Misgivings about the current direction of gatherings in the Bay Area

[simulated]

If you don't like my answers, so be it. Not my place to decide what you should or shouldn't accept.

If you know the reasons given, then why are you bothering to ask? If you know the reasons given, why are you "fairly certain" about anything?

Because the reasons given were bull, and have been catagorically denied by everyone who I've spoken to. I'm looking to learn the truth. Which is made all the more interesting by the fact you completely dodged the question four times over.

If I'm the legitimacy for California, why do you insist I'm wrong for doing as I've chosen to do?

As for hosting with folks you don't know, that's HOW it works. You start events, and based on how folks respond, they attend these events. You can, and I think you should, host events. Pay it forward indeed. Host.

You not only don't NEED me for this, you don't HAVE me for this. It's not negotiable. Been tried already this year.

This is a remarkably petulant attitude you're taking here. The reason your list seems legitimate is because people like me direct newcomers to it as the place to hear about TMF events in California.

That's what I was told - get yourself on this email list, and you'll be kept in the loop with regards to events in California. Not that I'd be kept in the loop with the events specifically chosen by the guy who was running the list, but events in general. If I had known this was the case, I'd have been much more specific when talking to those I've referred to you.

It's my decision because I organize these events. Doubt that logic? Tell Max how to host NEST. Tell Bella how to host MidWest NEST. Tell Mimi how to host GLAT. Pick an organizer, and tell them how to run their events.

And for the past two years, you haven't. Hell, I'm a regular in this community, and in the entire time I've been involved there has been not one event hosted by yourself.

NEST is a GREAT reputation on which to build, after all. Tell Max he needs to make announcements for your events, and give you his list, etc.

People don't give their emails to Max with the intention of being told about TMF events taking place in California.

I think you mistake my desire to be courteous in response to you for my intention to do anything for you, particularly, or anyone else who argues how West Coast Gatherings should go. I actually can say, categorically, that I'm an authority on gatherings. I coined the silly term. I don't owe you anything here, and offer what I do because I'm genuinely interested in your perspective, and that of the others that are so against what I've already chosen to do.

This is precisely the point I've been trying to illustrate all the way along. Me, me, me, is all I'm hearing from you. The fact that I disagree with you makes my opinions in general invalid? Not only that, but anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong? Don't you see the problem with this?

I was under the impression that these events were so that people with this interest, like you and I, could come together, talk, and play. Apparently I was mistaken, and the real purpose of these gatherings and this list was so that you could throw parties.

And the reason that I made this thread was not to have an argument, but to try to shed some light on the drama that's obviously been taking place for a while now, and to try and work out some way of dealing with the issues that have arisen. You, apparently, have no desire to talk out these issues with the community and come to a general consensus as to what to do about it. Your response to my statements every step of the way can be summed up as

Sorry you're so displeased. Do feel free to drop these events if they don't suit your needs.

I'm not content to simply let things go awry. I care too much.

So the question remains - are we doing what's best for the tickling community in California in general, or are we doing what's best for you?

 

[Dailyfan]

From an outsider looking in

It seems to me that the "gathering" in Sacramento in May was more of a private party, by invite only, rather than a bona fide gathering. Why even post a thread about it if it filled up before it could be posted about? I don't get it.

 

[Phineas]

If anyone was Sac local and wanted in, they got in. No one from that area was excluded.

How local is local? I'm in San Jose - which is well within driving distance, and no one even told me this event was happening. It was posted to the list after the fact.

If I'd known about the event, I might have been interested in attending - unless I wasn't invited, of course. In which case, no harm, no foul.

Now, as to this other thing...

I have asked Karen as to why she's been banned. Unless she's lying to me, she doesn't know. That's he-said/she-said, as far as I'm concerned, and not really any of my business. The only reason I'm bringing it up is that you seem to feel it's a crystal-clear, cut-and-dry scenario, and you've got both Karen and her husband asking for answers, and at least two others confused. That should tell you something.

What does bother me, is that as an attendee of the gatherings in question, I was never given any kind of heads-up that this was a potential problem. I know that if I'd been getting complaints about a host or hostess, the first thing I'd do is start polling attendees and ask them about their experiences. I've been attending WCGs for about a year now, and I'm just now finding out about this second-hand? No one's come to me (or anyone else, I'd imagine) and said "hey, we've gotten a complaint about so-and-so. What's your opinion?"

The other thing that is causing confusion is that I was under the impression that West Coast Gatherings was simply a mailing list that was a convenience for the various hosts of gatherings to coordinate and keep everyone in the loop. I had no idea it was franchised, like Hot Dog on a Stick, or something, and that there's a difference between a west coast gathering and a West Coast Gathering. I'll bet dollars to donuts I'm not the only one.

