runacc.costume-con.org

Andy has already explained the tipping article.

As I had already dealt with one thread on cosplay.com about “Is Resident
Evil Cosplay allowed?” (with recreation airsoft weapons) we opted to
explain the weapons policy in some detail.
San Jose has much stricter laws regarding simulacrum firearms than some
municipalities. The article was a case of “better boring and safe than
bleeding and sorry.”

Kevin

Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

>
> The Program book: The book was adequate, but the most glaring item was the
> reprint of the PR article on tipping. A number of people found these
> suggestions unnecessary at least, and insulting at worst. And the weapons
> policy, while necessary to have, seemed excessively long, given it was a
> whole 2 pages worth.
>

Having a costume exhibit where the selection was based around a theme was a
notion that deserves further exploration. “In the Garden of Good and Evil”
had an interesting cross section of items, although it was somewhat
restricted by the size of the room.

Given how small the room for exhibits was, the director made good use of the
space available. The mixture of costumes appeared to be well balanced. One
thing that struck us as odd – not bad, just surprising – were some of the
costumes were for sale. As for the contest to vote for their favorite
costumes, the only problem was – and I hope I’ve got this right – there were
no numbers on the sheets that corresponded with the numbers on the
individual exhibits.

The Mad Scientist Fair props display was pretty cool. One note, one person
had inquired about having a prop in the show, but needed to use it in the SF
& F masquerade. The director(s) never got back to them about it.

Just as a point of interest, there was some disagreement over what was the
proper procedure when the Fair room closed part of the time on Sunday, due
to a family emergency. Some thought it perfectly understandable that the
people involved had left immediately, without notice to anyone – supposedly.
I was of the opinion that someone should have at least given a heads up as
they were out the door – surely there was time while waiting for transport
to arrive (unless they drove themselves). Had it been Nora who was sick in
the same circumstance, I noted that she would have been the one who would
have told ME to tell someone before we left the building, because she’s just
that way.

The upshot being, I’m surprised that either it took some time before the
people were discovered missing, or that there were not some volunteers put
into that room to keep it open.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There was a lot of discussion on our own internal list about this topic, and
many were in a similar vein: they found it disappointing, to say the least.
Words like “boring”, “light”, and “nothing to write home about” were oft
repeated.

“The programming seemed to be sparse and fairly uninteresting.” , was a
typical comment.

That’s not to say the entire track was uniformly awful. There were some
standouts:

The “Things I wish I had known” panel was very interesting, as all horror
story panels are, which is what this one evolved into. They kept couching
the horror stories as things they wish they had known, so the topic wasn’t
abandoned. The “Costumers Tool Box” panel was also very informative. I
learned some things about pop rivets that I’ll have to make use of in future
costumes. The “EL wire” panel was also very informative. VERY GOOD panel.
Another good panel was the “Props on a Plane” panel.

“The Costumers Hardware Store” roundtable gets high marks for having a
handout.

Some were too general to be of much use. There are no reports that the
“Meet the Costumer” panels were successful or not; Were the audiences mostly
friends supporting their friends, or did others go to see them?
“Costume-Cons of the Future” was probably one of the worst attended, but
that’s just about always the case at most cons – it’s just not interesting
to people on a large scale.

The one panel we kept hearing about over and over again was the “Mechanical
Engineering” panel. The subject matter, covering popular things like wings
and other devices, was extremely well attended, but disappointed just about
everyone. The main problem was that, while the panelists obviously knew
their stuff, they got bogged down in the minutiae of mechanism names, rather
than actually tips on construction. They spent 15 minutes amiably arguing
over which wing mechanism would have worked more effectively for one
particular presentation. One audience member was overheard muttering under
their breath “Move on!”. And as it turned out, the panel wound up not
getting to other subjects. Word is that some projector equipment did not
function properly, which may’ve thrown them off their game. This might be a
good time to point out that relying on technology isn’t always a good idea –
handouts trump a gee-whiz powerpoint presentation.

Three things about panel programming led to a perception that there was not
enough to do. The first was the longer times for panels. Naturally,
scheduling longer times for panels is going to result in fewer panels
overall. The consensus was, it was better to have too much to want to see
(with some possible repeats of popular panels), rather than not enough.

Second, was the lunch break. Most, but not all, of our people seemed to
think a specified lunch hour was not that important to them.

Third was the long “interims” between the panels to allow passthrough
times.

Looking at the pocket program, the way it was printed emphasized the overall
appearance of fewer panels than normal.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The longer schedule slots and lunch break were a conscious decision on
my part based on our experiences at CC25 and Costume College, where
panels repeatedly ran over and into each other. At 25, in fact, all of
Andy’s panels but one started late because the preceding panel ran over,
as did my cross-dressing panel which needed time for setup and also had
to wait for the previous panel to clear out, which ran overtime. Perhaps
I erred too far in the other direction.

I can say I’ve heard about equal number of comments that folks wanted
even longer, more detailed items vs. more, shorter items. That would
suggest that we weren’t too far off with the length in concept, anyway.

Kevin

Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

>
>
> Three things about panel programming led to a perception that there
> was not
> enough to do. The first was the longer times for panels. Naturally,
> scheduling longer times for panels is going to result in fewer panels
> overall. The consensus was, it was better to have too much to want to see
> (with some possible repeats of popular panels), rather than not enough.
>
> Second, was the lunch break. Most, but not all, of our people seemed to
> think a specified lunch hour was not that important to them.
>
> Third was the long “interims” between the panels to allow passthrough
> times.
>

We’re going to try to see how to juggle different rooms doing different length type stuff.

some things just don’t get the attendance nor do they need a full hour, like the future CC’s panel Bruce mentioned.

but sitting in the fan table row all weekend across from a line of panel rooms, We were all quite surprised at how often there was nothing in them.( I realize they weren’t the only rooms.)
The retrospectives were a good draw from what I could tell, as they were across from us as well.
the 5 retrospectives done in Ogden were to at least 70% room capacity.

we will be doing 2 I believe at CC-27 stay tuned for who.

Gravely MacCabre
http://www.castleblood.com
http://www.midnightmonsterhop.com
http://www.myspace.com/thecastleblood
http://www.myspace.com/midnightmonsterhop
clip samples at
http://www.veoh.com/channels/castleblood

—– Original Message —-
From: “Kevin Roche, Costume-con 26 Convention Chair” <chair@cc26.org>
To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:36:02 PM
Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming

The longer schedule slots and lunch break were a conscious decision on
my part based on our experiences at CC25 and Costume College, where
panels repeatedly ran over and into each other. At 25, in fact, all of
Andy’s panels but one started late because the preceding panel ran over,
as did my cross-dressing panel which needed time for setup and also had
to wait for the previous panel to clear out, which ran overtime. Perhaps
I erred too far in the other direction.

I can say I’ve heard about equal number of comments that folks wanted
even longer, more detailed items vs. more, shorter items. That would
suggest that we weren’t too far off with the length in concept, anyway.

Kevin

Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

>
>
> Three things about panel programming led to a perception that there
> was not
> enough to do. The first was the longer times for panels. Naturally,
> scheduling longer times for panels is going to result in fewer panels
> overall. The consensus was, it was better to have too much to want to see
> (with some possible repeats of popular panels), rather than not enough.
>
> Second, was the lunch break. Most, but not all, of our people seemed to
> think a specified lunch hour was not that important to them.
>
> Third was the long “interims” between the panels to allow passthrough
> times.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kevin Roche, Costume-con 26 Convention Chair wrote:

> At 25, in fact, all of
> Andy’s panels but one started late because the preceding panel ran over,
> as did my cross-dressing panel which needed time for setup and also had
> to wait for the previous panel to clear out, which ran overtime.

There was a distinct lack of respect for the schedule or the other
presenters on the part of some program participants at CC25. I had two
panels at CC25 that started on time. One was a first-thing Saturday
morning with nothing preceding it. The other was the Archives panel,
which we moved out into the concourse when it was clear the panel that
was in our room wasn’t going to clear out. My other panels that started
late we still wrapped up so the next panel could start on time, so we
ended up with maybe 40 minutes.

We first encountered the 90-minute slot, 75-minute panel schedule at
ConJose in 2002. I think this schedule was used for CC23, but I would
have to dig up a program book (or ask Dana MacDermott), and I don’t
remember complaints then.

Many Bay Area conventions have adopted this schedule. Why? Presenters
generally report they’re happier having the extra 25 minutes so they’re
not rushed. They finish, with questions, in 75-80 minutes, still
allowing time for the next panel to move in.

andy

These are some random thoughts on the subject of programs, not just
from this year. My opinions. You mileage may vary. Yadda yadda
yadda…

> There was a distinct lack of respect for the schedule or the other
> presenters on the part of some program participants at CC25.

I’ve heard this sort of comment before, and repeatedly.

I have a vague recollection that the last time the subject came up, it
was strongly suggested that the program people walk around to the
different rooms and give ten-minute and five-minute warnings to the
panelists, so they knew that time was running out. Be honest: Some of
us simply can’t tell time and don’t pay any attention to clocks, which
makes it doubly important to have someone on con staff who will.

