From: Diva Las Vegas organizers (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Date: Thu Jan 21 2010 - 06:28:24 CST
In this mailing:
Org List
Motion seconded
Seconded
Anything DLV does
Apology for the use of the word closet
IAC thoughts
Ending comments
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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Motion seconded:
See below.
The floor is now open for discussion and debate.
To help move things along, I'm asking that everyone, myself
included, please refrain from simply repeating what they
have already said. Let's concentrate on fresh talking points
and responses to the talking points raised by others.
Again, I'm asking that everyone please read all ORG items
promptly until we call for votes and we resume our usual
schedule.
If anyone needs to review any comments or discussion we've
had here, the ORG list archives are here:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org10arc/
Since the survey is now complete, to free up space on the
main discussion page, the survey responses have been moved
to the archive page. All responses are on line here:
http://www.geekbabe.com/dlv/discold/
We'll close the floor, summarize, and call for votes when
no new talking points are introduced for a 48 hour period.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Motion seconded:
JoAnn writes:
>I second the motion!
>If it passes, then I think we as the organization group
>need to "tune it" so that it becomes the closing event we
>all want it to be!.
Thanks, JoAnn!
Floor is now open, gang, have at it. :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anything DLV does:
Bob writes:
>This is only my third DLV, but there is one thing missing
>with using the Italian-American Club that seems to be in
>any other major event. All of a sudden nobody's yelling
>MAINSTREAM MAINSTREAM, because using a private club is not
>MAINSTREAM.
I think some involved in the discussion have indeed expressed
the opinion that the IAC is "not mainstream enough" for their
tastes, so yes, in a way, the omnipresent chant of "Mainstream
Mainstream" was in there to an extent. :)
The proposed activity clearly falls into that in-between
class of a "Major Venue" activity. That's where DLV is
the primary, but not the only occupant of the facility.
>Showing off your finest evening wear, I would think would
>be something you would want everyone to see. To prove to
>the masses that we are capable of having class and style
>would give us credibility where ever we go.
I admit that the IAC is not "on stage" by any means. Some
of our people really get off showing off for the public,
but others do not.
Should we go with this proposal, after the IAC, those who
wish to show off a bit can go over to the Paris, which is
on the schedule after the Ending Formal, and do so.
>Some of us complain about how slutty some of the girls
>dress in public and how it's perceived by people and now
>you have a chance to make this right and you hide it in
>a closet.
>Shame on you.
I really think that the degree of exposure at a "major
venue" activity and the incidents of slutty dress at
mainstream activities are two separate unrelated issues.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Apology for the use of the word closet:
Bob continues:
>I would like to apologize for the use of the term "closet"
>in this letter. Not the best choice of words.
I don't think there's any apology necessary, Bob, but I'm
sure all will accept yours, thanks. :) There was certainly
no offense taken on my part.
I use the term "closet" myself, not infrequently, to refer
to the "big closet" or "communal closet", the environment
often perceived at the mainline TG conventions.
I, personally, do not consider the use of the term "closet",
to refer to an environment of seclusion, out of line at all.
It's certainly not a pejorative in my vocabulary. :)
>The IAC is located on E. Sahara, where at 7pm no one walks.
>The building is located approx 100yds. from the street, with
>no other businesses near it. This makes it quite secluded.
You bring up another good point, one which has not been
stated so far, but has been an issue with other proposed
and used DLV venues in the past, and that is the location.
IIAC, the IAC is near the corner of Sahara and Eastern,
a neighborhood with is considered to be "changing" and
has the reputation of being somewhat unsalubrious.
>No one other than the employees of the IAC will see us.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my
impression that IAC has an open-to-the-public main
restaurant and bar, both which have a fair share of
regular and drop-in mostly local business.
Is this incorrect?
>Bahama Breeze may be repititious, but has anyone had
>everything on their menu? Don't you just love to go thru
>the restaurant to whatever room we are in?
>Has there really been any major issues as far as who
>we are?
