Subject:
|
Re: BrickFest registration fees (was: LEGO Adult Fan Convention at Legoland California?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.events, lugnet.events.brickfest
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:12:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
135 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.events, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.events, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
| |
“Because I’ll be more likely to help if I know”, “Because I’ll be more
likely to donate if I know”, “Because I’d be willing to pay more if I
know”, “Because I’m more likely to attend if I know”.
|
Those are all decent answers. It sounds like there’s a discrepancy of
tense... my comments in this thread have all been aimed at the past tense,
why should an attendee of an event want to know information about what
they’ve just attended. Yours are examples of why you’d attend or volunteer
for one in the future.
|
Well... yeah? Shouldn’t we be talking about consequence?
|
Sure, but that’s a slightly different conversation.
| |
| |
To be clear, I’m not speaking for BrickFest at all... just as myself. So I’m
hoping that you’re not taking my comments as official statements. I haven’t
seen any posts or anything from official BrickFest sources that could be
construed as treating people as moronic sheep, so I’m not sure what that’s
referring to. I’m hoping you’re not finding my comments moronically
sheepish.
|
Oh, I’m not referring to any actions specifically-- I’m following what
appears to be your stance to its absolutist conclusions to test the validity
of your claim. Your claim appears to be “BrickFest owes only specifically
what it claims to owe to its attendees”, as in 1) a venue 2) space to show
MOCs (as warranted by the rules), 3) any merchandise advertised and
purchased, and maybe 4) presentations as promised, although “owe” may not
apply in that case as BrickFest may not guarantee the actions of its
volunteer presenters.
Essentially, by claiming that, and (apparently) not advocating what BrickFest
“ought” and “ought not” do, your position comes across (to me at least) as
being very closed-door and heartless. Effectively, I heard you saying
“BrickFest owes you squat”.
|
I’m a heartless bastard. Ask my kids. :)
You’re free to draw the above conclusion, although it’s incorrect. The
conversation has morphed into something different from what I thought I was
talking about. I have enough of these chats with my wife, that you’d think I’d
learn. So time to clarify.
Statement: BrickFest is legally or morally required to provide detailed
information on revenue and expenditures, specifically beyond those funds used to
pay all event expenses.
Kelly: No. Here’s why... insert reasons
That’s pretty much it. I’d love to have another conversation about wider issues,
like enticing volunteers to come back, or getting people enthused about the
hobby... but those are different conversations than what I thought I was
having. I’m pretty much a linear thinker.
| |
And while I agree that that’s true, I think the point that is being expressed
by Todd (and to a point Anthony as well) is a valid one-- that we as a
community will feel *better* about the event the more we know, and will be
more likely to contribute more.
|
No argument with that.
| |
I don’t know if anyone’s claiming that they
really deserve or need to know, but I would like to *encourage* a larger
amount of transparency in BrickFest’s finances.
|
That’s well said, and if it helps the event prosper, then I would support that.
(That’s me starting in on another conversation.)
Kelly
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
102 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