I have a vague recollection (from some years ago) that such a “timer”
was working at one of the cons we attended. I “think” it was the year
Bruce Mai and I were part of a “horror story” panel (he was discussing
The Mask, so it was maybe a year or so after). I don’t recall
complaints about panelists running overtime at that point.

I’m curious – were there room monitors watching the panel rooms at the
last few CCs? I wasn’t on enough panels in the last couple of years to
tell and my memory’s a little…fuzzy…on the past few cons. It’s
been my experience that the only monitoring we’ve gotten recently has
been from the incoming panelist(s) who, at times, had to make it
fairly clear and obvious on arrival that the previous panel’s time was
almost up.

It also helps a LOT to have a moderator for every panel having more
than one participant. You can avoid having one person hog all the time
and keep the discussion on topic (assuming the drift isn’t a good
thing). The moderator should also serve as a timekeeper.

I don’t know if timekeepers were employed at either CC25 or CC26. I’d
strongly recommend them for CC27 and beyond.

It’s also hard to tell whether you’ve given someone too much time or
too little. Unless the presenter has an absolute grasp on the subject
(many don’t), and really understands how long it will take to convey
the information (takes a certain amount of skill and experience), you
can wind up either feeling rushed out or feeling like the panel’s gone
on too long. That’s the risk we take when we open programs up to
everyone and anyone who wants to talk.

I know myself that I do best when I can let the audience ask the
questions rather than presenting the material. I don’t do very well at
“teaching” so my favorite panels to run are the “show and tell” types.
(Which, by the way, I’d be happy to moderate for the foreseeable
future, since they always seem to be popular panels.)

And, for the record, the two panel types I thought were missing were
the Masquerade wrap-ups and the Costume-Con reviews at the end.

The folks on this list are very good at pointing out what we think
went right and wrong with these events, but I think you miss out on
valuable feedback if you don’t give the con attendees a chance to give
feedback right then. I suspect there might be some surprises
concerning what works and what doesn’t. We’ve got a lot of folks
coming in now who don’t have a long background with Costume-Cons, and
choosing not to ask them what they thought while at the con might send
them off to their separate lists to post the feedback. I’d think it
would be a lot better to hear from them at the con – that way you can
answer the questions they might have had for why this or that was
done. And it ought to be mandatory for the future CC folks who are at
the con to attend these panels so they can hear what’s being said
firsthand.

What happened to these sorts of panels?

-b

Just as a personal note, I understand the whole tricky scheduling thing.
Pierre and I had to scramble when our original Programming person told us
they thought they couldn’t come. The idea of flexibility didn’t even occur
to us, although we did have a couple of longer panels included in our
lineup.

I remember the discussion of the panels running late at CC25. And there is
certainly good reason to make some panels longer – the trick will be
figuring out which ones are more likely to need the extra time. I think
your idea has merit, even if there will be the inevitable complaints of
people who miss part of another panel.

I’ll have to try to attend one of those retrospectives – the Archives may
eventually be able to help there.

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Gravely MacCabre
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 10:54 PM
> To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming
>
> We’re going to try to see how to juggle different rooms doing different

length type

> stuff.
>
> some things just don’t get the attendance nor do they need a full hour,

like the future

> CC’s panel Bruce mentioned.
>
> but sitting in the fan table row all weekend across from a line of panel

rooms, We

> were all quite surprised at how often there was nothing in them.( I

realize they

> weren’t the only rooms.)
> The retrospectives were a good draw from what I could tell, as they were

across

> from us as well.
> the 5 retrospectives done in Ogden were to at least 70% room capacity.
>
> we will be doing 2 I believe at CC-27 stay tuned for who.
>
>
> Gravely MacCabre
> http://www.castleblood.com
> http://www.midnightmonsterhop.com
> http://www.myspace.com/thecastleblood
> http://www.myspace.com/midnightmonsterhop
> clip samples at
> http://www.veoh.com/channels/castleblood
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —-
> From: “Kevin Roche, Costume-con 26 Convention Chair” <chair@cc26.org>
> To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:36:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming
>
>
> The longer schedule slots and lunch break were a conscious decision on
> my part based on our experiences at CC25 and Costume College, where
> panels repeatedly ran over and into each other. At 25, in fact, all of
> Andy’s panels but one started late because the preceding panel ran over,
> as did my cross-dressing panel which needed time for setup and also had
> to wait for the previous panel to clear out, which ran overtime. Perhaps
> I erred too far in the other direction.
>
> I can say I’ve heard about equal number of comments that folks wanted
> even longer, more detailed items vs. more, shorter items. That would
> suggest that we weren’t too far off with the length in concept, anyway.
>
> Kevin
>
> Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:
> >
> >
> > Three things about panel programming led to a perception that there
> > was not
> > enough to do. The first was the longer times for panels. Naturally,
> > scheduling longer times for panels is going to result in fewer panels
> > overall. The consensus was, it was better to have too much to want to

see

> > (with some possible repeats of popular panels), rather than not enough.
> >
> > Second, was the lunch break. Most, but not all, of our people seemed to
> > think a specified lunch hour was not that important to them.
> >
> > Third was the long “interims” between the panels to allow passthrough
> > times.
> >

While one or two of us thought the theme was passé, it was obviously a
popular choice out there. Still, the Social disappointed a number of
people, but for differing reasons.

The various live acts got mixed reviews. Just like having a TV in the con
suite after a masquerade, the entertainment tended to suck the conversation
out of the room, thus driving those who would prefer to socialize, out into
the hall. The split seemed to be about 50/50 at times.

There was also a generational component to the split. One or two people got
so tired of the loud music that they went back to their rooms. Comments
included:

“….the general consensus from people we passed on the way there was ‘they
were leaving because the band was too loud’”.

“…I have noticed that bands or DJ’s seem to think that they are giving a
concert that need to be heard instead of being background for the function…”

We were a little surprised by the relative lack of refreshments, other than
the open bar and the ice cream “buffet” (which was a nice change,
nonetheless). A good percentage of people said it would have been better to
“use the money for the “entertainment” for more munchies, instead.”

There’s certainly an argument for the fact that the size of the convention
made providing much in the way of refreshments for that many people
impractical. Does anyone have any info on the other larger cons (CC8 & 12,
15) and what they may have served?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 6/5/2008 10:36:23 PM Central Daylight Time, chair@cc26.org
writes:

> The longer schedule slots and lunch break were a conscious decision on
> my part based on our experiences at CC25 and Costume College, where
> panels repeatedly ran over and into each other. At 25, in fact, all of
> Andy’s panels but one started late because the preceding panel ran over,
> as did my cross-dressing panel which needed time for setup and also had
> to wait for the previous panel to clear out, which ran overtime. Perhaps
> I erred too far in the other direction.
>
> I can say I’ve heard about equal number of comments that folks wanted
> even longer, more detailed items vs. more, shorter items. That would
> suggest that we weren’t too far off with the length in concept, anyway.
>
>

Do people think that scheduling panels for 50 minutes of an hour, with 10 in
between works? Or one hour panels with 15 minutes between, which would make
for a weird schedule, would work better?

Henry

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Jun 6, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Betsy Delaney wrote:

> I’m curious – were there room monitors watching the panel rooms at the
> last few CCs? I wasn’t on enough panels in the last couple of years to
> tell and my memory’s a little…fuzzy…on the past few cons. It’s
> been my experience that the only monitoring we’ve gotten recently has
> been from the incoming panelist(s) who, at times, had to make it
> fairly clear and obvious on arrival that the previous panel’s time was
> almost up.

I don’t remember a CC that had enough program ops staff to do this.
Windycon used to do this, but program ops there used to be run by one
of the great program wonks of our time, Ross Pavlac. Progops at
Windycon sent out runners at the beginning, half-way and wrap-up times
to take a census of each room to determine how well the presenters
held their audience, and to give the “5-minute warning.” This is
valuable when you’ve got the same (or nearly the same) team doing
programming to weed out the unpopular topics and bad presenters. It’s
less valuable when there’s a large turn-over in presenters and
attendees each year.

> It also helps a LOT to have a moderator for every panel having more
> than one participant. You can avoid having one person hog all the time
> and keep the discussion on topic (assuming the drift isn’t a good
> thing). The moderator should also serve as a timekeeper.

Even if I’m not mod, I keep my phone out and open on the table so I
can check the time.

> And, for the record, the two panel types I thought were missing were
> the Masquerade wrap-ups and the Costume-Con reviews at the end.

There was a single “shows” post-mortem on Monday, rather than separate
wrap-ups for each event. There was no general “Hiss and Purr” session
scheduled.

andy

I suppose it’s possible that a single panel might need as much as 10
minutes for turnover, but that’s most likely going to be a workshop
where a lot of materials are laid out and clean-up’s necessary. For
most panels, especially the talking head or kibitzing variety (if
time’s managed well), a five-minute turnover should really be plenty,
but that has to assume that the panelists are being kept to the
schedule and not allowed to run over.

And while I’d love to say that everyone’s as conscientious as Andy
about paying attention to the time, there are some I’ve attended where
the folks on the panel just don’t know when to shut up. (No names, to
protect the guilty…)

I really wish I could remember which CC it was that had the time
monitoring. I’d like to say it was 18 but whatever it was, it was a
LOOOONG time ago.

