From: annie (dlvdisc@geekbabe.com)
Date: Mon May 31 2004 - 16:50:52 CDT
>>25 stated DLV 2004 was their first DLV.
>>16 stated they had attended DLV once before.
>>24 stated they had attended DLV two times or more before.
>How does this compare to the mix on the registration database...as to
>whether the 65 respondents are indicative of the group as a whole?
The survey appears to be skewed toward the returnees, and in particular
those who have been twice or more.
If we look at the registration database, we find that there are 101
registrations that resulted in at least 1 person attending.
52 were newcomers to DLV 2004
26 had attended once before
23 had attended twice or more before
As you see, slightly less than half of the newcomers answered the survey
while almost 2/3 of those who attended once did, and close to 100% who
had attended 2 times of more did so.
Yes, I think the twice or more counts are valid, since we do have the SO
factor on some registrations. (There also may be people who have
attended in the past who were not properly marked as returnees or
multi-year returnees in the system.)
>I would only comment that even though there may be no DLV activities on
>the two/three days prior to and immediately after the official DLV,
>there should be some nominated venues / times etc for these people to
>meet and do stuff together. Especially if the early arrivers and later
>departers are an increasing trend.
Actually that happened, both via our organization and otherwise. There
was an informal pre-pre-DLV thing at the San Remo which I attended and
some remarked that they had done various things before that.
. . .
>Ummmm... It seems to me that rating here can be misleading. Since most
>people go to thing they are likely to participate in and enjoy anyway
>the chances of a good rating are pretty good to start with. Eg Golfers
>like playing golf...end of story hence the high rating.
For the special-interest things I would agree. However, for the general
interest activities I think the ratings give us a valid handle on which
ones were well liked and which ones laid an egg.
However, I would also think that, for example, avid golfers who went to
a poorly implemented golf activity would rate it appropriately poorly.
I only see two cases of activities this year where things were bad, one
with very poor turnout and the other which just should not have been
planned for the venue in which it was held.
. . .
>The reason I suspect, is not the fact that they were bars per se, but
>that they were bars at which we had no actual activity, such as a meal
>or a show or theme (eg Pity Party).
>I guess what I'm saying is that while we've previously had a call for
>socialising time, simply putting bars on a schedule doesn't do it for a
>lot of people. You can socialise and DO something, given the right
>environment.
Maybe I'm just the odd person out here, but I'm one who enjoys going to
bars just to drink and socialize and such. Yes, I enjoy going to bars
where there's low-key entertainment or some activities, but I tend to
enjoy this mostly for the relaxing and socializing aspect.
Back in 2001 when the call came in for more of that Quality Social
Time<tm>, the person who approached me about it mentioned specifically
that (she thought) there should be more time spent just socializing and
not necessarily doing anything in particular except socializing.
I still think there is a demand for at least some sessions of strictly
social time.
. . . . .
>>The only thing that was disliked more than it was liked was the Las
>>Vegas Lounge. I think it's quite obvious why this is the case.
>As much as I thought this place was a dive, I think the NSD reception
>party was general a none activity and it is as much that, that is
>reflected in the survey results.
I actually thought it would be a major hit to have 30-40 of us invade
the place in slutwear, nunwear, and whateverwear.
Nope, just didn't work!
. . . . .
>>Comfortable being seen with group ...
[deletia]
>This year I was very much more comfortable being with DLV as a group.
>There was a lot less of the obvious flamboyance (or should this be
>flamgirlance?) that has been seen in past years and was the cause of
>the dress and behaviour code. The quality of makeup, style, deportment,
>hair do's etc, etc was better (if not much better) that 2003.
I agree that there was a marked improvement in the overall behavior of
our group this year. (Amazing that the actions of a few in the past have
so reflected on the group as a whole.)
I think that in general, the attendees this year had more consideration
for the others, and even those with a "look at me" tendency kept it
within reasonable levels.
>There was that girl that kept showing up in a DLV T-Shirt... but get
>one in every crowd! :-)
Uh ...
. . . . .
>>Increased attention to behavior/dress/restroom issues ...
[bobbitt]
>I only heard / saw one person that objected to this in any obvious way
>and she was told firmly to go read it. In my opinion her appearance and
>attitude changed from last year and over the few days I did see her.
I think the word got out that we were (and still are) very serious
about it, and that it is not something that is optional.
>For a group with an average age in their fifties, male, female or
>mixed, the fact that we have to have such comprehensive rules /
>guidelines, is an unfortunate indictment on a few.
Yes, and I think that everybody does know that the majority of those
present already know how to dress and behave in public. It's just that
those who did not were so obvious about it that they reflected on the
group as a whole.
. . . . .
>>+sitting at the bottom was rather a disappointment, I felt left out of
>>+the party, only until I and my golf partner and 2 other girls picked
>>+up chairs and included ourselves in the festivities. The planner had
>>+no concept of bringing all those that played into her grasp.
>Seemed like it was more an oversight than anything to exclude anyone. I
>was surprised that we got the lunch / discount vouchers at all so I
>guess it depends on the expectation.
Inclusion, IMAO, is a two-way street. Our group does not intentionally
exclude others, I know the group too well to believe that. This had to
be, as you say, oversight and not active exclusion.
If somebody feels left out, he/she should take the initiative to join
in. "Mind if I join you?" "Is this seat taken?" "May I squeeze in?"
. . . . .
>>1. Temperature. There's not much we can do about this. I'm not a
>Moving the week earlier in the year won't necessarily help. You just
>have to remember that Las Vegas is in the desert and it does get hot!
Actually, I see weather as far less of a risk factor for DLV than it
is for things like Pinkfest, Fall Harvest, FanFair, etc.
With Las Vegas in the spring, the weather is far more predictable than
during autumn in Chicago, Omaha, or Provincetown.
With DLV, it may be a bit warm or cool and windy. An inconvenience at
most. For the other three, an early snowstorm will effectively kill the
event totally.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 18 2004 - 22:42:32 CDT