On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:47:41 EST, sidecutter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Orson
\"Sidecutter\" Christian") wrote:
>"Raksha" <Raksha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:4119cd71.46911675@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:39:34 EST, sidecutter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Orson
>> \"Sidecutter\" Christian") wrote:
>>>You may recall (or you may not), that the "dinner
>> exclusive" that year was nothing more than a couple of toys that were
>> available in the stores already - and even if they weren't going to be
>> released for another week, they were still exactly and precisely the
>> same thing that would be available in the stores.
>
> you seem to be
>missing the effort that was gone to for the fans. 3H got hold of toys
that
>were not supposed to be in stores, according to Hasbro, until
>August/September. So 3H made a *special arrangement* to get hold of some
of
>these toys as a treat for the dinner attendees. He had no way to know,
and
>no way to fix the situation, when these same toys showed up in retail
stores
>about two weeks before the con happened. And if they had indeed not
shown
>up in stores until after the con, I have a very hard time believing you
>would still ridicule the choice.
You may well believe that, but you'd be wrong. Even if the toys
hadn't shown up in stores for another month, that doesn't change the
fact that they'd have been exclusive neither to the convention itself,
nor to the people who shelled out all that extra money to attend the
dinner party. They were really just a last-second token of apology
because the real exclusive wasn't available. Which is fine in and of
itself, if some additional compensation had also been made. Even some
minor item (such as a few postcards, as another fan suggested) which
the dinner attendees were to get later, that no one else got. And
while it's possible that it took some effort to get hold of those toys
"early," I don't see anything particularly laudable or amazing about
the end result. All of this, I also said at the time of the
convention, so your assertion that I've never criticized the true 3H
cons, just isn't accrurate.
> I suspect, instead, that you would laud 3H
>for going to the effort to get us something early like that when the
>exclusive fell through.
See above.
>And then there was
>> an "advance preview" of the first episode of Armada. Oooh. Something
>> *else* that was going to be available in the very near future, and for
>> free.
>
>And so was the Beast Machines preview in 99. I don't recall you harping
on
>that. Seeing an episode of a show early is a special event.
But is it worth $70? When you can see the very same thing for
completely free in the comfort of your own home a couple of weeks
later? Some apparently thought so. Some, apparently, did not.
>Now, by the time of the organizer's panel, everyone pretty well
>> understood that the lack of an actual dinner exclusive had something
>> to do with Hasbro or the animation studio or some-such, and happened
>> at the last moment through no fault or control of the BotCon
>> organizers. None the less, it was their responsibility to make it
>> right in some manner.
>
>Addressed above, moving on.
Actually I didn't see that addressed, but maybe I missed it. Do you
feel as though it was totally *not* the responsibility of the
organizers to compensate the dinner party attendees in some manner?
>So one fan stood up and mentioned that the pair
>> of non-exclusive toys and a cartoon episode really wasn't worth the
>> $70 she had paid for the dinner, and whether there was going to be any
>> kind of compensation or extra item sent out afterwards to those who
>> attended. There were even some suggestions and ideas given, in the
>> spirit of trying to help, not criticize. She wasn't rude, she wasn't
>> loud, but she said her piece and she was *right* ... what those
>> attendees got, was not what they were promised, and was not worth $70.
>
>*schreech* I'm sorry. Please do show me a copy of the 2002 materiels
where
>it was EVER promised that there would be *any* kind of dinner exclusive.
It
>was not. Though exclusives may have been a tradition, they were *not* a
>guarantee. And treating them as such is unfair.
I disagree. This show came on the heels of two previous dinner
parties that *did* have exclusive take-home items for around the same
price, which pretty much implicitly promises that you'll get something
special for your money beyond traditionally bad convention center
food. Even if you don't *like* the product, you can at least turn
around and sell it then at the con - because it's an *exclusive* that
no one else got. That's the whole point.
> Instead, your fellow fan
>chose to ignore all the hard work, effort, and intent of what we did get,
no
>doubt through much last minute hard work from 3H themselves after the
>exclusives fell through, and harp on the things they did for us unfairly.
What was unfair about expecting to have some unique take-home item for
that much extra money? In fact, that's exactly what was planned and
intended, and though it may have fallen through because of other
factors, it still remains the organizers' responsibility to put the
matter right.
>> She was cavalierly blown off by Glen, whereupon she left the room ...
>> whereupon he made snide and heckling remarks about her. Highly
>> unprofessional.
>
>I'm sorry. I was AT that dinner. I do not recall any such remarks being
>made about her, or any other fan at that event.
This was at the organizer's panel. Not the dinner. I'm pleased to
say I did *not* blow $70 to attend the '02 dinner to get exactly ...
nothing ... so I can't speak to what may have been said there.
> Or maybe this is another
>situation where you're taking one part of a statement, and presenting it
>with the worst possible spin on it, like you tried to do with Glen's
words
>at the panel.
Actually *I* didn't present any kind of a statement from the 1H panel
this year. Those are eyewitness re****ts from others who were there.
I'm just filling in the background.
>Almost even more revolting were those other fans who
>> later said there was some outrage in somebody standing up and telling
>> it like it was, as though it were a crime to complain about
>> less-than-stellar customer service.
>
>At the dinner, I think they're right to an extent. Rather than standing
up
>and disrupting the event with these issues, they should have been handled
>after the close of the dinner during the mingling time, or at the next
>appropriate time and place
How about the '02 organizer's panel, which is specifically designed
for such things? Because that's exactly where it happened.
>Standing up and whining because you didn't get a special present that was
>never actually promised by anyone is bad form.
What's bad form is blowing off a fan's legitimate complaint and then
heckling her behind her back. And then "blaming the victim" from a
contingent of the rest of the fandom, because she had the audacity to
point out a problem.
>> I happen to know that this manner of thing has happened
>> elsewhere as well. Again, completely unprofessional, especially when
>> one is trying to present oneself as "official."
>
>Based on how you've attempted to manhandle Glen's words this year,
Again, go back and read the rest of the thread. I didn't manhandle
anything. And I suspect there's far more to the story than just these
unproven assertions that there were e-mailed threats to assorted and
innocent friends and family. I'm not outright accusing anyone of
fabrication, but I will say that the credibility of the source is open
to question in my mind.
> I think I
>require corroboration from a few other fans who *aren't* part of your
>Glen-Haters group to confirm such things.
Actually most of the other people who've expressed their disgust with
this matter, both here on the newsgroup and elsewhere on the net, are
hardly what I'd call "part of my Glen-Haters group." (It's news to me
that there even is such a thing.) Most of them went into these cons,
this year and last, with a totally neutral outlook, willing to give it
a chance. Most of them still remain neutral on a personal level. But
from a professional point of view, they've been repeatedly
disappointed. Are they wrong to say so?
> I await someone to confirm that
>Glen said anything nasty about that fan once she left the dinner.
Organizer's panel. And as I've already said, I was personally an
eyewitness to this. I raised these objections two years ago -
*before* I had any other reason to decry 1H. And anyone else who was
there, can confirm it. It wasn't whispered in a hushed tone with a
wink and a snicker to a few people sitting in the front rows. It was
spoken right out loud into the microphone.
--Raksha
Broke? Unemployed? Paying too much for gas?
Do something about it! www.johnkerry.com
--------------------------------------------------------
"I am the Plumed Serpent, I strike and I soar!"
--------------------------------------------------------
All-time favorite Transformer: Soundwave ("The secrets
of the Universe reveal themselves to those who listen.")
--------------------------------------------------------
ATTCM - the Transformers at their best!
(request alt.toys.transformers.classic.moderated
from: postmaster@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
provider's address>)
|