I also seem to recall that the timekeeper was in charge of programs in
general. It is possible to reserve the program person or a volunteer
to do this, but that person pretty much has to abandon all hope of
seeing any panel all the way through if no help is available.

Sorry I can’t remember more.

Cheers,

Betsy

This year Balticon did 50 minute panels with 10 minutes to change. They
“enforced” this by assigning a moderator and giving him/her a wind up
timer from Ikea. I’m not sure how well this worked or not as I didn’t
attend any panels, but I’ll report back after the programming meeting in
a week or so. If it seems like a good idea, I can borrow the timers for
CC-27.

Marty

Betsy Delaney wrote:

>
> I suppose it’s possible that a single panel might need as much as 10
> minutes for turnover, but that’s most likely going to be a workshop
> where a lot of materials are laid out and clean-up’s necessary. For
> most panels, especially the talking head or kibitzing variety (if
> time’s managed well), a five-minute turnover should really be plenty,
> but that has to assume that the panelists are being kept to the
> schedule and not allowed to run over.
>
> And while I’d love to say that everyone’s as conscientious as Andy
> about paying attention to the time, there are some I’ve attended where
> the folks on the panel just don’t know when to shut up. (No names, to
> protect the guilty…)
>
> I really wish I could remember which CC it was that had the time
> monitoring. I’d like to say it was 18 but whatever it was, it was a
> LOOOONG time ago.
>
> I also seem to recall that the timekeeper was in charge of programs in
> general. It is possible to reserve the program person or a volunteer
> to do this, but that person pretty much has to abandon all hope of
> seeing any panel all the way through if no help is available.
>
> Sorry I can’t remember more.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Betsy
>
>
> ————————————————————————
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1488 – Release Date: 6/6/2008 5:48 PM
>

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Trembley
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 1:32 AM
> To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming
>
> Kevin Roche, Costume-con 26 Convention Chair wrote:
> > At 25, in fact, all of
> > Andy’s panels but one started late because the preceding panel ran over,
> > as did my cross-dressing panel which needed time for setup and also had
> > to wait for the previous panel to clear out, which ran overtime.
>
> There was a distinct lack of respect for the schedule or the other
> presenters on the part of some program participants at CC25. I had two
> panels at CC25 that started on time. One was a first-thing Saturday
> morning with nothing preceding it. The other was the Archives panel,
> which we moved out into the concourse when it was clear the panel that
> was in our room wasn’t going to clear out. My other panels that started
> late we still wrapped up so the next panel could start on time, so we
> ended up with maybe 40 minutes.

I wish I’d known this was a chronic problem. I could’ve probably done
something about it. However, I also know sometimes people will ignore you,
too. Oh well. <shrug>

Bruce

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Betsy Delaney

>
> I’m curious – were there room monitors watching the panel rooms at the
> last few CCs? I wasn’t on enough panels in the last couple of years to
> tell and my memory’s a little…fuzzy…on the past few cons. It’s
> been my experience that the only monitoring we’ve gotten recently has
> been from the incoming panelist(s) who, at times, had to make it
> fairly clear and obvious on arrival that the previous panel’s time was
> almost up.

Not that I was ever aware of.

>
> It also helps a LOT to have a moderator for every panel having more
> than one participant. You can avoid having one person hog all the time
> and keep the discussion on topic (assuming the drift isn’t a good
> thing). The moderator should also serve as a timekeeper.
>
> I don’t know if timekeepers were employed at either CC25 or CC26. I’d
> strongly recommend them for CC27 and beyond.

I think, in the past, people usually rely on people being considerate of
others. Evidently, some of our folks have forgotten this. Sounds like this
needs to be (re)introduce, although if the idea CC27 is floating around
works, maybe there’ll be fewer incidents.

>
>
>
> And, for the record, the two panel types I thought were missing were
> the Masquerade wrap-ups and the Costume-Con reviews at the end.
>
> The folks on this list are very good at pointing out what we think
> went right and wrong with these events, but I think you miss out on
> valuable feedback if you don’t give the con attendees a chance to give
> feedback right then. I suspect there might be some surprises
> concerning what works and what doesn’t. We’ve got a lot of folks
> coming in now who don’t have a long background with Costume-Cons, and
> choosing not to ask them what they thought while at the con might send
> them off to their separate lists to post the feedback. I’d think it
> would be a lot better to hear from them at the con – that way you can
> answer the questions they might have had for why this or that was
> done. And it ought to be mandatory for the future CC folks who are at
> the con to attend these panels so they can hear what’s being said
> firsthand.

I’m of two minds on this – I see pros and cons.

Con:
Depending on the personalities of the organizers involved, some people might
get defensive about some of the criticism. (I suspect that’s the main
reason why we don’t have them at Archon.)

Feedback sessions can often be interpreted to be bitch sessions.

Unless the people who will be running things next year are there, not much
is accomplished.

Pro:

It can serve as another way to communicate with the people who were affected
by certain decisions. If you don’t have some channel for doing so, people
start making up their own stories, posting their (possibly) inaccurate
perspectives on their LJs, etc. And once that happens, the facts often get
lost.

Constructive criticism is a useful tool to improve things for next time.

It also can re-enforce reasons why some things are done the way they are to
people who, as you said, don’t know better.

Nora had an interesting idea of some sort of feedback process like a “How
are we doing” card in the Program Book. Something to think about, even if
you know the percentage returned probably wouldn’t be that high.

Bruce

I can’t recall which con it was (a CC or a local) but I do remember attending a con several years ago which purchased a number of large-print-faced clocks, and put one on each program table, so that the program participants KNEW when their time was running out. If one were outfitting only a few rooms and could get a good buy at someplace like Costco or WalMart, that might work. Visual, but not intrusive.

Tina

—– Original Message —–
From: Andrew T Trembley<mailto:attrembl@bovil.com>
To: runacc@yahoogroups.com<mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming

On Jun 6, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Betsy Delaney wrote:
> I’m curious – were there room monitors watching the panel rooms at the
> last few CCs? I wasn’t on enough panels in the last couple of years to
> tell and my memory’s a little…fuzzy…on the past few cons. It’s
> been my experience that the only monitoring we’ve gotten recently has
> been from the incoming panelist(s) who, at times, had to make it
> fairly clear and obvious on arrival that the previous panel’s time was
> almost up.

I don’t remember a CC that had enough program ops staff to do this.
Windycon used to do this, but program ops there used to be run by one
of the great program wonks of our time, Ross Pavlac. Progops at
Windycon sent out runners at the beginning, half-way and wrap-up times
to take a census of each room to determine how well the presenters
held their audience, and to give the “5-minute warning.” This is
valuable when you’ve got the same (or nearly the same) team doing
programming to weed out the unpopular topics and bad presenters. It’s
less valuable when there’s a large turn-over in presenters and
attendees each year.

> It also helps a LOT to have a moderator for every panel having more
> than one participant. You can avoid having one person hog all the time
> and keep the discussion on topic (assuming the drift isn’t a good
> thing). The moderator should also serve as a timekeeper.

Even if I’m not mod, I keep my phone out and open on the table so I
can check the time.

> And, for the record, the two panel types I thought were missing were
> the Masquerade wrap-ups and the Costume-Con reviews at the end.

There was a single “shows” post-mortem on Monday, rather than separate
wrap-ups for each event. There was no general “Hiss and Purr” session
scheduled.

andy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As a former faculty member, I’m used to 50-minute hours, as would be most audience members who ever took a college course. However, there are good reasons why a program item might be scheduled for a 75-minute hour-and-a-half or a 100-minute two hours. It will depend on the topic and the nature of the item.

Byron

—– Original Message —–
From: osierhenry@cs.com<mailto:osierhenry@cs.com>
To: runacc@yahoogroups.com<mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [runacc] Panel Programming

In a message dated 6/5/2008 10:36:23 PM Central Daylight Time, chair@cc26.org<mailto:chair@cc26.org>
writes:
> The longer schedule slots and lunch break were a conscious decision on
> my part based on our experiences at CC25 and Costume College, where
> panels repeatedly ran over and into each other. At 25, in fact, all of
> Andy’s panels but one started late because the preceding panel ran over,
> as did my cross-dressing panel which needed time for setup and also had
> to wait for the previous panel to clear out, which ran overtime. Perhaps
> I erred too far in the other direction.
>
> I can say I’ve heard about equal number of comments that folks wanted
> even longer, more detailed items vs. more, shorter items. That would
> suggest that we weren’t too far off with the length in concept, anyway.
>
>

Do people think that scheduling panels for 50 minutes of an hour, with 10 in
between works? Or one hour panels with 15 minutes between, which would make
for a weird schedule, would work better?

Henry

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

SF cons frequently do this — in my experience at Albacons, Archons, Arisias, Lunacons, and Philcons. at least. I’m not sure that it has been standard operating procedure at CCs, however.

