From: Diva Las Vegas organizers (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Date: Fri Aug 28 2009 - 10:57:16 CDT
In this mailing:
Org List
Primary hotel concept
Golf help
Primary hotel
Hotel and golf
Primary hotel
Primary hotel
Administrivia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Org List:
This is the DLV 2010 Organizational Mailing List (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Replies to this message will be forwarded to the DLVORG list and not
the DLV-Announce or DLV-Discuss list.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel concept:
Lots of good discussion on both sides of this issue. Please
continue.
Personally, I am still very lukewarm on the central hotel
strategy, although I do understand the ideas of both the
proponents and opponents.
I would like to let the discussion on the hotel motion go
on for a reasonable duration, either until we have silence
for 48 hours, or else calling "time" if no new talking
points are raised. Please understand that I am committed
to moving things along. :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Golf help:
Edy writes:
>Mindy, I would be glad to help next year. Do I get strokes??
Thanks, Edy.
Yes, you get plenty of strokes and warm fuzzies, but I don't
think these count on the course. :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel:
Gina writes:
>I don't like the idea. Spreading our people out seems to
>help on the safety issue.
Thanks, Gina.
Spreading out the group does help to make the group less
obvious, I admit.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hotel and golf:
Kimberly Kael writes:
>>For those wanting a non-exclusive "primary" or "more
>>suggested" hotel, this is your cue. :)
>I'm neither excited about nor entirely opposed to this
>approach, as I think it mitigates but doesn't entirely
>elimate the problems of a single suggested hotel.
>The obvious problem: whatever price range we cover with
>the primary hotel will be wrong for a substantial number
>of people.
I agree on this.
Not only will any hotel fail to be of the desired scale
and price for many, other factors come into play too,
such as some want a smaller hotel without the crowded
lobby. Others want a hotel in a certain area of town.
Some want a casino with certain games, etc., etc. and
we do have some with strong dislikes for certain hotels
for any number of reasons. How many times do you hear "I
will never stay at ..."? :)
>I do think we might want to consider an alternative
>approach: rather than designating ONE primary hotel,
>narrow the recommendations to three - one budget, one
>mid-market, and one upscale. None designated as "more
>primary" than the others but all having the desired
characteristics of facilitating ride-sharing, informal
>gatherings in easy walking distance of rooms, etc.
Hold that thought.
Should the current motion fail, please feel free to raise
just such a motion as you've described. I would most
likely second that motion, should it come about.
This would be very similar to what we're doing now, with
a limit of three, one per price range.
. . . . .
Golf:
>>We have suggested a scramble format in the past and had
>>a few of the regular golfers say they would not play at
>>all if we did a scramble and very few supported the idea.
>I thought one of our guiding principles in planning was
>to avoid doing the same thing the same way over and over?
>I heard a very different message from some of the golfers
>I talked to, so I think there may be more appetite for
>change than you expect. I do know that if it's "more of
>the same" you'll lose some that way, too. Ultimately, of
>course it is up to whoever organizes the event.
Thanks, Kimberly. :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel:
Mary Beth writes:
>I certainly don't want to sound mean or selfish here, but
>I get the feeling that those most in favor of a "preferred"
>hotel are probably also those who are least comfortable
>with being out en femme and are looking for group cover.
>I have no problem with a lot of DLV attendees staying at
>the same hotel (in fact I'd like that as well), but I also
>feel that a "preferred' hotel would be the first step
>towards turning DLV into just another "giant closet"
>convention like SCC and Be-All (not that there's anything
>wrong with those conventions for those who like going to
>them).
As of this time I'm no longer concerned about anything
driving DLV in the direction of being yet another cookie-
cutter TG convention. Our model is now well-entrenched.
This was a major concern of mine, however, during our early
growth years.
I really don't think that a designated primary hotel, in and
of itself, will push us in that direction.
An example of a "red flag" showing movement toward that
would be a serious proposal to rent a ballroom in said hotel
in which to hold our Welcome Celebration and other major
activities. I really don't envision this happening.
A "yellow flag" might be a proposal for some kind of common
facilities, "hospitality suite", "DLV office", etc.
>I go to DLV to hit the Strip and play. This is a major
>vacation for me (and I only get 15 vacation days a year),
>and the last thing I want to do on vacation is sit around
>a hotel.
>I also don't want to spend more than 30% of my vacation
>budget on a hotel, which is why I like the Saraha - it's
>a nice enough hotel that's dirt cheap. I'd rather have
>extra money to rent a car and go to a couple of nice
>restaurants than to pay $150+ per night just to be in
>the same hotel as everyone else. If I could afford the
>Bellagio, I'd stay at the Bellagio, but I can't, so
>I don't.
The "what scale?" issue is what I see as the major shortcoming
of the primary hotel concept. If it's too spendy, attendees
will not support it and go elsewhere. QED! Likewise, we've
had plenty of "I will never stay there (again)" comments over
the years about several of our suggested hotels, most of them
being about the lower-priced properties.
