ANST - Gulf Wars update

[Dory Grace]

In response to HL Ebergardis' post of:
>> Sir Lyonel is correct in what he wrote.  Our money is gone and
>> we have nothing to show for it.  I support his statements 100 0/0.
>> HL Ebergardis von Zell

Joel Schumacher writes:
>It seems that your money would automatically be applied to your other
>arrangements.

Yes, it would *seem* so; however, we don't know this to be the case. All we
have is information about what we *don't* have. Yes, common sense says that
the GW folk will have reserved tenting land for us, and at the pre-Dec
price to boot. However, common sense would also say that the GW folk would
have offered what they advertised, and vice-versa and--once again--the only
info they've given us to date is about what we *don't* have.

to Lyonel's:
>> Moreover, I apologize if you find all this squawking about cabins 
>> bothersome, but in my experience the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
>> If we all just quietly accept what we've heard from the GW steward,
>> why... 

Joel throws out the insult of:
><a bunch of whiner stuff clipped>

then theorizes:
>Why it might just be mistaken for humility...

Perhaps I misunderstand Mr. Schumacher's meaning, but it seems he's saying
that quietly accepting inequitable decision-making and misrepresentative
advertising could somehow be mistaken for humility. In most educated
circles, quiet acceptance of bad administrative decision-making is most
commonly seen as apathy.

>I've seen suggestions of lawsuits and all and this disturbs me.

It disturbs me, too. However, I think that many times folks seem to think
that the legal obligations of the mundane world don't extend into the realm
of the SCA, that we can bend the rules and handle some things incompletely
just because "we're all family here." This is a tendency that disturbs me
as much, if not more than, people throwing out what are essentially empty
suggestions of lawsuits. I think it's mostly evidence of folks having the
same kind of concern I speak of.

Joel goes on with:
>Deceptive advertising?  Perhaps.

I think that saying "120 beds; first come, first served" is clearly
deceptive when the fact is "108 beds; and whichever envelope in this pile
we happen to get to first" is the reality.


>The intent wasn't to screw you or trick you.

Though none of us are privy to the GW folks' thought processes (and
therefore thier real intent), I don't believe anyone set out with the
intent to screw or trick anyone. I also don't recall *anyone* else saying
they believed any of the GW folks intended to screw or trick anyone. What I
have heard is folks being concerned, irritated, annoyed, etc, with GW
decision-making that is inconsistent from what they promised. Some GW
decision-making has been bad, ill-considered, less-than-thorough, not
well-thought-out, what have you. Some of us have commented and complained
about it. I'm sorry if you're bothered by folks' speaking out, but none of
us would be displaying humility by not speaking up.

>If it was clarified, you would have still sent your
>money, been rejected for a cabin, and still had your check cashed.

You don't know that. I don't know that. All we know is that there are 12
folk out there, somewhere, who were numbers 113 through 120 who are being
denied bunks in a cabin that would be getting them *except for* the fact
that some GW folks decided otherwise, according to all the information we
have to date.

Hopefullly, what will come of this will be better decision-making on the
part of the GW folk next year, equitable treatment of folks who got bumped
this year, and a better all-around understanding of the importance of not
treating decision-making processes and legal considerations for large
events like this too casually.


whining and squawking along with the other un-humble, non-apathetic folk,
Aquilanne



Dory Grace***The Inkwell
Austin, TX

"No matter where you go, there you are."
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.