Byron

—– Original Message —–
From: Martin Gear<mailto:MartinGear@comcast.net>
To: runacc@yahoogroups.com<mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [runacc] Panel Programming

This year Balticon did 50 minute panels with 10 minutes to change. They
“enforced” this by assigning a moderator and giving him/her a wind up
timer from Ikea. I’m not sure how well this worked or not as I didn’t
attend any panels, but I’ll report back after the programming meeting in
a week or so. If it seems like a good idea, I can borrow the timers for
CC-27.

Marty

Betsy Delaney wrote:
>
> I suppose it’s possible that a single panel might need as much as 10
> minutes for turnover, but that’s most likely going to be a workshop
> where a lot of materials are laid out and clean-up’s necessary. For
> most panels, especially the talking head or kibitzing variety (if
> time’s managed well), a five-minute turnover should really be plenty,
> but that has to assume that the panelists are being kept to the
> schedule and not allowed to run over.
>
> And while I’d love to say that everyone’s as conscientious as Andy
> about paying attention to the time, there are some I’ve attended where
> the folks on the panel just don’t know when to shut up. (No names, to
> protect the guilty…)
>
> I really wish I could remember which CC it was that had the time
> monitoring. I’d like to say it was 18 but whatever it was, it was a
> LOOOONG time ago.
>
> I also seem to recall that the timekeeper was in charge of programs in
> general. It is possible to reserve the program person or a volunteer
> to do this, but that person pretty much has to abandon all hope of
> seeing any panel all the way through if no help is available.
>
> Sorry I can’t remember more.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Betsy
>
>
> ———————————————————-
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1488 – Release Date: 6/6/2008 5:48 PM
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sometimes the debrief can be invaluable. The Lunacon 2007 masquerade had problems with sight lines, space for the green room and official photography, and moving entrants to and from the stage because, while we were back at our favorite hotel we were using a different ballroom for the first time. None of the masquerade crew were happy. At the masquerade debrief, we identified a far better use of the ballroom space. Since the MD, tech director, and green room manager were the same for 2008 as for 2007, we were able to implement our decision almost without change and it worked great.

Byron

—– Original Message —–
From: Bruce & Nora Mai<mailto:casamai@sbcglobal.net>
To: runacc@yahoogroups.com<mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming – Betsy

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com<mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com<mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
> Betsy Delaney

>
> I’m curious – were there room monitors watching the panel rooms at the
> last few CCs? I wasn’t on enough panels in the last couple of years to
> tell and my memory’s a little…fuzzy…on the past few cons. It’s
> been my experience that the only monitoring we’ve gotten recently has
> been from the incoming panelist(s) who, at times, had to make it
> fairly clear and obvious on arrival that the previous panel’s time was
> almost up.

Not that I was ever aware of.
>
> It also helps a LOT to have a moderator for every panel having more
> than one participant. You can avoid having one person hog all the time
> and keep the discussion on topic (assuming the drift isn’t a good
> thing). The moderator should also serve as a timekeeper.
>
> I don’t know if timekeepers were employed at either CC25 or CC26. I’d
> strongly recommend them for CC27 and beyond.

I think, in the past, people usually rely on people being considerate of
others. Evidently, some of our folks have forgotten this. Sounds like this
needs to be (re)introduce, although if the idea CC27 is floating around
works, maybe there’ll be fewer incidents.
>
>
>
> And, for the record, the two panel types I thought were missing were
> the Masquerade wrap-ups and the Costume-Con reviews at the end.
>
> The folks on this list are very good at pointing out what we think
> went right and wrong with these events, but I think you miss out on
> valuable feedback if you don’t give the con attendees a chance to give
> feedback right then. I suspect there might be some surprises
> concerning what works and what doesn’t. We’ve got a lot of folks
> coming in now who don’t have a long background with Costume-Cons, and
> choosing not to ask them what they thought while at the con might send
> them off to their separate lists to post the feedback. I’d think it
> would be a lot better to hear from them at the con – that way you can
> answer the questions they might have had for why this or that was
> done. And it ought to be mandatory for the future CC folks who are at
> the con to attend these panels so they can hear what’s being said
> firsthand.

I’m of two minds on this – I see pros and cons.

Con:
Depending on the personalities of the organizers involved, some people might
get defensive about some of the criticism. (I suspect that’s the main
reason why we don’t have them at Archon.)

Feedback sessions can often be interpreted to be bitch sessions.

Unless the people who will be running things next year are there, not much
is accomplished.

Pro:

It can serve as another way to communicate with the people who were affected
by certain decisions. If you don’t have some channel for doing so, people
start making up their own stories, posting their (possibly) inaccurate
perspectives on their LJs, etc. And once that happens, the facts often get
lost.

Constructive criticism is a useful tool to improve things for next time.

It also can re-enforce reasons why some things are done the way they are to
people who, as you said, don’t know better.

Nora had an interesting idea of some sort of feedback process like a “How
are we doing” card in the Program Book. Something to think about, even if
you know the percentage returned probably wouldn’t be that high.

Bruce

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Because we did not have a feedback session at CC26, Trystan is working
on a feedback survey we can send out (or have folks do online), to pass
the suggestions forward to future CCs.

Which reminds me, I need to find out where she is on that project!

Kevin

Byron Connell wrote:

>
> Sometimes the debrief can be invaluable. The Lunacon 2007 masquerade
> had problems with sight lines, space for the green room and official
> photography, and moving entrants to and from the stage because, while
> we were back at our favorite hotel we were using a different ballroom
> for the first time. None of the masquerade crew were happy. At the
> masquerade debrief, we identified a far better use of the ballroom
> space. Since the MD, tech director, and green room manager were the
> same for 2008 as for 2007, we were able to implement our decision
> almost without change and it worked great.
>
> Byron
>
> –
>

Excellent! I think that could become a future CC standard – maybe even
included in the packet.
I look forward to seeing the results.

Nora

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Kevin Roche, CC26 Convention Chair
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:19 PM
> To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming – Betsy
>
> Because we did not have a feedback session at CC26, Trystan is working
> on a feedback survey we can send out (or have folks do online), to pass
> the suggestions forward to future CCs.
>
> Which reminds me, I need to find out where she is on that project!
>
> Kevin

Good idea. Not that I think it’ll be a problem, but how do you plan to
filter out those who didn’t actually attend?

Bruce

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Kevin Roche, CC26 Convention Chair
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:19 PM
> To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming – Betsy
>
> Because we did not have a feedback session at CC26, Trystan is working
> on a feedback survey we can send out (or have folks do online), to pass
> the suggestions forward to future CCs.
>
> Which reminds me, I need to find out where she is on that project!
>
> Kevin
>
> Byron Connell wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes the debrief can be invaluable. The Lunacon 2007 masquerade
> > had problems with sight lines, space for the green room and official
> > photography, and moving entrants to and from the stage because, while
> > we were back at our favorite hotel we were using a different ballroom
> > for the first time. None of the masquerade crew were happy. At the
> > masquerade debrief, we identified a far better use of the ballroom
> > space. Since the MD, tech director, and green room manager were the
> > same for 2008 as for 2007, we were able to implement our decision
> > almost without change and it worked great.
> >
> > Byron

This is why Trystan (who has experience with these things) offered to do
it for us.

Kevin

Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

>
> Good idea. Not that I think it’ll be a problem, but how do you plan to
> filter out those who didn’t actually attend?
>
> Bruce
>
> > —–Original Message—–
> > From: runacc@yahoogroups.com <mailto:runacc%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com <mailto:runacc%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf Of
> > Kevin Roche, CC26 Convention Chair
> > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:19 PM
> > To: runacc@yahoogroups.com <mailto:runacc%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Panel Programming – Betsy
> >
> > Because we did not have a feedback session at CC26, Trystan is working
> > on a feedback survey we can send out (or have folks do online), to pass
> > the suggestions forward to future CCs.
> >
> > Which reminds me, I need to find out where she is on that project!
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > Byron Connell wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes the debrief can be invaluable. The Lunacon 2007 masquerade
> > > had problems with sight lines, space for the green room and official
> > > photography, and moving entrants to and from the stage because, while
> > > we were back at our favorite hotel we were using a different ballroom
> > > for the first time. None of the masquerade crew were happy. At the
> > > masquerade debrief, we identified a far better use of the ballroom
> > > space. Since the MD, tech director, and green room manager were the
> > > same for 2008 as for 2007, we were able to implement our decision
> > > almost without change and it worked great.
> > >
> > > Byron
>
>

This is the event that received the harshest criticism for a number of
reasons.

“The SFF masq was run atrociously. It seemed only a modicum of organization
was thrown at it and very little of it stuck.”

That’s just one person’s opinion. To be fair, I don’t think everyone who
participated felt this strongly, but among a number of our folks who have
experience with other con masquerades, they had a lot to say.

The online masquerade system worked well, but a lot of our people didn’t
bother – a lot of people never do. Archon has had such a system for years,
and gets maybe 25% of their data that way. Having no onsite registration
form was a mistake. It required entrants to have to wait in line and then
dictate their info to the MD and their assistant.
(“I don’t particularly like broadcasting my entry to everyone in the hall!”)

