[RANT] My take on the CF11 flap...
khromat
(specifically, the thread entitled "The ConFurence Group and the Future
of the Con"). Here are a few of my opinions:
1) CF11 was better than CF10. It would be hard-pressed to have been
_worse_ than CF10. Everyone from the then-chairs to the grunt staff
acknowledge this. Get over it.
2) After 11 years of doing this (there was a CF0), Rod O'Riley is burned
out. This is quite understandable considering he was never much of an
organized businessman to begin with, and then he had to deal with Sy.
For good or for bad, Sy created the feel of the con. From the beginning,
he had certain agendas and when he saw the con running smoothly he took
his hands off the wheel and let Rodney drive unassisted.... except that
3 years ago Sy decided to grab the wheel again and Rodney was too worn
out to tell Sy 'no'. That is what caused the demise of the con
structure, pure and simple.
If someone had Rodney's enthusiastic drive without all the pressure from
RL that wore the mink down, the con would have continued to run
relatively smoothly with only the occassional incidents (which often are
the stuff of con folklore in any genre). Instead, Sy pushed too hard
with his increasingly-non-furry agenda, didn't get the response he
wanted from the general con-crowd, and bowed out entirely, leaving a
large void. Alas, that void was larger than Darrel and Zee could fill.
3) Darrel Exline is a Burned Fur. His reasons for being such are
irrelevant, his statements regarding why he did certain things are
inconsequential, it's his actions that speak volumes. At this point,
I'm kinda used to having to hide my naughtystuff in the dealers' den,
but it's still frustrating to have to do so because someone is afraid
it'd scar the little children. (Yes, I meant scar, not scare). The rules
and general policies have become unwieldy and aimed mostly to cover the
Con's tail rather than support the various artists, writers, costumers,
and events that have been a part of CF since the beginning.
Whatever Darrel's reasons, however noble he may believe them to be, he
has killed CF as a furry con. It may remain alive as a convention, but
not in the original form CF was about: a place exclusively catering to
all the forms of furryness found in Furry Fandom. Not an SF con with a
furry flavor, not a Comic Con dealing with anthropomorphics, and not a
'general con' with no direction other than wearing tails. His desire to
make it a 'regional con' guarantees that some of the best talent will go
elsewhere, and he will draw in more of the local kids who came to CF9
saying "I don't understand the wierd costumes, I'm only here for the
parties." (Yes, I did actually hear that.)
4) Whitekitty's basic complaint was that the CFG needs to be a
not-for-profit group and that he's concerned that Darrel is going to be
a dictator for not creating a board and discussing his ideas before
signing contracts and so on. Ahm, while I agree that a not-for-profit
overseer group is a good thing, I don't think it's *required* to run a
con. That's like my opinion on seatbelts... and the stupid law forcing
what is essentially a common sense decision. If Darrel wants to keep it
a sole-proprietorship, that's his choice. You don't like it, start your
own con and show the populace how *you* think it should be done.
(I will NOT insert a plug for Project F0 here. I won't, I won't, I
won't! :D )
5) The Burbank Airport Hilton has been proclaimed to be an excellent
hotel for cons on the basis that a couple of cons (notably LosCon) have
been there for years... the reason they are there is not _necessarily_
because it's a good hotel, but because it's a CHEAP hotel. I went to a
LostCause there. I hated the location, I didn't like the layout, the
in-house restaurant should've been closed on health violations and there
wasn't anything in walking distance to use as a substitute. There's no
ancillary specials that make that hotel a good place for people to hang
out and chat, it just happens to be cheap and have a management who
needs the money enough they figured out how to hook us cheapo fannish
events. And LosCon, who had attendances in the 2,000 range in its
heyday, has been smaller than CF for several years -- the Hilton is
large, but the facilities are still not up to handling more than 700
people (unless they did some renovations I'm not aware of). That means
by moving to Burbank Airport (and there aren't any other hotels close to
it like there is by John Wayne), Darrel has effectively capped the
attendance for the con.
