Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:15:06 -0700, Troia wrote:
....
>> I disagree. The guy who found out about C13 from a ****tland newspaper
>> is not going to care about voting on C14, nor are they going to have
any
>> awareness unless they've become part of the (sorry) community on-line.
>> And if that's happened, then why shouldn't they vote on C14?
Re-reading what I wrote, well, I hope that at least those who know me
realize the "sorry" was an apology for the word "community" (I'm not
fond of the term for on-line stuff, for which I apologize) and NOT NOT
NOT any sort of adjective!
Uhhh, red-faced a bit here for not realizing how it may read.
>
> The whole key is, I think, figuring out a way to find out who cares
> where Convergence is as opposed to where the next Convergence wvent is.
The
> people whom I think should have the biggest voice in the matter are the
> ones that really care the least where the event is held, because they're
> the ones that are going to go anyway. In an ideal universe, EVERYONE has
> to travel four hours to get there.
In an ideal universe, everyone who cared -could- travel four hours to
get there. In my particular universe, it's often not really possible.
>
>> I also disagree about those who don't travel after attending a local
>> one. I imagine there are more-than-enough people who would -like- to
go
>> to another one but simply can't manage the travel aspects for their own
>> reasons. Should that automatically exclude them from the community?
>> How about people who think they -might- be able to do so and then find
>> out they can't?
>
> It shouldn't exclude then from the community per se, but it should have
> the community realize that anyone that isn't going to go shouldn't care
> where the event is held. I just wish there was some "put up or shut up"
> concept we could work in, like a vote costs $10 and becomes a credit
> toward the voter's eventual ticket, wherever the event is.
See, I could stand that. But the truth for -me- (and I suspect I'm not
alone in this) is that if it's too hard for me to get to, I simply
-can't- go, and that might well influence my vote. If things were
different, I'd likely vote differently because I might choose a place
that was a bit harder to get to, rather than a place that I might
actually be able to attend if it were chosen.
But given all the possible motivations behind a vote, I don't know that
it's reasonable to single out that one. Yes, the aforementioned mass
mail-ins were icky (well, they wuz mentioned 'afore somewhere on this
thread) but if voting is on-line, qualified by having attended at least
one Convergence before, and done in a way so as to encourage individual
registration, would that sort of thing have much of a chance? I mean,
the mail-in organizer would have to round up a bunch of prior attendees
and convince them to vote alike, and that -seems- unlikely to me
(although perhaps I'm too naive. Or missing something in the picture.)
>
>> Too much "slippery slope" there IMO.
>
> Axel's plan would make them a voter, IF they show up in the "community",
> participate, and make themselves known. By his measure, you'd be voting
> as well. Sorry, I don't remember what the secret handshake is, nor do I
> know what the official cocktail is. (The corpgothers have one, though,
> and maybe they'd share.)
For me, not-voting is a bit a matter of personal ethics, no matter what
the rules. I am not sure how I'd feel about it if I thought there was a
good chance I could make it in full to one venue and not another,
though, but I suspect I'd be guilty of campaigning here (as opposed to
campaigning for a vote.)
I missed a lot, with C13 in my backyard, but it surely was not a matter
in which I had a great deal of choice. And missed it just a few years
before in the other backyard, a different matter of timing. Best I
could hope for is close-enough-to-afford-a-flight, cuz I would be
surprised if a Convergence were in this area of the country any time
soon, given that, yaknow, there just are not a lot of good venues that
aren't one city or the other here.
I very much doubt that my own take on whether or not I should vote (if
offered the op****tunity) would carry much meaning to others, though.
And for some reason, the choice of Ybor delighted me -- the whole
presentation delighted me, as well as what the committee folks said here
all those months back -- so now it's a matter of bemoaning my inability
to attend, even if I could get past my desire to never ever ever go to
Florida again, ever. (As reasons to visit Florida go, anyway, it seems
a whole lot more appealing than any in the past. In hindsight, of
course.)
>
>> -- Troia
>> not able to do Ybor &
>> would love to do Saratoga Springs as we once discussed, but doubting
>> that too
>
> I'm still hoping for Kansas. Even if the planner of that bid DID move to
> Seattle or something.
>
Ah, see, that's -so- appealing to me. But then, I live in places with
enough going on all-the-time; others are (I suppose) likely to feel
very different about it and want to visit somewhere that generally
attracts a lot of tourists, has stuff to see and do on its own, and last
I checked, Kansas was not one of the major tourist meccas. (I know how
clumsy that wording is but I'm stuck with it at 5am.)
-- Troia
|
