MUCH stronger than those for Winnipeg.
As I said before, I would have loved to have voted for a Canadian Worldcon.
I couldn't this time.
**** Laurie_...@vos.stratus.com ** lm...@jjmhome.uucp ****
**** NeXT mail: lm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com ****
*** A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by ***
*** little statemen and philosophers and dinvines. Ralph Waldo Emerson ***
****** Keep the lovers in rec.arts.sf-lovers--Vote NO on the reorg! ******
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>On the other hand, if I were to judge by a single con, I'd say that
>Winnipeg deserved to lose the bid, going by this year's Westercon....
<sigh>....I suppose I should learn better than to expect people to see
sarcasm without the little :-)'s.....
The previous article was excoriating a person who refused to leave the
US. I chose to apply the same level of "understanding" to his comment
about Winnipeg deserving to win the voting. In actual fact, I have no
basis for judging whether Louisville or Winnipeg would have been a
better choice, and at this point I don't really give a damn.
Crispin Cowan
>woo...@helios.ecn.purdue.edu (Brent L. Woods) writes:
>> I still don't think that Winnipeg deserved to win the bid--from
>>what I saw at Chicon, they didn't win the bid so much as *buy* it.
>
>No, _we_ bought it--paying $20 to vote and _then_ another $40 to
>convert.
>
>"borrowing" against the money people are paying to convert. If they
>had been a bit more frugal, perhaps we would be paying less to convert.
>Louisville's bid made a profit, or so i'm told. Did Winnipeg's?
Accusing Winnipeg of buying the WorldCon seems a bit backwards to me. I
seem to recall hearing that Louisville was selling
conversion-equivalents ahead of the voting results. "Pay us $20 now,
and you're a full member when we win." That would seem to explain how
Louisville's bid could make a profit :-(.
Crispin
-----
Crispin Cowan, CS grad student, University of Western Ontario
Phyz-mail: Middlesex College, MC28-C, N6A 5B7
E-mail: cri...@csd.uwo.ca Voice: 519-661-3342
"If you want an operating system that is full of vitality and has a
great future, use OS/2." --Andy Tanenbaum
Cyberpixie
>Accusing Winnipeg of buying the WorldCon seems a bit backwards to me. I
>seem to recall hearing that Louisville was selling
>conversion-equivalents ahead of the voting results. "Pay us $20 now,
>and you're a full member when we win." That would seem to explain how
>Louisville's bid could make a profit :-(.
Winnipeg did this as well -- become a Friend for 20 bucks, get a
free T-shirt, auto-convert if they win.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the possibility of buying a
conversion before the tally at a cheaper rate than one can after
the tally. It seems to me that this will help the bid that is
perceived to be winning, and hurt all other bids. After all,
any time I think I can tell a bid is winning, and I can get a
cheaper conversion fee if I pay before the tally, I'll do it.
I suspect others will too. Therefore, the 'leading' bid will
get a number of voters for purely economic reasons.
Any comments on this?
[followups redirected to alt.fandom.cons, cause it's the right
group for discussing conventions, neh?]
--
Bryant Durrell dur...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is just like high school, but with better production values.
Crispin Cowan
>I'm a bit uncomfortable with the possibility of buying a
>conversion before the tally at a cheaper rate than one can after
>the tally. It seems to me that this will help the bid that is
>perceived to be winning, and hurt all other bids. After all,
>any time I think I can tell a bid is winning, and I can get a
>cheaper conversion fee if I pay before the tally, I'll do it.
>I suspect others will too. Therefore, the 'leading' bid will
>get a number of voters for purely economic reasons.
>
>Any comments on this?
Well, several of my friends believed Louiville when they said that
"Louiville had it in the bag" and bought pre-conversions. Personally,
I'm not interested in $20 double or nothing when I don't really know
much about the odds other than what the sales-droid is telling me. I
don't suggest that this practice be banned, but I do suggest that anyone
that falls for it is being less than wise.
Michael T Pins
>Well, several of my friends believed Louiville when they said that
>"Louiville had it in the bag" and bought pre-conversions. Personally,
>I'm not interested in $20 double or nothing when I don't really know
>much about the odds other than what the sales-droid is telling me. I
>don't suggest that this practice be banned, but I do suggest that anyone
>that falls for it is being less than wise.
Anyone that believed Louisville's sales-droids when every indication I
saw was that the vote was going to be very close, wasn't paying much
attention.
Firestar
--
*****************************************************************************
* Michael Pins (Firestar) | Internet: ami...@isca.uiowa.edu *
* ISCA's Amiga Librarian | #include <std.disclaimer> *
*****************************************************************************
Michael Wallis
> I'm a bit uncomfortable with the possibility of buying a
> conversion before the tally at a cheaper rate than one can after
> the tally. It seems to me that this will help the bid that is
> perceived to be winning, and hurt all other bids. After all,
> any time I think I can tell a bid is winning, and I can get a
> cheaper conversion fee if I pay before the tally, I'll do it.
> I suspect others will too. Therefore, the 'leading' bid will
> get a number of voters for purely economic reasons.
It's more benifit if you LOOSE, because you've got a bunch of
"convertable" pre-supports but don't have to actually honour the
conversion. This IS likely why Louisville had a surplus. Winnipeg has
to honour it's "convertables" at a lower revenue rate than they would
otherwise have received. This helps a lot with last push bid funding,
but may have more deadly consequences should you win.
Again, "convertables" for a 2nd place bid (especially in a close race
as '94 was) had both advantages. You get lots of money to cover your
bills AND you don't have to run a worldcon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis |UUCP: mips.com!tsoft!clubzen!mwallis
pfl...@ccvax.ucd.ie
> In article <eBe98...@clubzen.UUCP> mwa...@clubzen.UUCP (Michael
> Wallis) writes:
> I just don't want to give some random US Customs pinhead
> another chance to tell me that I can't go back into my own native
> country (ever cool your heels for six hours at a customs barrier? Ain't
> fun).
Aha [see earlier post about WorldCon in Dublin].
If you travel back to the USA from Shannon, you do US immigration
*before you leave*, in (relative) peace and quiet, without the
long lines. Then when you arrive stateside, you just walk thru as
if you were on a domestic flight.
WorldCon '99 in Cork, anyone?
///Peter
jim holmes
> Aha [see earlier post about WorldCon in Dublin].
> If you travel back to the USA from Shannon, you do US immigration
> *before you leave*, in (relative) peace and quiet, without the
> long lines. Then when you arrive stateside, you just walk thru as
> if you were on a domestic flight.
> WorldCon '99 in Cork, anyone?
>
> ///Peter
You can count me in as a pre-pre supporting.
-jlh