Also, cons get deals from hotels based on room-nights. Locals don't
provide the big numbers for room-nights if they can just drive home --
only a rare percentage would pay extra for the benefit of walking
upstairs and crashing rather than driving home. Dealers tend to be the
largest form of income (both for the hotel and the con). If people are
saying they won't come, Dealers decide that it's not worth the risk of
losing money. If lots of people don't stay in the hotel, the con loses
money and would have to reimburse the hotel -- and pay higher rates for
the next year based on the real numbers rather than projected. I know
quite a few _locals_ who have said they will not be attending CF, so I'm
concerned that the numbers Darrel gave the hotel will be overly
generous. A lot of dealers were not happy about the disappointing
turnout and have already shifted their focus to the 'other
California con' for their business. CF11 may well be the last time for
that con.
I despise that hotel enough that when it was announced that CF12 would
be there, I decided I would not be attending. I wish Darrel luck, but I
do not believe that a con of CF's flavor will survive well there.
6) And finally, while I know that it was Darrel's first time as a
ConChair (or even running any part of a con) and congratulate him on a
good first-run, there is the bad flavor in the mouth that it wasn't a
CF... it didn't feel like an old established con, and that rankled a lot
of people. People have certain expectations going into a 'new con', and
certain expectations for going to an 'established con'. It's rather
disruptive for attendees when their expectations are not met at least
partway.
There, that's my take on the whole WhiteKitty flame.
-- ermine
==================================
home email: KhromatAtInOrbitDotCom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ka...@my-deja.com
khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Okay, I waded through the 42-odd messages on AFF regarding CF11
> (specifically, the thread entitled "The ConFurence Group and the
Future
> of the Con"). Here are a few of my opinions:
>
appreciate your analysis, and based on that, and my observations at
CF11 I will not be attending the con either. CF11 was better than CF10
(but just about anything would have been better than CF10), but not
enough to justify going again. I have been to the Burbank Airport Hotel
for LosCon and was impressed with the space, but not with the area or
the parking charge.
--
Kagur
Andrija Popovic
> (specifically, the thread entitled "The ConFurence Group and the
Future
> of the Con"). Here are a few of my opinions:
Thanks for the extensive post. I wish I could comment on the meat of it,
but I have never attended a West Coast convention, much less one of the
Confurences, so I can't comment on the location or how CF11 was in
comparison to the 'golden age' of CF.
There are a few topics the post raised, but I think they belong in
another thread. There is one things I would like to suggest.
Lisa, I think you should write Mr. Exline and tell him how you feel. You
are a longtime fan and an exhibitor at the convention. That's a very
important demographic for any con and your opinion carries weight.
Write him as if you were writing a letter to any business as a less than
satisfied customer, starting with some nice points then getting into the
meat of your complaint.
You mentioned cumbersome rules. Quote which rules you feel are
especially cumbersome and offer suggestions on how they can be
streamlined.
You mentioned his choice of hotels for CF12. Explain to him why you
think this hotel does not work and offer alternatives.
If you feel an e-mail would be ignored as a flame, send it to him
through snail mail on Dancing Stoat letterhead. It's hard to ignore
anything sent on company letterhead. The extra time taken to print it
out and mail it speaks volumes these days.
In the year+ that I've worked at my little association
(http://www.aams.org) I've learned a few things. But one of the most
important lessons I've learned, especially when trying to implement a
change, is to make sure you have a statement on record. Your voice can't
be taken into consideration until you actually speak aloud.
Or, as it's been said here, while the FAA may choose to ignore our
comments on the new heliport advisory circular, at least we said our
peace, backed it up with suggestions and put it out there for everyone
to see.
I hope that everyone picking up this thread does the same.
> There, that's my take on the whole WhiteKitty flame.
>
> -- ermine
Andrija
--
Andrija Popovic
vu...@erols.com
Glen Wooten
> (specifically, the thread entitled "The ConFurence Group and the
> Future of the Con"). Here are a few of my opinions:
>
> irrelevant, his statements regarding why he did certain things are
> inconsequential, it's his actions that speak volumes. At this point,
> I'm kinda used to having to hide my naughtystuff in the dealers' den,
> but it's still frustrating to have to do so because someone is afraid
> it'd scar the little children. (Yes, I meant scar, not scare). The
> rules and general policies have become unwieldy and aimed mostly to
> cover the Con's tail rather than support the various artists, writers,
> costumers, and events that have been a part of CF since the beginning.