I don't have all the facts, admittedly. All I can do is go by what I see. And so far what I see is a lot of confused people and a decision that was made about events I attend without any sort of consensus.

And that's all I have to say about that. I'm not takin' sides in this - but Karen's never done wrong by me, so I totally have no idea what's going on.

 

[baubaloo]

?confused?

I have asked Karen as to why she's been banned. Unless she's lying to me, she doesn't know. That's he-said/she-said, as far as I'm concerned, and not really any of my business. The only reason I'm bringing it up is that you seem to feel it's a crystal-clear, cut-and-dry scenario, and you've got both Karen and her husband asking for answers, and at least two others confused. That should tell you something.

Agreed... I'm confused too. I personally thought Karen and Ed did a wonderful job of hosting in Santa Cruz. I was floored with their friendliness and professionalism. They made my wife and I feel so comfortable, and to be honest my wife wants to go to more gatherings thanks directly to those two.

Bobaloo

 

[tyklfynd]

registering my dissappointment

I have been to a number of gatherings and munches hosted by Karen. She is a fantastic addition to the tickling community. She is respectful of others, supportive, very accomidating, completely non-judgemental, patient and understanding. She is open to suggestions, and very reasonable; Happy to respect other peoples comfort zones and the rules laid down at other peoples gatherings. She has done an enormous amount for the bay area tickling scene and I think she deserves much respect and applause for bringing in new people to the bay area tickling community by hosting so many gatherings and munches.

I was very dissappointed when I read that she is no longer attending west coast gatherings. I have talked to her and it is clear to me that she did not choose this restriction.
This restriction is being imposed on her, and its upsetting to me because after all she has done, she deserves much better than to be singled out with a restriction from attending west coast gatherings ( its a ban, lets call it what it is ).

Karen is an exceptionally reasonable person. And if asked to adhere to specific rules of behavior at a gathering, I know she would. I am baffled as to why she has been singled out to no longer be invited to any of the West Coast gatherings, even after reading this thread I still dont know why. At the very least it is an act of exclusion and disrespect to a very special member of the tickling community that saddens me greatly.

I do wonder why it is necessary to tell all the members of the west coast gathering list that she is no longer attending any gatherings. If you dont want to invite her, you could just not invite her, and not tell everyone; hey look at this person here, she is no longer attending or hosting any west coast gatherings. Is the point of this public announcement to the email list to make sure no one invites her? Couldn't this be accomplished just by telling karen directly, and not telling everyone?

Something smells wrong about how this is being handled; I am not passing any specific judgements, because I do not have all the details.

I am just registering my dissatisfaction with how a wonderful, giving member of the tickling community has been treated. ( singled out in a large distribution email as not invited to, not able to attend, and not able to host, any west coast gatherings; this is a slight, a ban, and its disrespectful. I believe it is unnecessary. )

I welcome all responses and comments. I will not likely post again in this thread; I have said my piece.

 

[AquaFeline]

It seems to me that the "gathering" in Sacramento in May was more of a private party, by invite only, rather than a bona fide gathering. Why even post a thread about it if it filled up before it could be posted about? I don't get it.

I agree.
--

Dammit, I'm just going to come out with it because we're all talking at cross purposes otherwise.

It comes down to play that was more sexual than some of the attendees felt comfortable with. NOTE that I don't say it was too sexual, just too sexual for some of the attendees.

"No sex play" is written into the code of conduct for west coast gatherings. Someone was banned from attending the gatherings "franchised" under WCG (and I think this is an accurate statement) for not following the rules. As I understood they were told they were not following the guidelines of WCG but perhaps there was miscommunication. I am not a participant so can't say, all I can present is my outsiders viewpoint.

The sexual play is a style thing. My personal opinion is that just as a BDSM scene isn't renegotiated during the scene, something like sex play shouldn't be renegotiated during a party. It should be advertised up front. People should feel free to reflect upon whether it is something they are comfortable with or not. As I understand, since Dave does not want sexual play at parties he feels responsible for, he bans people who do not agree with his philosophy here. I believe Dave feels responsible for all parties put out on his mailing list. Dave, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Something that came up with sex play is legal liability. I believe that there is some legal grounds for sexual play, or at least there are people who risk that. There are parties like sinfusion. The dungeons in the SF area allow sex.

But, for example, we don't check IDs of the people who show up. If someone lies about their age and does stuff and ends up yelling about it, there's legal liability. That's true even for private one on one stuff but to have that associated with the entire community and with the forum, this would be a disaster. Don't believe it couldn't happen. I believe Dave chooses not to take this risk. Others might decide it's worth it.