>I know this is going to be a politically incorrect thing
>to say and I'll probably take a lot of heat for it, but
>maybe DLV shouldn't be the first choice of vacation for
>those who aren't comfortable going out in public. I know
>the goal is to be inclusive and I am all for inclusiveness,
>but Vegas can be as intimidating a place as anywhere else
>(thinking here of the person who complained of being
>verbally harassed by some people hanging around the St.
>Tropez parking lot).
You won't get any heat from me for saying that, as I've said
more or less the same thing for over a decade. DLV is not
the most comfortable of the major TG events for a first
coming-out.
However, we do need to do all we can to support those who do
have the desire (and the guts) to take those first steps at
DLV.
>We all have to start somewhere (and we all were scared
>sh*tless our first time in public en femme) BUT those
>who still need the comfort of a large group in a central
>hotel should probably stick to the SCC's and Be-All's of
>the world until they get enough of their "seas legs"
>under them to be able to navigate Vegas confidently.
>Ok, blast away.
I'm not gonna blast. The worst I'll do is challenge some
talking points. In particular I don't feel any significant
concern about the slippery slope to the convention. As
long as the only private facilities we have in a primary
hotel are sleeping rooms, I can accept it.
We do have to keep in mind that just as we have attendees
with widely varying means and pocketbooks, we have attendees
with very widely varying comfort levels, from scared of
their own shadow, to totally comfortable in public.
If comfort were more of a factor in the central hotel concept,
I think we'd see more of a drive to go for one of the smaller
off-Strip places, and I haven't heard any chatter along that
line, either as a general concept or by mention of specific
properties.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary hotel:
Susan R. writes:
>I'm in favor of trying the primary hotel idea.
>As an organizer it might be convenient to have a place to
>meet for events that are a bit of a drive. The place should
>be reasonably priced and centrally located. The high end
>people will stay where they want anyway.
>It should have a couple of bars and restaurants for meeting.
>Someone with a car might decide to stop by and see if anyone
>needs a ride.
>It was the commitment, the responsibility and the obligation
>to doing it that doomed the ride-share program.
>Our people are an independant group and will do what they
>want regardless, many of our atendees don't fill their
>week with signed up events, preferring to see what
>happens. The primary hotel is where they could catch
>up on the scuttlebut and decide what to do.
>As a local, I look forward to DLV as an opportunity to
>meet fascinating people and make new friends. I can do
>the other things anytime. When other locals hear of a
>primary hotel, they might just stop by to see if anything
>is going on. I would.
>I know that we are not looking for nominations, but as an
>example the Orleans has Subway, Fudruckers, TGI Fridays, an
>oyster bar, a chinese restaurant, a mexican restuarant, the
>Prime Rib Loft, an Irish pub and numerous bars. You can also
>catch a taxi right outside the front door. There are many
>such places in Vegas. So it would not limit us.
>The people who stay at hotels during DLV, in their infinite
>wisdom, will tell us if it's a good idea. We can see how many
>of them stay there as opposed to other places.
It's very easy to go over the registration records and see
how many of our 2009 attendees said they were staying where.
Out of the 125 registrations which had one or more people
show up, here's where they reported they were staying:
+Alexis Park: 0
+Gold Coast: 1
+Imperial Palace: 10
+Paris: 2
+Sahara: 19
+St Tropez: 4
Those were our suggested hotels. As you can see, two of them
were far more popular than the others, with one being the
clear favorite.
Paris, billed as the most TG-friendly, didn't get that many,
and I can only assume that the relative price had quite a
bit to do with it. I'm very sure that if we do a primary
hotel this coming year, any upscale property will be very
poor choice for that reason.
For those who did not say they were staying in our suggested
hotels, here's where they said they were staying:
+Another Strip hotel: 19
+Off-Strip hotel: 6
+Dunno: 16
+With a friend: 8
+Local: 28
+Other: 12
I'm sure several of the "do not know" folks ended up staying
at either the IP or the Sahara.
>DLV is unique and the last thing that I want to see is it
>turning into your average TG convention. I don't believe
>that passing this motion points us in that direction. It
>only gives our attendees another option. The motion is self-
>restricting in that it states that this doesn't carry to
>following years. I'm sure that we'll discuss this next year
>either way that the vote goes.
I agree. I would be very opposed to anything which takes
away the unique qualities we have in DLV and moves the event
toward being yet another clone.
The "sunset clause" was quite intentional. I do not want this
to require to be un-done if it turns out to be something we
do not like.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrivia:
This is the Diva Las Vegas 2010 organizational list.
One address for all items regarding this list, additions, removals,
changes, submissions, questions, etc.:
dlvorg@geekbabe.com <--- NOTE: all lower case
Diva Las Vegas 2010
Dates to be announced
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Archives of this list appear on the web at:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org10arc/
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.
To send material to this list: Send submission as regular e-mail to
the address: dlvorg@geekbabe.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2010 - 09:56:45 CDT