Actually, hiding the "naughtystuff" keeps the hotel happy, and keeps the
local police happy. We had one dealer who had a tendency to NOT hide
his more adult wares, and that's what we got complaints about (no
complaints that I was aware of that people couldn't find
"naughtystuff".) There was adult material at the con that was available
to anyone of age, it just couldn't be displayed openly (which is a
requirement of the local municipalties, not just a desire of
organizers.) I'm aware that such may have been openely displayed at
previous conventions, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in violation of
local ordinances.
> Whatever Darrel's reasons, however noble he may believe them to be, he
> has killed CF as a furry con. It may remain alive as a convention, but
> not in the original form CF was about: a place exclusively catering to
> all the forms of furryness found in Furry Fandom. Not an SF con with a
> furry flavor, not a Comic Con dealing with anthropomorphics, and not a
> 'general con' with no direction other than wearing tails. His desire
> to make it a 'regional con' guarantees that some of the best talent
> will go elsewhere, and he will draw in more of the local kids who came
> to CF9 saying "I don't understand the wierd costumes, I'm only here
> for the parties." (Yes, I did actually hear that.)
Back when CF was THE furry convention, yes, it was the only game in
town, and everyone came to it. Now that there are 6 or 7 cons, spread
throughout the country and spread throughout the year, EVERY furry con
is a regional convention. Those on the east coast go to Anthrocon, the
midwest go to Midwest FurFest (formerly DucKon), pacific northwest
ConiFur, etc... There is a toss-up between ConFurence & Further
ConFusion, but then they are in the same state and just a few months
apart - it only makes sense that it will be a "one-or-the-other"
situation for some attendees.
> 5) The Burbank Airport Hilton has been proclaimed to be an excellent
> hotel for cons on the basis that a couple of cons (notably LosCon)
> have been there for years... the reason they are there is not
> _necessarily_ because it's a good hotel, but because it's a CHEAP
> hotel. I went to a LostCause there. I hated the location, I didn't
> like the layout, the in-house restaurant should've been closed on
> health violations and there wasn't anything in walking distance to
> use as a substitute. There's no ancillary specials that make that
> hotel a good place for people to hang out and chat, it just happens
> to be cheap and have a management who needs the money enough they
> figured out how to hook us cheapo fannish events. And LosCon, who had
> attendances in the 2,000 range in its heyday, has been smaller than
> CF for several years -- the Hilton is large, but the facilities are
> still not up to handling more than 700 people (unless they did some
> renovations I'm not aware of). That means by moving to Burbank
> Airport (and there aren't any other hotels close to it like there is
> by John Wayne), Darrel has effectively capped the attendance for the
> con.
The space we will have at Burbank is MUCH larger than the space we had
(available to us) at ConFurence 10 (at the Town & Country in San Diego).
Having 2000 people at Burbank only slightly pushes their capacity. The
"convention centre" complex alone at Burbank has more space than we had
at CF10 - and we also get all meeting space in the east & west towers.
Space will not be a problem for CF12 - not even with double the
attendance of this year. The farthest meeting rooms are a 2-3 minute
walk away - and everything's on the same level (no messing with stairs
or elevators to get from one event to the other.)
> Also, cons get deals from hotels based on room-nights. Locals don't
> provide the big numbers for room-nights if they can just drive home --
> only a rare percentage would pay extra for the benefit of walking
> upstairs and crashing rather than driving home. Dealers tend to be the
> largest form of income (both for the hotel and the con). If people are
> saying they won't come, Dealers decide that it's not worth the risk of
> losing money. If lots of people don't stay in the hotel, the con loses
> money and would have to reimburse the hotel -- and pay higher rates
> for the next year based on the real numbers rather than projected. I
> know quite a few _locals_ who have said they will not be attending CF,
> so I'm concerned that the numbers Darrel gave the hotel will be overly
> generous. A lot of dealers were not happy about the disappointing
> turnout and have already shifted their focus to the 'other
> California con' for their business. CF11 may well be the last time for
> that con.