Actually yes, there was, in 2009. Upon arriving, one of
our senior volunteers was informed by one of the staff
of a totally-unacceptable condition for restroom use,
citing complaints from other customers in 2008. We were
never before informed of these complaints, but I do have
a feeling what happened. (below)
When informed of it, I demanded to speak to the GM, and
I stated flat out that their "solution" was unacceptable.
After a good degree of heming and hawing, a round of
hardball, and an attempted call to corporate, it was agreed
by both sides that we (DLV) would request (but not require)
that our people use the singular unisex restroom if it was
available, but we would not form a line, and we would not
ask anyone in girlmode to use the mens room. This is all
in line with our long-standing restroom guidelines.
The call from corporate was eventually returned, and the
GM was told that he made the correct decision, and that
what was agreed upon was in line with BB's corporate
policies.
Sorry for the long digression ... but ... here is what
I think happened.
Prior to 2008, we were always in one of the rooms to the
left of the entrance, far away from the restrooms and not
at all obvious to those dining in the vicinity of the
restrooms or drinking at the bar.
When our people needed to take a bio break, they would
walk, individually, out of the area where we were obvious
to the restrooms, not attracting very much attention in
doing so.
Then in 2008 the rooms to the left were already booked
and we were put into a smaller room in the front of the
property to the right of the entrance. This was just
steps away from the restroom in the vicinity of the
bar, plus we had over 90 that year, so we were very
obvious to those in the vicinity of the restrooms.
>I would think being there in evening and formal wear
>would be more appealing than a private club.
True, and should the IAC motion fail to carry, yes we can
circle back to an ending at the BB, as the BB was cited
semi-frequently in the recent survey as being preferred
by some to the IAC.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IAC thoughts:
Kumiko writes (first-person, no quoting):
Very good summary! Thank you!
On the IAC food, I haven't tried their catered food
either. We cannot control public opinion, but we can
inform the public.
I would assume IAC is offering a standard cater menu with
the all the usual items.
How the food tastes has many parameters.
One is how its prepared, presented, and how long it has
been sitting in warmers makes a difference by the time
the food is consumed. (ie over cooked, dry, burnt). One
can have the best chef in the world, but if the food has
been sitting for hrs, it won't taste the same as when it
was freshly made.
Another is the price will determine the quality of
ingredients and type of dishes (ie snow crab or king
crab), and quantity for the number of plates needed to
feed everyone attending. A lower price to make alot of
plates means stretching the food to meet the number of
plates, and using quantity of cheaper ingredients. This
will also affect the overall taste.
Another is every individual has different tastes. Two
people can taste the same item, one may love it, the
other can hate it.
We can try to tell everyone that how the food will taste
is up to their own experience and not depend on someone
else to decide for them.
Example: one person can love eating oysters, another person
can hate it saying its the worst thing one can eat because
that person never had or never will eat raw shell fish meat,
or initially tried to eat it and hated it. The oyster could
be the freshest and best quality oyster, but that wouldn't
matter to the one that doesn't like eating oysters.
Another is other ethnic foods that can be served by a
caterer, items like, sashimi (raw fish), or beef tar-tare
(raw meat), fois graus (duck liver), caviar/fish/sea urchin
eggs, beef tongue, gizzards, tripe, blue cheese, stink
fruits like durian, or exotic fruits like dragon eye (cactus
flower), or dishes like poi (mashed taro), kalua pig (pork
roasted in the ground), natto (fermented soy beans), haggis
(items cooked together in a sheep's stomach), or even fried
beef or calf liver with onions and bacon. If one has had a
bad experience or never had it, it can considered as bad
food if the taste of such is unacceptable to the person's
palate.
There were others that said the IAC food was good or OK.
We shouldn't be guided or controlled by others opinion on
how the food tastes.
In defense of IAC, no caterer will continue to make bad
food. and stay in business. IAC has been in business for
some time, so the food overall must be acceptable to most
that use their facility and food.
. . . . .