Where do I personally stand on sexual stuff? There are people I'm not attracted to. I don't want to be around them going beyond first base. Have I personally experienced this? No. Have I heard about this happening, and other attendees feeling uncomfortable about it? Yes.

Logically more than one person was involved -- it takes two or more to tango.

Have those other people involved been reminded of the code of conduct for WCG?

Simulated, I have seen more people not come back than you have noticed. A couple of very nice ladies whom I both think were from SF and attended at different times. A lot of irregular attendees, some in SF some in south bay some farther. Some new ones who never come back, some who have been around forever who don't come by anymore. Why do they not attend more often, is it just schedule or is there something else that's missing that they're looking for? It's worth asking.

Obviously some have felt sufficiently interested to stay and some have not.

One problem is for a lot communities, when a group of people have known each other for a while it can start to feel closed to others not currently "in" even if nobody already participating intends it to happen. I've seen that at a lot of BDSM events and in fact most communites, work or play (with the exception of toastmasters!)

Possibly this post will be edited for saying too much, but I honestly think it's better for everyone to understand, and I don't want to watch this back and forth anymore.

If it is edited I request that it is posted that it was edited and the reasons why it was edited. Thank you.

 

[AquaFeline]

I do wonder why it is necessary to tell all the members of the west coast gathering list that she is no longer attending any gatherings. If you dont want to invite her, you could just not invite her, and not tell everyone; hey look at this person here, she is no longer attending or hosting any west coast gatherings. Is the point of this public announcement to the email list to make sure no one invites her? Couldn't this be accomplished just by telling karen directly, and not telling everyone?

My ignorant assumption is that even though you're not supposed to tell anyone else where an event is, if you've known someone to be going for a long time you'll tell them anyway.

 

[LindyHopper]

All right, I think I've lurked for long enough. 😉

Wow. Hey everybody! How's it going? I hope everyone is doing well...

I'm sorry. This is a stupid time for small talk. It's just hard to know where to start. 😱 There's just so much for me to say.

Advance edit: In fact, this post has gone on WAY longer than I ever intended! 😛 So for those of you who, quite understandably, don't want to read the whole paper, here's the abstract:

I have been informed, by Dave, that I am no longer welcome at West Coast Gatherings events. I was given no opportunity to refute the charges against me, because Dave refuses to tell me what they are. I have my suspicions that all of this entire situation is due to conflicts of a personal nature that people have been unable to resolve in the manner of mature adults. This is regrettable, because our local community, and the people in it, are suffering as a result.

And now, the long version, director's cut! You might want to get a beer. 😉


I think the first constructive thing I can do is to try my best to shed some light on the current situation, at least from my perspective. So, to address Dave's assertions:

You'll have to ask Karen that [why she's been banned from all West Coast Gatherings events]. It really shouldn't be difficult for you, as her husband. I'm actually amazed that you don't already know the details of this, intimately.

So, that's really the thing. None of us know the details of what you perceive has gone so wrong.

A couple of weeks ago, I sent you an e-mail, so you could forward it to the list, announcing our next gathering. It was supposed to have been on June 9... and sure, that was derailed for reasons that had nothing to do with anything, but that was when I initiated contact with you.

Your reply to me stated that I was no longer welcome at "your" events. This came as quite a shock to me, because I hadn't heard a peep of dissatisfaction from anyone, in many months. You wrote, "Until you can explain to me why you feel your actions of the last several months are acceptable, and the insult below are explained to me to my satisfaction, this will be a point of separation for us."

When I wrote back to you, I asked you several times, in many ways, what insult, and what actions? I hoped to make amends and repair any damage that I might have done, to you or to anyone else. I couldn't explain my actions or apologize if I didn't know who was upset or why. But you refused to answer my most simple and direct of questions, much as you are doing on this thread. Essentially, you told me, "If you don't understand why I'm so upset, I'm certainly not going to tell you. And if you can't figure it out, you don't deserve to host or attend events."

And that was it. You prohibited me from attending future West Coast Gatherings events, out of the blue, without a word of advance warning or any suggestion that there was something going wrong that I should fix. The fact that you've apparently been building a case against me for months makes this even more hurtful. And because you refuse to elaborate on the charges against me, I still don't know why.

I won't be part of an online negation of a former host. If she wants that posted, she'll post it. If she and I disagree there, then I'll disagree there.