As before, this is just a "shake-up" in the convention circuit. Maybe
the dealers won't do the same business they did before all the other
cons came along - they will have to decide which is the better con for
them. EVERY convention has to worry about that.
Is CF perfect? No. Is FC perfect? No. Is AC perfect? No. Is one of
these (or another convention) perfect for you? That's a decision each
potential attendee has to make - NO convention will be perfect for
everyone - fact of life...
khromat
> khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Okay, I waded through the 42-odd messages on AFF regarding CF11
> > (specifically, the thread entitled "The ConFurence Group and the
> > Future of the Con"). Here are a few of my opinions:
Understand, Glen... I'm not trying to spew for the sake of spewing, I
don't want to see CF die, and in the end things change and I accept
that. My only regret is that I'll have to stop attending a con I've
patronized since the beginning. There *is* a reason I posted this
opinionated message here, rather than AFF... I don't want to appear to
take sides of any furry-camp because that's not the way I play.
*snip*
> > it'd scar the little children. (Yes, I meant scar, not scare). The
> > rules and general policies have become unwieldy and aimed mostly to
> > cover the Con's tail rather than support the various artists,
writers,
> > costumers, and events that have been a part of CF since the
beginning.
>
> Actually, hiding the "naughtystuff" keeps the hotel happy, and keeps
the
> local police happy. We had one dealer who had a tendency to NOT hide
> his more adult wares, and that's what we got complaints about (no
> complaints that I was aware of that people couldn't find
> "naughtystuff".) There was adult material at the con that was
available
> to anyone of age, it just couldn't be displayed openly (which is a
> requirement of the local municipalties, not just a desire of
> organizers.) I'm aware that such may have been openely displayed at
> previous conventions, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in violation of
> local ordinances.
I understand that, and most municipalities have 'obscenity laws' that
need to be observed. But... it's the _way_ they are observed that makes
the less-than-family-rated artists feel that they are welcome or
unwelcome. From the folks I've listened to, many of the artists who
have some adult-content will not be returning to CF because they felt
the rules and flavor of the con makes them no longer welcome. As I
said, I'm used to a certain amount of discression when dealing
adultstuff at cons. But I still don't like feeling like I'm wearing a
yellow star on my shirt.
*snip*
> > 'general con' with no direction other than wearing tails. His desire
> > to make it a 'regional con' guarantees that some of the best talent
> > will go elsewhere, and he will draw in more of the local kids who
came
> > to CF9 saying "I don't understand the wierd costumes, I'm only here
> > for the parties." (Yes, I did actually hear that.)
>
> Back when CF was THE furry convention, yes, it was the only game in
> town, and everyone came to it. Now that there are 6 or 7 cons, spread
> throughout the country and spread throughout the year, EVERY furry con
> is a regional convention. Those on the east coast go to Anthrocon,
the
> midwest go to Midwest FurFest (formerly DucKon), pacific northwest
> ConiFur, etc... There is a toss-up between ConFurence & Further
> ConFusion, but then they are in the same state and just a few months
> apart - it only makes sense that it will be a "one-or-the-other"
> situation for some attendees.
Oh, agreed. I think that's particially why Sy's attitude in the last few
cons was less than acceptable -- people no longer felt that CF was the
only game in town.
However, CF is a lot like FurryMUCK (the oldest social furry-based MU on
the net)... being the first and still being around when the niche
becomes crowded requires some changes and responsibilities. There are
many other MU's around, but none have the constant traffic as FurryMUCK
does, and when someone complains about FM and is asked why do they even
stay, they tend to answer "Because all my friends are here and the other
mu's are quiet". Well, I know there were many folks attending CF for
the same reasons -- because the people they wanted to see were only
making that one con. This is no longer the case, and CF needs to adjust
to that accordingly...
I would've thought the appropriate path was to officially make CF the
'Worldcon of Furries' and treat it as the SF Worldcons have done, but
that's not Darrel's vision, and it's not in my power (or my
responsibility) to force the issue.
> > attendances in the 2,000 range in its heyday, has been smaller than
> > CF for several years -- the Hilton is large, but the facilities are
> > still not up to handling more than 700 people (unless they did some
> > renovations I'm not aware of). That means by moving to Burbank
> > Airport (and there aren't any other hotels close to it like there is
> > by John Wayne), Darrel has effectively capped the attendance for the
> > con.