“.you should always test you tech equipment before the actual event doubly
so of the tech crew is unfamiliar with the equipment and each other. That
was the first rule when I used to run tech in high school and college
productions and should have been the first thing that they did once the
equipment was in place. There is no way, at least to my knowledge, that a
piece of music just automatically loops itself back to the beginning without
someone touching a button or setting it up to be that way.”

I’m going to let one of our members give his overall experience, Let me
preface this by saying that the mandatory meeting for masquerade entries was
a very good idea. Archon has been doing this for years. However, that
being said, the time was not utilized well, at all. It wound up setting
back the first tech rehearsal 30 minutes and never caught up. I’ll insert a
couple of comments where necessary:

“The mandatory masq meeting ran way too long. No one who was asked to speak
seemed prepared to say anything even though they all had info we needed to
know. They just rambled on, and barfed up info as it occurred to them.

My tech was at 1:45 after the extensive 11:00 meeting. I arrived for my
tech rehearsal 15 minutes early, only to learn that they were running a half
hour behind and that the order we had signed up in was completely tossed out
the window.

The green room was not able to check anyone in at the scheduled opening
time, as no run order was available, so no den assignments could be made.
Additionally, the workmanship judges couldn’t begin judging. No run order
numbers. I can’t believe it’s that hard to put together a run order between
masq reg close and beginning of meeting.

Again, to be fair, some of this next part was based on hearsay, to an
extent. Any corrections would be appreciated.

I heard rumors of problems printing out the scripts from the database. This
is not a valid excuse. When masq registration closed the scripts should
have been immediately printed and available at tech rehearsals. This is the
only real chance the MC has to annotate pronunciations and the sound and
lighting crews have to also annotate the scripts so that they get things
correct. The scripts were reprinted just before the masquerade started.
WTF. What good was the tech rehearsal if the scripts were reprinted? All
we accomplished at tech was for the contestants to get a warm fuzzy feeling
about the stage configuration. I heard it was because the “Created by”
credit was omitted from the first printing. This is something that could
have been taken care of during tech. Anyone who cared about that credit
being read after their presentation could have told the MC and he could have
annotated his script. Being in Den 1, I was in line for much longer than I
would have liked, waiting while the MC stretched as the scripts were
reprinted and not yet available. I can walk around all day, but I can’t
stand still in one place for too long. It kills my feet.

As with a number of people, there were many technical problems:

I know they say the judges recognize this sort of thing and don’t hold it
against you, but do they really? ..To their credit, about half a dozen con
staff apologized to me personally, including the audio folks. The
explanation I got from them was that their CD player ate my CD. .It’s kind
of an old chestnut, but bears repeating. It’s a poor workman who blames his
tools. Mr. Roche is commended for attempting to deflect the blame upon
himself, but my problem was not his fault and blame needs to be properly
assessed. I heard from the ladies who went on before me (Devil’s Darning
Needle) that the audio folks somehow ate the center of their music, which
included the cue for two of the three of them to enter. Again, not Kevin’s
fault.

The other problem with audio was that the audio folks at tech weren’t the
same audio folks who worked the masquerade. Again WTF!! Yet another thing
that tech is supposed to accomplish that was not. The audio folks were
encountering the show for the first time as it was being performed. WT MF
SOB! Does it seem like I get a little agitated when I think back on it?

For another perspective on the lateness of tech rehearsals: I had the last
tech rehearsal, the 4:45 slot before the green room opened at 5:00.
Planning ahead, I dressed in my entry so that if time got short I could just
go to the green room and do my makeup. Good thing I was thinking. Not only
was my 15 minute time slot shared with 2 other entries, but I didn’t get
into tech until 6:30 almost 7

That’s enough of that. You get the idea. On another note, I’ll step in
here to say that the backstage ninjas/crew people did a creditable job for
all the shows.

Guild awards: The special costuming group awards are starting to get out of
hand. All the awards during the halftime must’ve taken at least 20 minutes.
This is one of the lesser reasons the SLCG elected to stop giving out the
Slattern. Maybe what needs to happen is for the MC to read the award,
rather than the groups themselves.

Presentation and Workmanship Awards: The perception was that, given the
quality of just about every costume on stage, the award totals were
noticeably low. Just for “fun”, I recently did some number crunching, based
on what I could glean from the Costume-Con website and other sources and
found some interesting statistics. Granted this is general numbers, but I
still think it’s accurate.

First of all, while CC26 had one of the largest masquerades in years, but
when it comes to the ratio of number of people on stage to total attendance,
CC15 may have had the largest percentage of participants: CC15 had an
attendance around 435, with 69 participants spread among 45 entries. That’s
almost 16% of the convention presenting their works.

CC26 had roughly 876 attendees, with 79 participants spread among 48
entries. That’s about 9% of the people at the con presenting.

Without boring you too much, the SF & F masquerades in the past 5 years
averaged anywhere from 50% to 66% of the entries receiving some sort of
awards in each Skill Division. This is how CC26 broke down, excluding Best
In Show:

10 Novices
13 Journeymen
24 Masters

Workmanship awards
Novices – 5 (50%)
Journeymen – 7 (53%)
Masters – 7 – (29%)

Presentation awards
Novices – 4 (40%)
Journeymen – 4 (30%)
Masters – 7 (29%)

Maybe I could see that the presentations for Journeymen might not have been
stellar, but what obviously stands out is the low percentage for Masters.
To me, something was amiss. Given the quality of the costumes I saw back
stage, the Costume-Con axiom “Excellence Deserves Recognition” was clearly
not well served – especially for the Master entries.

Along these lines we had a report of questionable comments by a judge, if
accurate. Already upset about the tech errors, this added insult to injury:
“Public apologies aside, there was no way to truly make up for the
humiliation that I felt at the time and then to later hear that they wanted
to give us an award but didn’t because we were ‘cosplayers’ just pissed me
off more”. To be fair, I can’t verify this claim.

Here’s a different tale of difficulties with judging: “I rushed into the
green room, put on my makeup, and was the last to see workmanship judging.
My costume was largely tear-away, so I had on the under outfit and had the
overdress next to me. I clarified with the clerk that they had my
documentation (had a spare on hand just in case) and showed them what I was
wearing. Turned around and grabbed my hat and there was only one judge of
the two left. Showed her my hat, thinking she’d explain to the other, then
turned around to pick up my dress. Gathering it took a minute, and when I
got it back there were no judges. I asked a den mom and the green room
manager if I would have a chance to *finish* my workmanship judging and I
was told that the judges only had 2 minutes per group, they were already
deliberating, and that if I wanted more time I should have arrived earlier.”
In other words, it was this person’s fault that the tech rehearsals had
delayed them, making them late to be judged?

I hesitated with this next part, because it may come across as sour grapes,
but future MDs and Con Chairs ought to be aware of it. Most people on this
list probably already know that an SF & F Workmanship award was overlooked
during the announcements, appearing later in the convention newsletter and
is now on the website. That was mine. While I was disappointed when I
thought I hadn’t won anything, it wouldn’t have been the first time that the
judges did not feel I was good enough. To the credit of the con chair, MD
and one of the Workmanship judges, they all apologized for the oversight
later that night or Sunday evening. A “placeholder” (my term) certificate
was printed up after the Historical and one with the signatures of the
judges was promised to come in the mail, later. (That has not appeared yet,
by the way.)

Imagine if this had occurred to a different costumer – someone less
experienced? We all know that while a ribbon or a certificate is nice, what
we really live for is the audience applause and recognition. Speaking as a
former con chair, I believe it would have been a good idea to have the
overlooked person’s award announced at the beginning of the next show and
have that person stand up.

Videos are treated as official records where other types are incomplete.
Essentially, these two awards will not exist unless you know where to look.
I urge everyone in the future to be aware of these occurrences so they don’t
happen again.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This came in for criticism for different reasons. Everyone is already well
aware of the major gaffs with the food for the Green Room and CC27, so
there’s no point to rehashing those events. The only things worth adding
were that whoever was in the room at midnight on Saturday after the
masquerade was rude, and slammed the sliding door in people’s faces.
Someone should have re-opened the room.

Given the size of the con, it’s perfectly understandable that the committee
shouldn’t have felt an obligation to feed the entire con. Yet, the choice
of snacks seemed .underwhelming. There were no regional or signature
specialties – we would have thought there’d be more of an effort there,
given the rich local cultural background.

The Con Suite was rather small. The saving grace was the terrace outside
the room where people could step out and socialize. This was nice, although
it got rather chilly into the evening hours. The Suite did not seem like
the central hub of social activity after the masquerades. It can only be
assumed it was because of the other parties splitting up the traffic –
possibly a good thing in some ways. The energy levels in the Suite appeared
to suffer, though.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Jun 10, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

> This came in for criticism for different reasons. Everyone is
> already well
> aware of the major gaffs with the food for the Green Room and CC27, so
> there’s no point to rehashing those events. The only things worth adding
> were that whoever was in the room at midnight on Saturday after the
> masquerade was rude, and slammed the sliding door in people’s faces.
> Someone should have re-opened the room.

Actually, there are things to rehash on those events.

On the Green Room food?