Thanks, KY.
I'm willing to give IAC a chance on the food (hey, that's
one talking point I already said, sorry) and I must agree
that any food service provider can't remain in business in
the long run if their food is consistently bad.
However, I also agree with Michelle that if the word should
somehow get out that "the food sucks", and get exaggerated
by the word-of-mouth, it could very much impact our turnout.
Taking a trip to the real world, the food provided at a
catered buffet or from a limited menu is seldom, if ever,
of the same quality as that served to someone ordering
individually from a regular menu.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ending comments:
Ginger writes:
>I applaud your management of the discussion.
Thank you! :)
>Here are two comments on the formal ending event discussion.
>1. You wrote, "My hunch is that Amy will not allow it to
>go forward if there is, in her mind, any significant risk
>of a loss."
>We need to make sure that Amy knows she is on her own with
>this.
Should our motion carry, yes, DLV (via Nora) and GB will
need to reach an understanding. I'm sure that Amy is well
aware that we do not have any front money, nor any means
of covering any unexpected loss.
>It could be that she has some local girls that she is
>counting on as a base. Does she have a local "customer
>base" somewhat like {edit: Rori} in Chicago has?
I know that there is a significant overlap between the
DLV attendees and the regular GB customer base. The flow
from one to another has been both ways. We drive a lot
of business to GB, and they refer a lot of attendees
our way.
I think it will work more or less the same as it did with
last year's NSD, in that the DLV people who are also GB
regulars will be more likely to attend, and yes, those who
are also GB regulars can be counted upon to be more committed
to paying and showing up than other subgroups of our attendees.
>2. If we have an alternative activity it will likely siphon
>attendees away from the IAC formal. However, we need to
>have an emergency alternative plan in the event this falls
>through. We need to avoid a last minute crisis like occurred
>a few years ago when a once popular, now closed, club failed
>us at the last moment.
I seriously doubt that Amy and staff would ever pull a stunt
on us such as that now-closed club did! They shot themselves
in the foot and lost a lot of bar business due to being
equine derrierres about a few things! :( GB cares more
about repeat business and a regular clientele base.
Yes, we always need a contingency plan. You'll also recall
that in the early 2000s, a venue we were to use for a large
function was in danger of closing at short notice and we
were scrambling to come up with alternatives. Fortunately,
the facility stayed open, but it was a lesson learned!
Since then, if only in the back of my mind, I've kept a
set of contingency plans, some very general, others very
specific, to be used in the event one of our significant
activities should be at risk.
Now, speaking specifically about our proposed Ending Formal,
I very seriously doubt if Amy and the GB staff will reneg
on any agreement. I think our risks in the real world are
those of low sign-up and low follow-through (low pay-up).
I'm not too concerned about low sign-up. The survey does
clearly indicate a demand for the activity at the price
point stated.
Now, speaking freely, the TG community in general and the
DLV attendees specifically have a less than stellar track
record when it comes to following through, paying up, and
showing up, even when it is blatantly rubbed into their
face that checking the checkbox is a commitment by them
to attend and pay! We have enough experience over the years
that we can usually (repeat, USUALLY) predict the fall-out
rate and adjust our expected numbers.
To keep this in check, I would not blame Amy at all if they
insisted on some kind of prepayment, but I am hoping that
such can be done conveniently, such as in person at DLV. It
has been my experience that the last-minute no-show fallout
for most any DLV activity can be controlled if the $$$ is
already in hand. :)
Now, should the pay-up rate be exceptionally poor, Amy
would have a hard decision to make, either letting the
activity go forward and absorbing the loss into their
P&L, or cancelling and forfeiting any up-front costs.
Both of those are no-winners, and unfortunately if an
11th hour cancellation would occur, it will probably be
too late to do much about it. The best we could do in
that scenario would be to substitute a couple of "no
host" options on the schedule or announce it as "free
time", which I would hate to do.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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
April 18 - 23, 2010
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 - 09:56:47 CDT