>
> The space we will have at Burbank is MUCH larger than the space we had
> (available to us) at ConFurence 10 (at the Town & Country in San
Diego).
> Having 2000 people at Burbank only slightly pushes their capacity.
The
> "convention centre" complex alone at Burbank has more space than we
had
> at CF10 - and we also get all meeting space in the east & west towers.
> Space will not be a problem for CF12 - not even with double the
> attendance of this year. The farthest meeting rooms are a 2-3 minute
> walk away - and everything's on the same level (no messing with stairs
> or elevators to get from one event to the other.)
Okay, I admit that the LostCause memories are sharp and painful because
of events that happened at the con... I may not have been aware of
facilities space being that big, but I do distinctly remember that
LosCon did *not* use the Convention Center, so that may have colored the
'feel' of the place. Still, the surrounding area sucks. I can hope that
they improved the restaurant inside the hotel, but I just can't see too
many folks taking the Shuttle to the nearby (in driving distance,
not walking) mall to grab lunch.
> > so I'm concerned that the numbers Darrel gave the hotel will be
overly
> > generous. A lot of dealers were not happy about the disappointing
> > turnout and have already shifted their focus to the 'other
> > California con' for their business. CF11 may well be the last time
for
> > that con.
>
> As before, this is just a "shake-up" in the convention circuit. Maybe
> the dealers won't do the same business they did before all the other
> cons came along - they will have to decide which is the better con for
> them. EVERY convention has to worry about that.
Yes, Kagemushi had to go through that last year himself. I'm just
concerned from the talk I've been hearing, mostly from people who I
trust who were in the dealers' den and were hurting over very poor
sales.
> Is CF perfect? No. Is FC perfect? No. Is AC perfect? No. Is one
of
> these (or another convention) perfect for you? That's a decision each
> potential attendee has to make - NO convention will be perfect for
> everyone - fact of life...
Oh, absolutely. Never did I say that there was a perfect con, nor did I
say that one could be made. But the entity of an event, the character of
it, can change dramatically with fatal results by a few missteps. I've
seen cons die; I listen to my Fairfolk Friends on the slow demise of the
Renaissance Faire because the new owners changed the focus and that's
not necessarily what the public was going there for.... that's my point.
I, personally, think that Darrel has done an excellent job doing
something he's never done before and run a con with a lot of baggage
with it. I also think personally that the circumstances of this new con,
both by change of venue and change of flavor, have made it
unacceptable for me to spend time and money traipsing across the
continent to attend.
Did I have fun at CF10? Yes. Have I had fun at every previous CFs? Yes.
Were any of them trouble-free? No. Were the troubles worth the con? It's
edged closer to 'no' for the past 3 years for me, and this just tipped
it over the edge.
Now, I will also state that I did not approve of WhiteKitty's post being
aired on AFF.... although I understand his stated reasons for doing so.
In the end, it's Darrel's decisions what to do, and it's up to me to do
what I think is best for my life as that should be with everyone else.
I'm a strong advocate of Personal Responsibility, and I personally think
it is irresponsible for me to continueing to attend a con that provides
less fun than frustration, both as a dealer and as a patron. I am not
asking everyone to 'follow me' and boycott CF -- that's stupid. I was
asked for my opinion and I have given it. Take it with what weight you
give my opinions, and go on with life. :3
-- ermine
==================================
home email: KhromatAtInOrbitDotCom
Glen Wooten
khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Glen Wooten <jag...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Okay, I waded through the 42-odd messages on AFF regarding CF11
> > > (specifically, the thread entitled "The ConFurence Group and the
> > > Future of the Con"). Here are a few of my opinions:
>
> Understand, Glen... I'm not trying to spew for the sake of spewing, I
> don't want to see CF die, and in the end things change and I accept
> that. My only regret is that I'll have to stop attending a con I've
> patronized since the beginning. There *is* a reason I posted this
> opinionated message here, rather than AFF... I don't want to appear to
> take sides of any furry-camp because that's not the way I play.
No need to worry, I was just pointing out a few facts - note that I
didn't touch the "look & feel" questions. No, with a new management,
there will often be a change in the "feel" - sometimes good for you,
sometimes bad...