Byron gets thrown under the train for the Saturday green room food
issue, not the ConSuite. He was asked to not use Carole as his assistant
director in the green room, as she already had one pre-con and one
at-con job and helping out on other issues always took precedence over
those jobs with her. He took her anyway, and the botched Saturday food
delivery was one of the results. When the green-room food pickup by
Carole on Saturday night was “incomplete,” ConSuite assigned one of
their staffers to take over Green Room snack service for Sunday morning
and night.

On the midnight closure and CC27’s party?

Not scheduling a closure for the masquerades was our mistake. Sandra
didn’t know this was a common thing to do at CC, and none of us thought
to suggest it to her. It left the staff there alone. A scheduled closure
would have allowed later scheduled hours after re-opening.

I will point out, though, that our scheduled hours weren’t significantly
different from the last 5 CC’s. At the last 5 CCs we specifically
negotiated extended hours in the ConSuites on our sponsorship nights
after the masquerades. I believe 21 and 23 just let us take over the
room and close when we wished. 22’s ConSuite head agreed to stay open
late with us. 24 was Des Moines, they always run parties late. Rachael
Hillen volunteered to stay on late with us at 25.

We also didn’t have everybody who was supposed to be hosting our parties
volunteering on or in the same night’s masquerade. We always had at
least one person (often me) whose only responsibility on sponsor night
was to coordinate final decorations and refreshments and welcoming folks
after masquerade on-site with the ConSuite head. That was a mistake on
the part of Ricky, Marty and the CC27 committee.

> Given the size of the con, it’s perfectly understandable that the
> committee
> shouldn’t have felt an obligation to feed the entire con. Yet, the choice
> of snacks seemed .underwhelming. There were no regional or signature
> specialties – we would have thought there’d be more of an effort there,
> given the rich local cultural background.

The snack selection in the ConSuite was rather pedestrian.

Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had
to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
going to begrudge her that.

> The Con Suite was rather small.

The ConSuite was significantly larger than the ConSuite at CC25 and 22,
and similar in size to the ConSuite at CC23. It was smaller than the
ConSuite at CC21 or CC24 (which was huge). It was also the largest room
that was covered under our corkage waiver, and the only large room that
was covered by the corkage waiver on an unrestricted floor.

It did suffer from the large “boardroom” table that cannot be removed.
We requested that they bring in a sofa or two, but that didn’t happen.

andy

Andy Wrote:
We also didn’t have everybody who was supposed to be hosting our parties

volunteering on or in the same night’s masquerade. We always had at
least one person (often me) whose only responsibility on sponsor night
was to coordinate final decorations and refreshments and welcoming folks
after masquerade on-site with the ConSuite head. That was a mistake on
the part of Ricky, Marty and the CC27 committee.

************Bull shit!!!!!!!!!!! Andy, just plain bullshit

The masquerade was run so horribley ( yeah, no one has really responded to that topic yet. the big fart in the room that no one wants to talk about, don’t worry we’re getting there.) it ran way later than in the last few years.Marty was still there in plenty of time to get rolling. just as we had in years past. you were not there as far as I’ve been told.
the room was locked, and what difference would it have made, they gave away most of our stuff.you say that when YOU hosted a night at other cons, you negotiated to have them stay later.
You always seem to know so much about everything, and so much better than everyone else, then why didn’t you just automatically have these run late.on the good side to be fair, with the open terrace, I assume that’s why the room was small, so people would enjoy being outside in the evenings.

and also to be fair, we have been told that our sponsorship check is being returned.

Andy Wrote: Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had

to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
going to begrudge her that.

***************No, but as hosts of the best con suite parties i’ve ever been to ( yup, big kuddos there) how could your person not have a plan, or if her life went wacky, how did the conchair(s) not ever look at the schedule and see that YOU GUYS always wanted it open late, why wouldn’t everyone else.

AND the big thing was, Kevin throwing Sandra under the bus big time by making HER come face to face with that horrible bastard Ricky to apologise to me while he stood there and said it was all her fault and she just didn’t know any better.

And yes, for the record, if you heard it from somewhere, I did tell her that I totally understood how it could get messed up, it’s not like Kevin has been to many cons or anything.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Andy Wrote:
We also didn’t have everybody who was supposed to be hosting our parties

volunteering on or in the same night’s masquerade. We always had at
least one person (often me) whose only responsibility on sponsor night
was to coordinate final decorations and refreshments and welcoming folks
after masquerade on-site with the ConSuite head. That was a mistake on
the part of Ricky, Marty and the CC27 committee.

************Bull shit!!!!!!!!!!! Andy, just plain bullshit

The masquerade was run so horribley ( yeah, no one has really responded to that topic yet. the big fart in the room that no one wants to talk about, don’t worry we’re getting there.) it ran way later than in the last few years.Marty was still there in plenty of time to get rolling. just as we had in years past. you were not there as far as I’ve been told.
the room was locked, and what difference would it have made, they gave away most of our stuff.you say that when YOU hosted a night at other cons, you negotiated to have them stay later.
You always seem to know so much about everything, and so much better than everyone else, then why didn’t you just automatically have these run late.on the good side to be fair, with the open terrace, I assume that’s why the room was small, so people would enjoy being outside in the evenings.

and also to be fair, we have been told that our sponsorship check is being returned.

Andy Wrote: Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had

to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
going to begrudge her that.

***************No, but as hosts of the best con suite parties i’ve ever been to ( yup, big kuddos there) how could your person not have a plan, or if her life went wacky, how did the conchair(s) not ever look at the schedule and see that YOU GUYS always wanted it open late, why wouldn’t everyone else.

AND the big thing was, Kevin throwing Sandra under the bus big time by making HER come face to face with that horrible bastard Ricky to apologise to me while he stood there and said it was all her fault and she just didn’t know any better.

And yes, for the record, if you heard it from somewhere, I did tell her that I totally understood how it could get messed up, it’s not like Kevin has been to many cons or anything.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is why it’s crucial to have people in the important positions to be
aware of the CC format. Even at CC25 we had to explain to Rachel Hillen’s
mother that it’s necessary to stay open late – and she should have known
better. Fortunately, as you say, Rachel was willing to stay around. Had it
been necessary, I would have stayed, myself.

I’ll come back to the point about knowing the format in a future post.

Bruce

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Trembley
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:31 PM
> To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Hospitality
>
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:
> > This came in for criticism for different reasons. Everyone is
> > already well
> > aware of the major gaffs with the food for the Green Room and CC27, so
> > there’s no point to rehashing those events. The only things worth

adding

> > were that whoever was in the room at midnight on Saturday after the
> > masquerade was rude, and slammed the sliding door in people’s faces.
> > Someone should have re-opened the room.
>
>
> On the midnight closure and CC27’s party?
>
> Not scheduling a closure for the masquerades was our mistake. Sandra
> didn’t know this was a common thing to do at CC, and none of us thought
> to suggest it to her. It left the staff there alone. A scheduled closure
> would have allowed later scheduled hours after re-opening.
>
>
> andy

rms/

It was an interesting idea. For Nora, Karen H. and my part, we didn’t
bother watching much of any of it – we’d seen most of it, so you can’t use
us as a typical sample. I’d be interested to know what feedback there was
on it. I’ll let some of our folks give their impressions:

“.really like the idea of broadcasted panels. The room that could have used
such a thing is the sewing room. I know several people who used said room to
the detrament of their going to panels.”

“I can’t speak to CCTV as I never watched a second of it. Perhaps if there
had been some TVs placed throughout the con areas tuned to CCTV it might
have occurred to me to watch. That’d be a good suggestion for future CCs if
they want to continue CCTV. Oooo, you could supplement panels by recording
panels at cons and playing the good ones back on CCTV. You’d need to
publish a schedule of when things will be broadcast though.”

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I thought all the costumey movies was fun to have on back in our room as background noise.

Costuming being the visual medium it is, I think any attempts at video for the con is fun.
I usually agree with Bruce that videos in the con suite are the kiss of death to actual socializing, so if the hotel lets folks use their system, well, what the heck, it certainley can’t hurt.

and Thanks to Kevin and Ken for including one of our shos in the run, and I enjoyed seeing some west coast horror hosts for the first time.

Gravely MacCabre
http://www.castleblood.com
http://www.midnightmonsterhop.com
http://www.myspace.com/thecastleblood
http://www.myspace.com/midnightmonsterhop
clip samples at
http://www.veoh.com/channels/castleblood

—– Original Message —-
From: Bruce & Nora Mai <casamai@sbcglobal.net>
To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:20:41 PM
Subject: [runacc] CC26 – Costume-Con TV

It was an interesting idea. For Nora, Karen H. and my part, we didn’t
bother watching much of any of it – we’d seen most of it, so you can’t use
us as a typical sample. I’d be interested to know what feedback there was
on it. I’ll let some of our folks give their impressions:

“.really like the idea of broadcasted panels. The room that could have used
such a thing is the sewing room. I know several people who used said room to
the detrament of their going to panels.”

“I can’t speak to CCTV as I never watched a second of it. Perhaps if there
had been some TVs placed throughout the con areas tuned to CCTV it might
have occurred to me to watch. That’d be a good suggestion for future CCs if
they want to continue CCTV. Oooo, you could supplement panels by recording
panels at cons and playing the good ones back on CCTV. You’d need to
publish a schedule of when things will be broadcast though.”

