Event Ideals

[R. Michael Litchfield]

><litch at eden.com (R. Michael Litchfield)>
>>>1.   Authenticity
>>>     b.   Mundanity, where it can not be expunged, is made as
>>>          unobtrusive as possible (Modern tents, for example,
>>>          placed further from the center of events, parking and
>>>          modern appearing facilities (Showers, kitchens, more
>>>          extensive classrooms, etc) are also out of sight).
>>One thing that might need to be considered about this is what about people
>>with disabilities? If we take the mundane conviences they need too far out
>>are we not making our events inhospitable for them?
>
>Well, since, in essence, this *was* your suggestion initially, do you have
>any further suggestions to address this potential inequity?

Not really, the difficulty I find is that there is a huge range of
disabilities, then there is also variations in people's attitudes towards
thier disabilities.
I think that in general though we should err on the side of inclusiveness,
we are not and have never been slavishly devoted to re-creation, the minor
inconvience of being forced to deal with the slight mundanity which allows
someone else to play at all just doesn't break my heart.

[Period speak]
>>Is this actually soemthing we want to try to encourage? If it is done well
>>it can be rather nice, but not one person in 10 can do it weel, and when it
>>is done poorly it really sucks.
>
>It was mentioned as an ideal.

Well I am questioning whether or not this really should be something we
should strive for, I find a 8th C turk speaking like an elizavethan MUCh
more jarring than the trade language of modern english.

>  I personally think the idea of 500+ people
>at an event to be a bit screwy, but since you mentioned it, I put it in.

Why? I like events that size, it allows enough vairety than anyone can find
what they are looking for without being utterly lost in a crowd of people.

>Diarmuit

-mcihael