> *snip*
> > > it'd scar the little children. (Yes, I meant scar, not scare). The
> > > rules and general policies have become unwieldy and aimed mostly
> > > to cover the Con's tail rather than support the various artists,
> > > writers, costumers, and events that have been a part of CF since
> > > the beginning.
> >
> > Actually, hiding the "naughtystuff" keeps the hotel happy, and keeps
> > the local police happy. We had one dealer who had a tendency to NOT
> > hide his more adult wares, and that's what we got complaints about
> > (no complaints that I was aware of that people couldn't find
> > "naughtystuff".) There was adult material at the con that was
> > available to anyone of age, it just couldn't be displayed openly
> > (which is a requirement of the local municipalties, not just a
> > desire of organizers.) I'm aware that such may have been openly
> > displayed at previous conventions, but that doesn't mean it wasn't
> > in violation of local ordinances.
>
> I understand that, and most municipalities have 'obscenity laws' that
> need to be observed. But... it's the _way_ they are observed that
> makes the less-than-family-rated artists feel that they are welcome or
> unwelcome. From the folks I've listened to, many of the artists who
> have some adult-content will not be returning to CF because they felt
> the rules and flavor of the con makes them no longer welcome. As I
> said, I'm used to a certain amount of discression when dealing
> adultstuff at cons. But I still don't like feeling like I'm wearing a
> yellow star on my shirt.
If you could give me examples of some specific problems that people had,
I'd be happy to take it up with Darrel.
> I would've thought the appropriate path was to officially make CF the
> 'Worldcon of Furries' and treat it as the SF Worldcons have done, but
> that's not Darrel's vision, and it's not in my power (or my
> responsibility) to force the issue.
Yes, but each WorldCon has a distinct flavour of their own (as each is
run by a totally different group), and the last few years, WorldCons
have been bleeding red when it came to the final books. If the fan-base
was larger, it would certainly be something to consider.
> Okay, I admit that the LostCause memories are sharp and painful
> because of events that happened at the con... I may not have been
> aware of facilities space being that big, but I do distinctly remember
> that LosCon did *not* use the Convention Center, so that may have
> colored the 'feel' of the place. Still, the surrounding area sucks. I
> can hope that they improved the restaurant inside the hotel, but I
> just can't see too many folks taking the Shuttle to the nearby (in
> driving distance, not walking) mall to grab lunch.
Which LosCon was this (pre '91?) Every one I've been to there has used
the convention centre. I'll give you, without the convention centre, it
would be VERY tight.
And yes, the food situation around the hotel is not the best in the
world. They have re-done the hotel restaurant just this last year, and
it's pretty nice. But there still isn't a lot of fast-food within
walking distance.
dji...@my-deja.com
Glen Wooten <jag...@netcom.com> wrote:
> And yes, the food situation around the hotel is not the best in the
> world. They have re-done the hotel restaurant just this last year,
> and it's pretty nice. But there still isn't a lot of fast-food within
> walking distance.
Glen, I was at Loscon last year, too. And I thought the restaurant
sucked more than ever. Cramped, overpriced and poor quality, just
likeb the last ten years. As for what's available, there's only four
sources of food that are within walking distance:
a) A chinese take-out place with the bad Board of Health rating
b) a Chevron station with a mini-mart
c) The Burbank Airport, where you can spend two bucks for a soda
d) Fry's Electronics, which has a snack bar.
I agree, the hotel has plenty of room, but the amenities situation in
the area makes it insane for any but locals to go, and CF's membership
has always been very heavy on people from outside SoCal. Hell, it's
been heavy with folks from outside the US. The Japanese contingent has
already voted to do FC2001 instead, and I imagine a lot of others will,
too.
BTW, I've spoken to some LASFS folks recently, and the group is getting
fed up with the way they're getting treated at the hotel. I don't know
what will happen, but when the latest contract is up, they may bail on
the place. It's not the size that counts, I guess. =};-3
Glen Wooten
> BTW, I've spoken to some LASFS folks recently, and the group is
> getting fed up with the way they're getting treated at the hotel. I
> don't know what will happen, but when the latest contract is up, they
> may bail on the place. It's not the size that counts, I guess.