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gravely MacCabre wrote:

> The masquerade was run so horribley ( yeah, no one has really responded to that topic yet. the big fart in the room that no one wants to talk about, don’t worry we’re getting there.) it ran way later than in the last few years.Marty was still there in plenty of time to get rolling. just as we had in years past. you were not there as far as I’ve been told.

I was not at the hospitality suite. I was in ops, returning masquerade
supplies from the judging room and attempting to help the Historical
directors who were working on midnight paperwork printing when Marty
came by trying to find out why hospitality wasn’t open. Marty probably
didn’t notice me, though.

> Andy Wrote: Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had
> to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
> going to begrudge her that.
>
> ***************No, but as hosts of the best con suite parties i’ve ever been to ( yup, big kuddos there) how could your person not have a plan, or if her life went wacky, how did the conchair(s) not ever look at the schedule and see that YOU GUYS always wanted it open late, why wouldn’t everyone else.

See what you’re running to do in the last week before CC27 when you’re
chair and what your priorities are. If fancier snacks in the consuite
are your highest priority, then you’re very lucky.

andy

didn’t say anything about fancy snacks.
not a darn thing, don’t try to change the subject. this is just about the administration and scheduling problems. which could/should have bee set weeks if not months earlier, so the crazy period before the con you speak of is totally irrelevant

Gravely MacCabre
http://www.castleblood.com
http://www.midnightmonsterhop.com
http://www.myspace.com/thecastleblood
http://www.myspace.com/midnightmonsterhop
clip samples at
http://www.veoh.com/channels/castleblood

—– Original Message —-
From: Andrew Trembley <attrembl@bovil.com>
To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:29:43 PM
Subject: Re: [runacc] CC26 – Hospitality

Gravely MacCabre wrote:

> The masquerade was run so horribley ( yeah, no one has really responded to that topic yet. the big fart in the room that no one wants to talk about, don’t worry we’re getting there.) it ran way later than in the last few years.Marty was still there in plenty of time to get rolling. just as we had in years past. you were not there as far as I’ve been told.

I was not at the hospitality suite. I was in ops, returning masquerade
supplies from the judging room and attempting to help the Historical
directors who were working on midnight paperwork printing when Marty
came by trying to find out why hospitality wasn’t open. Marty probably
didn’t notice me, though.

> Andy Wrote: Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had
> to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
> going to begrudge her that.
>
> ************ ***No, but as hosts of the best con suite parties i’ve ever been to ( yup, big kuddos there) how could your person not have a plan, or if her life went wacky, how did the conchair(s) not ever look at the schedule and see that YOU GUYS always wanted it open late, why wouldn’t everyone else.

See what you’re running to do in the last week before CC27 when you’re
chair and what your priorities are. If fancier snacks in the consuite
are your highest priority, then you’re very lucky.

andy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Andy Wrote:

I was not at the hospitality suite. I was in ops, returning masquerade
supplies from the judging room and attempting to help the Historical
directors who were working on midnight paperwork printing when Marty
came by trying to find out why hospitality wasn’t open. Marty probably
didn’t notice me, though.

***********You’re trying to change the subject again.
the statement was about if you were in the con suite.
simple answer, no.

don’t need to know how hard you and the next days historical folks were working. it has nothing to do with this topic, unless you mean it to be understood that you were understaffed, and since you had other duties
( totally legit ) you weren’t there.

And I’m not pleased with the last statement about Marty may have missed you in ops.
that sounds like you’re trying to fault him again for something, which again, has nothing to do with the topic.
Him not seeing you in ops working on the historic, doesn’t mean the way that the consuite ran was okay.

Ricky
‘

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gravely MacCabre wrote:

> didn’t say anything about fancy snacks.
> not a darn thing, don’t try to change the subject. this is just about the administration and scheduling problems. which could/should have bee set weeks if not months earlier, so the crazy period before the con you speak of is totally irrelevant

You’re kidding, right?

The original comment was that the ConSuite snacks weren’t exciting. That
was the question being addressed, and the question you stepped into the
middle of.

Sandra returned in time to make her scheduled big shopping run. Went off
without a hitch. She was also able to schedule her mid-weekend resupply
run. That’s the unexciting snacks. The time she lost was the time she
could have used shopping at places other than Costco, for the fancy snacks.

andy

Gravely MacCabre wrote:

> And I’m not pleased with the last statement about Marty may have missed you in ops.
> that sounds like you’re trying to fault him again for something, which again, has nothing to do with the topic.
> Him not seeing you in ops working on the historic, doesn’t mean the way that the consuite ran was okay.

Let’s go for the simple.

I was already in Ops when Marty came in and lodged his complaint. He was
occupied with one thing, and talking with the folks running the ops
desk, not me. I was on the other side of the room working on other
things, but where I could listen to the complaint, because it doesn’t
take many brain cells to stack boxes back where they belong.

Not involving me at that point was not a mistake. I am not faulting
Marty for that. He was working with the right people.

You on the other hand, trying to tell me what I do and don’t know, I’ll
fault.

I will still fault both you and Marty for not having a person whose only
job on Saturday was working for CC27 on your party.

andy

Andy Wrote: You’re kidding, right?

The original comment was that the ConSuite snacks weren’t exciting. That
was the question being addressed, and the question you stepped into the
middle of.
***no I’m not kidding.
so I should have started a different topic then?if you only want to talk about snacks, then why do it in a cut and paste of my message which did not.

Nope, nice try, you’re just trying to deflect.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Andy Wrote:
I will still fault both you and Marty for not having a person whose only
job on Saturday was working for CC27 on your party.

*****We’ve never had to at other cons, let alone one run by the party masters.

but if it helps you sleep better, that’s fine. It’s all our fault.
the folks here at least have gotten to read both sides

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gravely MacCabre wrote:

> but if it helps you sleep better, that’s fine. It’s all our fault.
> the folks here at least have gotten to read both sides

No, it’s not all your fault. But you do bear some responsibility.

You can pull the stake out of your heart now.

andy

Andy Wrote: You can pull the stake out of your heart now.

****that only works in the movies 😉

Ricky
_

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I got to see a tiny bit of the CCTV programming the first night I was
at the hotel, and not again during my stay. It was okay.

My experience with CCXV taught me that movies at con are not always
met with enthusiasm, even with a published schedule. We spent a chunk
of money to cover the licensing of older flicks that a vast majority
of con members never saw.

Also, regarding the comment about videos in the con suite – I missed
having that opportunity, actually. While I recognize that a large
chunk of the con got to see the masquerades, I didn’t see the SF at
all except from the wings, until I got home and had time to pop in the
DVD. Without a direct feed into the room, most of the participants
were in the same boat. I didn’t hear complaints or comments, but it
did seem odd to me that the video wasn’t shown after the masquerade.

For the record, panels have been recorded for posterity at least
twice, at CC6 and again at CC8 (I think), by Breighton (Rusty) Dawe’s
company. I never purchased the sets (too much out of pocket money for
me to afford with the archives). If someone in the crowd owns a set of
these, it might be good to help the archives out. Hint.

Cheers,

-b

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Gravely MacCabre <gravelymac@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought all the costumey movies was fun to have on back in our room as
> background noise.
>
> Costuming being the visual medium it is, I think any attempts at video for
> the con is fun.
> I usually agree with Bruce that videos in the con suite are the kiss of
> death to actual socializing, so if the hotel lets folks use their system,
> well, what the heck, it certainley can’t hurt.
>
> and Thanks to Kevin and Ken for including one of our shos in the run, and I
> enjoyed seeing some west coast horror hosts for the first time.
>
> Gravely MacCabre
> http://www.castleblood.com
> http://www.midnightmonsterhop.com
> http://www.myspace.com/thecastleblood
> http://www.myspace.com/midnightmonsterhop
> clip samples at
> http://www.veoh.com/channels/castleblood
>
> —– Original Message —-
> From: Bruce & Nora Mai <casamai@sbcglobal.net>
> To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:20:41 PM
> Subject: [runacc] CC26 – Costume-Con TV
>
> It was an interesting idea. For Nora, Karen H. and my part, we didn’t
> bother watching much of any of it – we’d seen most of it, so you can’t use
> us as a typical sample. I’d be interested to know what feedback there was
> on it. I’ll let some of our folks give their impressions:
>
> “.really like the idea of broadcasted panels. The room that could have used
> such a thing is the sewing room. I know several people who used said room to
> the detrament of their going to panels.”
>
> “I can’t speak to CCTV as I never watched a second of it. Perhaps if there
> had been some TVs placed throughout the con areas tuned to CCTV it might
> have occurred to me to watch. That’d be a good suggestion for future CCs if
> they want to continue CCTV. Oooo, you could supplement panels by recording
> panels at cons and playing the good ones back on CCTV. You’d need to
> publish a schedule of when things will be broadcast though.”
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Gravely MacCabre wrote:

>
> Andy Wrote: You’re kidding, right?
>
> The original comment was that the ConSuite snacks weren’t exciting. That
> was the question being addressed, and the question you stepped into the
> middle of.
> ***no I’m not kidding.
> so I should have started a different topic then?if you only want to talk about snacks, then why do it in a cut and paste of my message which did not.
>
> Nope, nice try, you’re just trying to deflect.

