Subject: dlvorg Various issues ...
From: Annie (annie)
Date: Thu May 16 2002 - 10:23:14 CDT
In this mailing:
Org List
Headcount, Restrooms
Some more comments
Leah writes
The touchy subject
Administrivia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Org List:
This is the DLV Organizational List (dlvorg@geekbabe.com) Replies to this
message will be forwarded to the DLV ORG list and not the main DLV list.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Headcount, Restrooms:
Tina writes:
>Recognizing that it was probably harder to count noses this year even
>with lists and name tags, do you have an actual total attendance
>headcount yet?
This is embarrassing. I haven't found the list yet. {blush} I thought it
was in my purse (nope), then I thought it was in my computer case (nope)
and now I think it's in the box of N+I junk that I shipped back to work,
which should arrive Friday. I know it is not lost, it was on the table
in my room next to the laptop. I know it did get packed somewhere.
Maybe it's just fallout from going blonde twice. :)
Seriously, as of Friday, 80-some people had made contact. A few got
checked off since then. It's at least a 30% increase over DLV 2001,
and right in the range we expected.
Counting drop-ins and tag alongs, we can easily say we broke 100.
. . . . .
>Restrooms:
>>I'm taking a few liberties here, in steering some of the traffic over
>>here to the org list for our discussion before some items are (may be)
[...]
>>In particular I've moved the restroom comments and all organizational
>No problem for the the short run. But, I do hope that you'll soon
>print my original comments on the full list. I think its important
>that all DLV girls be aware of these issues from a political
>standpoint in general and from an economic standpoint since their
>dollars flowed into the Boardwalk and Sahara. Also, it's important
>that girls of varying degrees of experience understand how such
>incidents occur and what the range of possible responses to it are, in
>case it ever happens to them.
Yes, I agree that these issues should get out to all.
If it's ok with you I would like to wait until two things happen, one
just to hold off until the "glow" subsides just a bit over on the main
list, and two, we get some further feedback from Mindy regarding what
happened and what action has been taken, and will be taken, and just
what exactly was the story regarding what they think which restroom
is to be used.
In particular, I would like to know what the official stance of the
management of Boardwalk is. I'm a bit confused. Was the request to use
the upstairs restroom an option, a suggestion, a strong suggestion, or
was it to be a requirement?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some more comments:
Michelle writes:
>>When we get into scheduling this coming year, we will have to consider
>>timing and distance issues more carefully.
>>While I don't think moving from one venue to another is a Bad Thing, I
>>think the combination of overscheduling and too many moves over too
>>short a time overwhelmed us this year.
>Just a note of disagreement here I think moving between separated
>locations is an issue and adds to the scheduling dilemma by having to
>try and fit dinner in before bar or show etc. That is not to say that
>we shouldn't have two separate locations but certainly lets not do it
>every night. Also I think we are sometimes too cautious about choosing
>a meeting location for say the show. Why go to one hotel (Boardwalk
>this year) when the show was at MGM.
IIRC, Boardwalk came long after LaFemme was in stone. We had also
planned orignally to use Carluccio's for Friday dinner, but their large
room was booked.
I do agree that we need to consider timing, location, and the
practicality of moving bodies from point A to point B as we plan
activities for DLV 2003.
[snip]
>>>this went off well. Gina, Denise and co with the flights. Aiko with
>>>Limo tour. Everyone deserves a pat on the back.
>>Yes (pat-pat-pat)! I lost count of the number of times people remarked
>>that this event, although informal, was well-organized and how all
>>activities came off as described and as planned.
>In order to be first off the rank...I move that the Limo tour be an
>activity for 2003 :-)
So moved. You may consider this to be my second on the motion.
>>>6. Ditto Gina's comments about smoking. Must say I had a hard time with
[cut-paste]
>>If I may digress for a few lines here ... It's been my observation over
>>the past few decades that for some reason, smoking in the t* community
>>seems to be always higher than in the general population. However, it
[snip]
>IMHO the reason there is a higher percentage of smokers is the
>nervousness factor created by dressing, being out in public etc, etc.