I know about the problem - they have a new management, and the new
management wants more money. LosCon has had an $86/night rate for a
long time, and the management wants more. We're aware of the problem.
The problem CF has is finding a hotel that has large enough convention/
meeting facilities, low-low banquet requirements, with a cheap room
rate, nearby food, free parking, and at times that we desire. In
Southern California, that ain't easy to find!
Everyone from Montpelier wants to have their meetings in Sunny Southern
California from the first of January to sometime in mid-March - since to
have them in Montpelier means you'll be snowed in. And since most
"professional" groups generally cater at least 2 functions during their
events, and are generally 1 person to a room, the hotel maks more money.
Since they are usually on an expense account, the attendees don't need
to worry about the money. Fans going to a sf/fantasy con are generally
on a tight budget, and the organizing committee can't spend big bucks
for lots of catered events - we are not as big a draw. They'll be happy
to book us - at the times someone else doesn't want.
Sad, but true...
khromat
> khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Understand, Glen... I'm not trying to spew for the sake of spewing,
I
> > don't want to see CF die, and in the end things change and I accept
> > that. My only regret is that I'll have to stop attending a con I've
> > patronized since the beginning. There *is* a reason I posted this
> > opinionated message here, rather than AFF... I don't want to appear
to
> > take sides of any furry-camp because that's not the way I play.
>
> didn't touch the "look & feel" questions. No, with a new management,
> there will often be a change in the "feel" - sometimes good for you,
> sometimes bad...
Agreed... and sometimes,. the 'feel' makes you shift your own
perceptions, for good or bad. :3
> > > Actually, hiding the "naughtystuff" keeps the hotel happy, and
keeps
> > > the local police happy. We had one dealer who had a tendency to
NOT
> > > hide his more adult wares, and that's what we got complaints about
> > > (no complaints that I was aware of that people couldn't find
> > > "naughtystuff".) There was adult material at the con that was
> > > available to anyone of age, it just couldn't be displayed openly
> > > (which is a requirement of the local municipalties, not just a
> > > desire of organizers.) I'm aware that such may have been openly
> > > displayed at previous conventions, but that doesn't mean it wasn't
> > > in violation of local ordinances.
> >
> > I understand that, and most municipalities have 'obscenity laws'
that
> > need to be observed. But... it's the _way_ they are observed that
> > makes the less-than-family-rated artists feel that they are welcome
or
> > unwelcome. From the folks I've listened to, many of the artists who
> > have some adult-content will not be returning to CF because they
felt
> > the rules and flavor of the con makes them no longer welcome. As I
> > said, I'm used to a certain amount of discression when dealing
> > adultstuff at cons. But I still don't like feeling like I'm wearing
> > a yellow star on my shirt.
>
> If you could give me examples of some specific problems that people
> had, I'd be happy to take it up with Darrel.
I'll get in touch with the folk I remember complaining and see if I
can't distill the problems into something useful.
> > I would've thought the appropriate path was to officially make CF
> > the 'Worldcon of Furries' and treat it as the SF Worldcons have
> > done, but that's not Darrel's vision, and it's not in my power (or
> > my responsibility) to force the issue.
>
> Yes, but each WorldCon has a distinct flavour of their own (as each is
> run by a totally different group), and the last few years, WorldCons
> have been bleeding red when it came to the final books. If the
> fan-base was larger, it would certainly be something to consider.
I think the fan-base is there, but the amount of marketing that needs to
be done may be more than current budgets would allow. As I don't believe
newsgroups or social mudds represent any large fraction of furrydom, I
also don't believe that cons draw in significant numbers of furrydom --
the two don't overlap all that much at this time. That may be the area
that needs to be addressed more, but that's not up to me to do that....
I may have my own con to worry about the marketing aspects of.
> Which LosCon was this (pre '91?) Every one I've been to there has
used
> the convention centre. I'll give you, without the convention centre,
> it would be VERY tight.
I've attended LosCons from 1983 to 1994 or so... the last few years are
blurry to me because of my marraige problems. I distinctly recall that
the time I attended at the Burbank Airport Hilton, the *only* event held
in the convention centre proper was a charity auction I helped at.
