Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:17:30 -0400
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Combined reply
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

> kfl at KeithLynch.net 8/23/04 1:41:22 AM >>>
>This is a combined reply to several recent messages.  If
>anyone
>prefers that I reply to each message, or to each message
>topic,
>separately, please speak up.  Thank you.
>
>Michael Walsh wrote:
>
>> Since the likelihood of actually removing NASFiC from the
>WSFS
>> Constitution is pretty darn small, the only other alternative I
>> could think of last year was to vote in the NASFiC site
>selection,
>> voting for No NASFiC.  Well, it's going to Seattle, & I'm not.
>
>What's the point in that?  By voting, you paid money that went
>to the convention.  And you must have known that "No
>NASFiC" had
>no chance of winning.  So the net effect was to *encourage*
>them.

Out of 424 valid ballots, 32 were marked "None of the above".  A small
voice granted.  Hmm, one was for Monkey's Eyebrow.  Wonder what that's
all about . . .  Here are the numbers:
http://www.torcon3.on.ca/ballots/SiteSelection.html .

But to answer your basic question/concern.  Yes, they have my money,
and they probably really won the 32 who voted "Noe of the above", but
I've gotten tired of people kvetching about the NASFiC and not really
doing anything.  I decided to put my money where my mouth was, as the
old saying goes.  As for the membership, Allen Steele is not planning on
going to Glasgow (lack of time I believe) so I'll sell him my membership
at my cost.  Helping friends is always a good thing.

And if the Worldcon does go to Japan, then members of the 2006 NASFiC
will decide where the 2007 NASFiC will be (the only bid I know of is St
Louis).  Maybe they'll decide to seceed from WSFS . . .

>
>> Just that it's administered by the World SF Society.  Which
>makes it
>> really hard for WSFS to claim to be a "World" organization,
>NASFiC
>> being the only NatCon it administers.
>
>Good point.  (Though I could nitpick that NASFiC is a
>continent con,
>not a national con.  One could be in Canada or Mexico,
>though it never
>has been.)

Quite true. NASFiC = North American Science Fiction Convention.

>
>> Once upon a time, when Worldcon memberships were, er,
>much less than
>> they are now, WSFA use to purchase a few memberships to
>resell to
>> financially strapped WSFAns at a later date.  Perhaps
>something for
>> the club to think about?
>
>Hotel and transportation costs still dwarf con registration
>costs,
>though if the latter continue to grow as they have been, that
>will
>soon no longer be true.

True.  But the membership is the first financial hurdle.  Hotels &
transportation are later expenses.  And one's financial condition can
always change (ideally for the better!  "My name is Michael Anthony, I
represent John Beresford Tipton . . ." )

>
>In looking through old WSFA meeting minutes, the most
>surprising thing
>I saw was WSFA collectively voting on the Hugos.  Did clubs
>get votes?
>Or was there an agreement that all members would vote the
>way the club
>decided?

Possibly.  The current rules seemed to have evolved around 1990,
limiting voting to only natural born.  See www.smofs.org for excessively
detailed history of the WSFS Constitution.

>
>> Eh?  Eh? (Doing a bad Canadian accent . . )
>
>> Yes, the correct title is A MIRROR FOR OBSERVERS.
>
>(...as he hurriedly phones his printer and says "Stop the
>presses!
>I have a change in the cover!")

Ah, actually the cover and text has always been correct . . .my memory
OTOH . . . gotta upgrade . . .

>
>Ted White wrote:
>
>> I have to wonder on what basis Keith says that "the fact [is]
>that
>> overseas Worldcons are generally not as well put together
>as US and
>> Canadian ones."  I've been to five overseas Worldcons ... I
>have to
>> wonder if Keith has been to *any* overseas Worldcon.
>
>I've been to two.  Glasgow in '95 and Melbourne in '99.
>
>I won't mention the terrible acoustics in '95, since those have
>supposedly been fixed.

Well, that was a structural problem.  & yes, the Glasgow folks were
bidding with the phrase "This time with ceilings!"  Many sites have
"interesting featires".  In 1978 the walk between the convention complex
and the closest hotel was fun.  Phoenix, Labor Day . . .  "The Anvil of
God".

Some Worldcon problems are quite visible (NolaCon II, Aussiecon III,
&Torcon III all had programming disasters, which are hard to hide;
IguanaCon had a generally condition of "bubble gum & baling wire"
holding it together; ConStellation had a, er, finacial faux pas) and
some Worldcons are probably quite good about keeping their problems,
atleast precon, under wraps.

> I *will* mention the tobacco smoke,

Oh, they do smoke over there. & for many Americans it was stunning.  I
will note that a major revolution occured in Ireland with the
introduction of  anti-smoking laws descibed by the Taoiseach as the
"toughest in Europe
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3577001.stm>

>the cold
>indoor temperatures,

YMMV.

the fact that the tap water was not fit to
>drink
>in the SECC and that nobody bothered to tell us this until the
>second
>day of the con (fortunately I suffered no apparent ill effects),
>the
>lack of people (if I wanted a small con, I could have gone to
>any
>regional con for a lot less money), and the lack of room
>parties.

Room parties outside of the USare almost alwaysa problem.  The hotel
industry "over there" is different than here.  Over there, for the most
part, all function space is paid for - no comping based upon room pick
ups.

Anyway, unless it's an American brand, the odds are good that the rooms
were designed primarily for sleeping, or the like.

>
>The two main things I go to cons for are to meet people and
>to go to
>room parties.
>
>'99 had even fewer people,

True, but lots of new people to meet.

>and the same lack of room
>parties, but at
>least there was good water and little tobacco smoke.
>
>> Since I go to Australia or the UK to meet and spend time
>with fans
>> of those areas, I'm just as happy to see relatively fewer
>Americans
>> there.  Unfortunately, as I discovered on the tour of Australia
>I
>> took, most of the Americans who have the money to make
>these trips
>> are neither people I know, nor, for the most part, people that
>I
>> want to know.  They are just extra bodies clogging up the
>facilities.
>
>If a con is expensive to attend, you will most get the wealthier
>fans.

Or those who with a three year lead time actually did put money aside.

>
>The one Australian I'd most have liked to meet -- the SF
>author Greg
>Egan -- was not at the Australian Worldcon.

A friend of mine knows Egan.  The only way he gets signed books is to
mail them to him.  Egan disdains conventions and the whole meet the
author thing.  Wants his writings to stand on their own merits.

Neither were
>most other
>people whom I normally expect to meet at Worldcons.

Mioney, distance, time.

>
>> Glasgow in 1995 had far too many people in attendance,
>and was far
>> too "American" as a Worldcon.  I suspect Glasgow in 2005
>will be
>> even more so.
>
>I believe every non-US Worldcon has had more Americans
>than locals.
>Japan in '07 may be an exception, albeit with thousands of
>non English
>speaking people who have about as much to do with fandom-
>as-we-know-it
>as most Dragoncon attendees do.

Best thing to happen to Worldcon, in recent years, is to have Dragoncon
on the same weekend.

[Rest of KFL's email deleted]

mjw