>And I think the same applies to drinking and probably a few other
>things from what I read later on!!!
>>>Two streams: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thur activities for advanced crossers etc.
[cut-paste]
>>I don't think we will be able to segregate newbees from veterans by
>>times, but I think we may be able to somewhat guide them along two
>>tracks of activities at times.
>>Yes, I agree that the limo tour and FI show appealed to both those just
>>peeking out and those who have forgotten what a closet is.
>Just so everyone is clear what I was proposing was that when looking at
>activities for the first 3-4 days we don't take into consideration
>newbie attendance as a determining factor. If they want to attend then
>so be it while later in the week we allow for newbies by choosing
>locations, activities etc that in T-friendly environments. Lets not
>exclude anybody but create the streams by how we schedule different
>stuff.
>>>Hotel. I thought there should ONLY BE ONE preferred hotel or at least
[...]
>>There's an argument in favor of diversifying even more than we have
>>been later on below. I can see both sides of this issue.
>AND
>>>..... do you think as
>>>DLV grows even more we should think about spreading the girls out with
>>>their room reservations?
>
>>If you look thru this mailing, there are comments by others that we
>>should concentrate even more.
[deletia maxima]
>Must say I didn't consider the down side of everyone at the same hotel
>although to be fair I think the Sahara is the type of hotel that tends
>to attract more of those type of people than others (IMHO). Seems like
>there were two opinions about the Sahara, some thought it was OK and
>others didn't like it. I'm definitely in the second category after
>staying there a couple of years ago.
I've been happy at the Sahara for three years, however some have not
been. One person liked it last year, found it lacking this year. Still
another thought her room was much better this year.
I'm really unsure of whether I think it's better to concentrate our
people at one location, as has been suggested by several, continue the
multiple suggested locations, or encourage them to spread out, as has
also been suggested.
>Did we have any problems at the IP or Boardwalk?
I have not heard a single complaint about the IP this year. We did have
some last year.
I haven't heard any complaints about the Boardwalk rooms, just what
we've all heard about the restroom/security issues and such.
>>No-shows:
>>Overall, we had a lot better results this year regarding total no-shows.
[clip]
>Registration system helped enormously IMHO
>>Some activities had a no-show problem, particularly the slumber party
[munch]
>To be honest I could see a large number of no-shows for the two TG
>shops. It seems like a good idea but then when it comes down to it it
>isn't always the something people want to do.
The open houses at the t* shops were PACKED, both of them. It was just
the Saturday makeup demo that there were any significant no-shows.
>Golf was 100% 15out of 15.
>Golfers are, of course, honourable, reliable people and always do what
>the say oor did what they said there score was!!! :-)
>>Rudeness: :(
><deleted comments>
>Very, very sad to hear this.
>Which one of the girls has the whips and chains. Maybe she should
>introduce herself to Miss Rudeness 2002.
>>Ya know, I think it's perfectly fine if somebody wants to attend DLV and
>>sell boobies. If somebody wants to sell Mary Kay out of the trunk of
>>their car, that's cool too.
>Is it? I suppose so. Maybe its a questions that should be asked down
>the track. As long as it does get too overt and aggressive in trying to
>push different items. I had no problems with it this year but I would
>like to see it go up a level... So to speak
Comments? I really don't think we're getting too commercial. Those who
were selling things were very low-key and certainly not pushy.
>Another 2 cents from the bottom of the world!
And worth every penny! :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leah writes:
>Hey, thanks for the anonymity but I will own up to the people who were
>told they didn't have to register..... with an explanation of course....
>:)
You weren't the only one. :)
I don't think I or anybody is looking for somebody to blame, we just
want to do what we can to make a good thing better.
>I believe I know who you are talking about but names should not be
>mentioned for no other reason than well, just for no reason. Anyway, I
>urged everyone who I prompted to come to DLV to please register.
>The response in the case of these few was the same...."well I am only
>planning on going to the show or one event so why bother?" My response
>was more or less, "OK then, if you don't want to register, then don't."