Let’s reconstruct this, then.

From my original response:

>> Given the size of the con, it’s perfectly understandable that the
>> committee
>> shouldn’t have felt an obligation to feed the entire con. Yet, the choice
>> of snacks seemed .underwhelming. There were no regional or signature
>> specialties – we would have thought there’d be more of an effort there,
>> given the rich local cultural background.
>
> The snack selection in the ConSuite was rather pedestrian.
>
> Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had
> to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
> going to begrudge her that.

So yes, I’m responding that the snacks weren’t exciting and one of the
reasons the snacks weren’t exciting.

Now your response.

>> Andy Wrote: Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had
>> to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
>> going to begrudge her that.
>
> ***************No, but as hosts of the best con suite parties i’ve ever been to ( yup, big kuddos there) how could your person not have a plan, or if her life went wacky, how did the conchair(s) not ever look at the schedule and see that YOU GUYS always wanted it open late, why wouldn’t everyone else.

If your response isn’t related to the question of snacks and shopping I
was answering, I think I already addressed that in my original comments
to Bruce & Nora.

Basic ConSuite hours was an oversight on our part. We should have closed
ConSuite during the shows, and reopened afterwards with a later
close-time on Saturday and Sunday. First thing I said about the closing
time when I responded earlier tonight.

However, with one glaring exception (who really needed it), we were
trying not to micromanage our volunteers.

One of those things was letting Sandra schedule hospitality based on the
what she thought she could achieve with the number of volunteers she
believed she could get. The hours she scheduled were not out-of-line
compared to previous CC’s.

As it is, she lost a few volunteers shortly before the con. The
remaining staff reworked their schedules around this as best as they
could. She also lost some of her planned shopping time, but that did not
impact her major shopping trips.

The ConSuite schedule was also updated for Sunday and Monday nights and
the ConSuite staff shuffled their own schedules again to allow for later
hours.

andy

okey dokey.

Let’s reconstruct this, then.

From my original response:

>> Given the size of the con, it’s perfectly understandable that the
>> committee
>> shouldn’t have felt an obligation to feed the entire con. Yet, the choice
>> of snacks seemed .underwhelming. There were no regional or signature
>> specialties – we would have thought there’d be more of an effort there,
>> given the rich local cultural background.
>
> The snack selection in the ConSuite was rather pedestrian.
>
> Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had
> to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
> going to begrudge her that.

So yes, I’m responding that the snacks weren’t exciting and one of the
reasons the snacks weren’t exciting.

Now your response.

>> Andy Wrote: Sandra lost nearly two shopping days earlier in the week because she had
>> to run home to San Diego (8 hours each way) for a job interview. Not
>> going to begrudge her that.
>
> ************ ***No, but as hosts of the best con suite parties i’ve ever been to ( yup, big kuddos there) how could your person not have a plan, or if her life went wacky, how did the conchair(s) not ever look at the schedule and see that YOU GUYS always wanted it open late, why wouldn’t everyone else.

If your response isn’t related to the question of snacks and shopping I
was answering, I think I already addressed that in my original comments
to Bruce & Nora.

Basic ConSuite hours was an oversight on our part. We should have closed
ConSuite during the shows, and reopened afterwards with a later
close-time on Saturday and Sunday. First thing I said about the closing
time when I responded earlier tonight.

However, with one glaring exception (who really needed it), we were
trying not to micromanage our volunteers.

One of those things was letting Sandra schedule hospitality based on the
what she thought she could achieve with the number of volunteers she
believed she could get. The hours she scheduled were not out-of-line
compared to previous CC’s.

As it is, she lost a few volunteers shortly before the con. The
remaining staff reworked their schedules around this as best as they
could. She also lost some of her planned shopping time, but that did not
impact her major shopping trips.

The ConSuite schedule was also updated for Sunday and Monday nights and
the ConSuite staff shuffled their own schedules again to allow for later
hours.

andy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

All right, then.

So here are the constructive things I’ve heard so far from the con
suite discussion, which can really be applied throughout the process:

* Make sure you have enough staff to cover the all bases and that
they’re clear on expectations and standards (because we have them and
when they’re not met we notice and are unhappy).

* We need to specify to our con suite managers that the con suite must
be available after the masquerade for at least several hours afterward
(till 2am at least or even 3am if feasible). [I’d love to include a
provision for showing the masquerade event(s) du juor, but that’s my
own personal preference and I’m just a con attendee….]

* We need to take more time to educate volunteers coming in from
outside the community so that they know what to expect when they’re at
CC. [Costume-Con University? Send Your Volunteers to School!]

Did I miss anything?

I can say, fairly safely, that the vast majority of communication
errors and problems over the last 8 years or so, give or take a con,
have had to do with understaffing and a lack of communication between
departments. The communication thing is especially important if you’re
bringing in folks from the local non-Costume-Con conventions to assist
with your con. Watch out for that friendly volunteer who only knows
how FooCon works and insists on doing things that way. Every time it
happens, the complaints are loud and extensive.

I’m getting punchy and the girls will be up too early today. Carry on!

-b

Please read the signature on postings, Andy.
These have all been posted by Bruce, not me. Not that I disagree with most
of what he says but be careful, we share an email addy for this list. Karen
& Ricky have in the past as well.
I wouldn’t presume that your opinions were Kevin’s simply because you’re a
couple.

Nora

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Trembley
> If your response isn’t related to the question of snacks and shopping I
> was answering, I think I already addressed that in my original comments
> to Bruce & Nora.

Good summary.
Your point about the video though – I love seeing the video after too. As
you say, if you’re in it you don’t get to see anything.
But it does tend to suck the life out of the room. Not because of the video
itself but because of the people who insist on shushing everyone so they can
hear it. If people are allowed to be rowdy & talk (thus not quelling the
party atmosphere) it’s okay.
Some cons have tried separating the video to another room but if it’s too
far away it feels odd.

Nora

> —–Original Message—–
> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Betsy Delaney
>[I’d love to include a
> provision for showing the masquerade event(s) du juor, but that’s my
> own personal preference and I’m just a con attendee….]

Agreed. That’s why I like the dual or multi-room layout for con
suites. Though, based on the way the CC27 layout looks, we may not
have a problem, future CCs might take note.

The biggest problem with setting up two rooms, by the way, is that
very often the video winds up in the bedroom and if the con suite
folks aren’t prepared to deal, they can get *very* grouchy when the
video party wants to last until 2 or later when they want to go to
sleep in beds covered with 20 costumers (or more) of varying states of
sobriety.

I know it’s not everyone who wants to participate in video-watching,
and it’s a lot easier to dodge in and out when the rooms are nearby if
you only want to see your presentation and a few others, but there
ought to be some sort of happy medium.

(Ooh. Did that make sense?)

Cheers,

-b

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Bruce & Nora Mai <casamai@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Good summary.
> Your point about the video though – I love seeing the video after too. As
> you say, if you’re in it you don’t get to see anything.
> But it does tend to suck the life out of the room. Not because of the video
> itself but because of the people who insist on shushing everyone so they can
> hear it. If people are allowed to be rowdy & talk (thus not quelling the
> party atmosphere) it’s okay.
> Some cons have tried separating the video to another room but if it’s too
> far away it feels odd.
>
> Nora
>
>> —–Original Message—–
>> From: runacc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:runacc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>> Betsy Delaney
>>[I’d love to include a
>> provision for showing the masquerade event(s) du juor, but that’s my
>> own personal preference and I’m just a con attendee….]
>
>

Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

> Please read the signature on postings, Andy.
> These have all been posted by Bruce, not me. Not that I disagree with most
> of what he says but be careful, we share an email addy for this list. Karen
> & Ricky have in the past as well.

Sorry, I was using “Bruce & Nora” as shorthand for “representing the
SLCG” here. I was under the impression that the report pieces were the
collected opinions of the SLCG.

andy

Yeah, some of it is but that still doesn’t guarantee the collective “we” – often doesn’t.
This is one of the few lists I’m on where I’m not signed up with my von_drago addy, maybe I should ask Betsy to invite me but I don’t really have much to say most times.

Nora

Andrew Trembley <attrembl@bovil.com> wrote:
Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

> Please read the signature on postings, Andy.
> These have all been posted by Bruce, not me. Not that I disagree with most
> of what he says but be careful, we share an email addy for this list. Karen
> & Ricky have in the past as well.

Sorry, I was using “Bruce & Nora” as shorthand for “representing the
SLCG” here. I was under the impression that the report pieces were the
collected opinions of the SLCG.

andy

————————————

View the Document: http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I’m happy to do that, Nora! Just shoot me a message from that address
– I’ve got a splitting headache and I’m about to walk away from my
computer…

Cheers,

-b

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Bruce & Nora Mai <casamai@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Yeah, some of it is but that still doesn’t guarantee the collective “we” – often doesn’t.
> This is one of the few lists I’m on where I’m not signed up with my von_drago addy, maybe I should ask Betsy to invite me but I don’t really have much to say most times.
>
> Nora