LosCon did not have the convention center facilities booked. Now, this
was just after the fiasco of the LosCon at the Long Beach convention
center, so it's likely what I was seeing was a conservative first-time
at that location, but it was rather unwieldy...
> And yes, the food situation around the hotel is not the best in the
> world. They have re-done the hotel restaurant just this last year,
and
> it's pretty nice. But there still isn't a lot of fast-food within
> walking distance.
Alas, that's my biggest complaint. Mitch Beiro and I got rather sick at
the Chinese restaurant that was within walking distance, and considering
the parking problems you really didn't want to move your car if it was
at all possible, so walking was the preferred distance.
Glen Wooten
khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Glen Wooten <jag...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Which LosCon was this (pre '91?) Every one I've been to there has
> > used the convention centre. I'll give you, without the convention
> > centre, it would be VERY tight.
>
> I've attended LosCons from 1983 to 1994 or so... the last few years
> are blurry to me because of my marraige problems. I distinctly recall
> that the time I attended at the Burbank Airport Hilton, the *only*
> event held in the convention centre proper was a charity auction I
> helped at. LosCon did not have the convention center facilities
> booked. Now, this was just after the fiasco of the LosCon at the Long
> Beach convention center, so it's likely what I was seeing was a
> conservative first-time at that location, but it was rather
> unwieldy...
I remember the Long Beach one ("DON'T LOOK AT THE CARS!!! DON'T LOOK AT
THE CARS!!!"), after that it was the LAX Marriott (or maybe Hilton)
which used the downstairs meeting rooms, then it was Burbank (in '93, I
believe...) which I thought used all the space. But you are quite
right, if you aren't making use of the "convention centre" facilities,
then it would be VERY cramped.
> Alas, that's my biggest complaint. Mitch Beiro and I got rather sick
> at the Chinese restaurant that was within walking distance, and
> considering the parking problems you really didn't want to move your
> car if it was at all possible, so walking was the preferred distance.
The big problem with LosCon & parking is that it's over Thanksgiving -
while you can get rooms "relatively" cheap that way, everyone wants to
go see their great Aunt Edna in Sheboygon, so they fly out of Burbank
and park at the Marriott (which is a combined lot for the hotel &
airport parking). Not being a holiday weekend, it shouldn't be that
bad. Hopefully...
khromat
> khromat <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Which LosCon was this (pre '91?) Every one I've been to there has
> > > used the convention centre. I'll give you, without the convention
> > > centre, it would be VERY tight.
> >
> > I've attended LosCons from 1983 to 1994 or so... the last few years
> > are blurry to me because of my marraige problems. I distinctly
recall
> > that the time I attended at the Burbank Airport Hilton, the *only*
> > event held in the convention centre proper was a charity auction I
> > helped at. LosCon did not have the convention center facilities
> > booked. Now, this was just after the fiasco of the LosCon at the
Long
> > Beach convention center, so it's likely what I was seeing was a
> > conservative first-time at that location, but it was rather
> > unwieldy...
>
AT
> THE CARS!!!"), after that it was the LAX Marriott (or maybe Hilton)
> which used the downstairs meeting rooms, then it was Burbank (in '93,
I
> believe...) which I thought used all the space. But you are quite
> right, if you aren't making use of the "convention centre" facilities,
> then it would be VERY cramped.
Ah, yes, there was one more con between the Long Beach disaster and
Burbank. See? I told you my mind's a bit blurred about that timeframe.
;3
> > Alas, that's my biggest complaint. Mitch Beiro and I got rather sick
> > at the Chinese restaurant that was within walking distance, and
> > considering the parking problems you really didn't want to move your
> > car if it was at all possible, so walking was the preferred
distance.
>
> The big problem with LosCon & parking is that it's over Thanksgiving -
> while you can get rooms "relatively" cheap that way, everyone wants to
> go see their great Aunt Edna in Sheboygon, so they fly out of Burbank
> and park at the Marriott (which is a combined lot for the hotel &
> airport parking). Not being a holiday weekend, it shouldn't be that
> bad. Hopefully...
Well, cross your fingers, that's all I can suggest...