>Can't push anybody if they don't want to be pushed. They got what they
>deserved, exclusion, and I am sure they will register and read all the
>material next year. :)
I don't want to turn away anybody, but I think it's to everybody's
advantage to keep as many people in the loop as possible. I would be a
liar if I said I never just dropped in on a t* event without
registering. I know we're a fiercely independent type of people, but I
think we can assure everybody that we're not trying to sell them
anything, get into their pants, or spam their mailboxes full of get rich
quick drek, but just trying to be sure they know the whole story of what
is going on.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The touchy subject:
I'm concatenating several responses about this topic.
I want to get this topic over with fast. I really think the best way to
handle it is to ask the people in contact with those doing it to let
them know that prostitution (or any other blatantly illegal activity) is
unwelcome at DLV.
>>However (comma) selling yourself is definitely un-cool!
>>I heard reports from several people regarding two individuals, one a
>>registered DLV participant, another a tag-along, who were, to put it
>>bluntly, looking for intimate encounters for money.
>Good reason not put up with Tag-alongs!
>>This is something that I, personally, want to distance myself from.
>Me too!
>>Ladies, this is not doing any good to our reputation at all. Over the
[...]
>Actually this is a bigger issue. What about SO's. If they come and see
>this type of activity what are THEY going to think as well? We're all a
>bunch of sex craved TG girls out to get laid.
That's one angle I didn't consider, but we should consider it.
>>I don't know how we should handle this. I do know that if we allow it to
>>continue, the word will get out to not only us, but to merchants, hotel
>>security people, bar staff, cops, if it has not already.
>Whips Chains, Hand- or shot-guns. All would probably work if you're
>looking for a solution but maybe you intended something more subtle!
>We could simply threaten that any such behaviour by a registered
>attendee will be reported to the police. Maybe not subtle enough either
>but they might back off.
I would like to see such a thing handled by informal methods, such as
peer pressure. And yes, I do think some peer pressure is in order here.
I would like to see those who know these two "ladies" let them know in
no uncertain terms that prostitution will not be tolerated at DLV.
I'm no prude, trust me. However, I don't want DLV to be associated in
any way with those who sell themselves, even if it's only guilt by
association. I'm sure others feel the same way, even more so.
. . . . .
>>However (comma) selling yourself is definitely un-cool!
>>I heard reports from several people regarding two individuals, one a
>>registered DLV participant, another a tag-along, who were, to put it
>>bluntly, looking for intimate encounters for money.
>Are you serious?
Yes, very serious, unfortunately.
>Are you sure someone isn't putting you on?
No, I heard this from too many people.
>>This is something that I, personally, want to distance myself from.
>Me too, but are you sure this isn't a joke or a misunderstanding?
I wish it were true, but unfortunately it does not appear to be so.
>From the first night on, there was alot of carrying on going on
>by several of the girls, are y9ou sure this wan't misconstrued to
>something?
No, this is a bit more serious than a couple of our people just getting
to know each other better. :(
>>I don't know how we should handle this. I do know that if we allow it
>>to continue, the word will get out to not only us, but to merchants,
[...]
>You did a real nice dress code thing, code of conduct, maybe?
I dunno, we may need some kind of general "Conditions of Participation"
like they have for some of the t* conventions. Such a thing is probably
not a binding contract (IANAL), but it sure lets people know what is and
is not expected.
I would think that most people who can/do read would figure out that
"dress and act as a lady or gentleman ..." rules out hooking. I would
hope so, anyway.
. . . . .
>Regarding solicitation.... well, touchy subject. I will account for
>the tag-along because she came with a girl that I personally invited.
>First off, whether true or not, I doubt that anyone who reported this
>was privvy to any actual details of a deal. Maybe it was told by the
>girls involved.....I don't know. Otherwise, it is really conjecture.
This is not one person, it is two people, and in each case it was told
to me by multiple people, some who were very concerned about the
impression it made and the reflection of it on DLV.
>Point I am trying to make is that if such a thing went on I am sure it
>was negotiated quietly between the parties involved versus the girl
>yelling out "How much should I charge this guy to do me?" or something
>like that.
What hurts me in my gut is how the hell we ever gave the impression to
those people that such behavior was acceptable to us. I don't know.
>I saw more public display on my way in and out of the 'one-hole bandit"
>at Goodtimes on the darkened dance floor with no less than 4 couples of
>our girls embraced and checking each other's lipstick during each of my
>forays to the bathroom.
Whenever people get together, intimacy will occur. There's nothing
anybody can and should do about this, other than perhaps suggesting they
get a room at the Delmar. :)
As I've said, I'm far from being a prude, and I admit to some encounters
at times for which I have no regret, but I believe the vast majority of
the DLV participants, including me, think that prostitution has no
business at DLV, period.
>So, where to draw the line?
I think this is very easy. Consenting adults behind closed doors or in a
dark corner is legal everywhere except in a few counties in the deep
South. I would go as far as to say that is healthy in many cases. It
happens everywhere. It even happens between geekoids and booth bunnies
(or booth boys) at Networld+Interop.
Sex for money is illegal, except for some counties in Nevada, in which
it is highly regulated. (I seriously doubt that the two people in
question have their Nye County Physicians Certificate.)
It also involves a highly intertwined and complex web of such things
as pimps, protectors, agencies, corrupt officials, organized and
not-so-organized criminals, etc. DLV should stay far away from this
network.
As far as I am concerned, we must do something, whether it's strictly
peer pressure, or whether it's backed up with action.
>Is there really a line?
Yes, sex for money is illegal, and does not reflect very well upon our
group.
>Does DLV have the option to draw it?
Yes, we can set standards for participation. We can also apply peer
pressure (the way I would like to see this handled).
>Personnally, I say no.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point.
>Whatever anyone wants to do is their business. I see the argument that
>they are attending a DLV affair <bad choice of words> and should behave
>accordingly but I just don't think it is anyone's place to dictate how
>or what that behavior should be...... we can simply ask that some
>decorum be observed but after that it's out of anyone else's hands.
>This is just my opinion of course. I respect everyone's right to be
>themselves until it affects the innocent.
>Maybe all we can do is wait for the first catastrophe and set up
>guidelines from there......
A media circus or an arrest could very well end DLV as we know it.
>BTW, the girl who I am referring to did not attend many DLV events at
>all...... she kinda stayed to herself mostly. I saw her many times at
>the Las Vegas lounge chatting with our girls but she was there ahead of
>anyone else. She did come in for the HW open house but that was to
>pick up a corset she had ordered before DLV even started. All in all,
>if her presumed behavior bothered anyone then rest easy that she really
>was not a part of the week in the true sense so no reflection would
>have been drawn to DLV.
We may know that she's only a tag-along, but hotel staff, cops, and
the media will not. Like it or not, should there be an incident, it
will reflect upon the whole group.
I think we (personally and as a group) should distance ourselves from
this scene as much as possible.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrivia:
This is the Diva Las Vegas 2002 organizational list.
One address for all items regarding this list, additions, removals,
changes, submissions, questions, etc.:
dlvorg@geekbabe.com <--- NOTE: all lower case
Please do not send binary attachments (photos, etc.) directly to the
list, as the list processor will not properly handle them. If you want
to send photos and the like, mail to: annie@annie.net
Archives of this list appear on the web at:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org02arc/
To unsubscribe: Simply reply to this message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in either the Subject: field or the first line of an OTHERWISE BLANK
message body. The word "unsubscribe" (case is insignificant) should be
the only item in the subject field or the first line of the message,
justified to the left.
NOTE: WHEN UNSUBSCRIBING, THE FROM: LINE OF YOUR UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE
>>MUST<< HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS AS WHAT WE USE TO SEND TO YOU. IF IT
DOES NOT, THE UNSUBSCRIBE WILL FAIL, AND YOU MAY NOT GET A FAILURE
NOTICE. SPELLING COUNTS.
Please pay attention to the above. Many automated unsubscribe requests
fail for this reason.
To send material to this list: Send submission as regular e-mail to
the address: dlvorg@geekbabe.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 07:48:51 CDT