I won't claim that I haven't made mistakes as a host. In fact, I really appreciate that people like Aquafeline and Phineas have been so forthright with me in the past when something happened that made them uncomfortable. We talked through these issues, came to an understanding, and proceeded from there. I feel that through these honest conversations, we were able to resolve our issues and continue enjoying our events on good terms. Their contributions to this thread suggests that they agree.

Did you see any objectionable behavior at either of the events that you attended since you've been back on the west coast? I don't believe that you did. So exactly what was it that you found unacceptable?

Indeed, I don't honest understand why she'd want to host my events. This thread could pass the size of the largest thread in this forum, and I'll still be asking the same question - Given that she's said to me, in February, that she could run events of her own, and that you'd help with her mail list, why is it MY responsibility to arrange this?

I've spent a mind-boggling amount of time trying to clarify this with you, and it doesn't seem to have worked. Let me try again.

The conversation you mentioned, a.k.a. The Great Insult of February 2007, was born of my concerns regarding effective communication about our events within this community. There were various people posting in the Gatherings section, or contacting Ed or Sarah, because they'd sent e-mail to your aol account and received no response from you. When Bagelfather and I were in the final planning stages of a weekend-long gathering in the Santa Cruz mountains, we were unable to send a reminder e-mail to the Gatherings list because your computer failed and you didn't have a backup for the list. When it took you three tries to send out my February munch annoucement with the correct date on it, I decided something needed to be done, and I suggested that the West Coast Gatherings list would do well with a little modernization and distribution of responsibilities.

I said that I would be happy to help, because I've been doing a good job organizing events for our local tickling community. And no matter how many times I try to tell you that it's simply not true, you persist in viewing The Great Insult as my attempt to take over your fiefdom, or else an expression of my desire to strike out on my own. That's not what it was. It was my attempt to serve this community better by communicating with them more directly. I don't think I'll ever understand why you take such great offense at perfectly reasonable suggestions like the ones that I made.

So... based on what little information I have at this point, all I can conclude is that my ban was based on 1) a perceived insult to you personally, or 2) a grievance from a guest that was never communicated to me, and thus awfully hard for me to do anything to fix.

I can see you'd like things to be different for me than they are. That won't change my perspective. It IS my decision to make. That it's supported by the rest of the hosts and cohosts of the West Coast Gatherings helps me with the decision.

Okay... as far as I know, aside from Ed, and now you, that group consists of Steph, Ter, and Bellystrokes. Am I forgetting anyone?

I assume they're basing their support of my ban on something. As to what, I can say that I haven't seen Steph in over two years, and as far as I can recall, we've never even spoken. I haven't seen Ter in nearly as long. Neither of them have ever attended an event that Ed and I hosted together. The last time I've seen Bellystrokes was at the Bagelfather's gathering in November of 2005. Now that I think about it, I wasn't even hosting then - Bagel and starfires pulled that party off all by themselves (and what an extraordinary job they did!).

So if they're so supportive of my ban... that leads me to wonder if there's a grievance there, years old at this point, that no one ever told me about. If that's the case, I feel terribly about that, especially if that's the reason that they've stayed away. I think we could've been having a lot of fun together all this time, and had a cohesive community to show for it, rather than the mess we have now.


Okay, this has already gone on a lot longer than I intended, so... before I sign off, I want to thank everyone who's stood by me during this difficult time, in person, by phone, by e-mail and PM, and now on this thread. I appreciate everything you've done here, not just for me, but for this community. I think your actions really do prove that our little community is stronger than any one person.

Thanks again to all... and I'll try not to wait another three pages before I chime in again. 😉

 

[dvnc]

Oops, didn't catch Karen's post. Don't change much, really.

Karen, at this point, with communications exchanged, if you don't understand, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm disappointed, given your expertise. I also know you to be an adult. Host your own event. Get used to this situation. It won't change.

For the rest:

So far, seeing that I still manage the list, no one here is registering their complaint by removing themselves from these events.

West Coast Gatherings aren't any less private than they were yesterday, last week, last year, or at the beginning.

Anyone can host their own event.

Karen's future absence was announced as she was a host, and I had expected that SOMEONE would miss her. So far, I would say I'm accurate there.

If you don't like the events, don't attend, people. It's not mandatory. Seriously. I'm not the only possibility here. YOU can host. The rest can attend your event.

I still wonder why it's such a monumental deal that someone need be part of MY event.

No one asked about those who declared mistreatment. All I'm hearing, here, is how several of you find her to be a great host. I'm NOT saying she didn't rock your world. I'm saying that she's no longer hosting MY events. It means only that she has to host her own. As you're capable of posting, you can post PMs to her. From several declarations, you're already in touch via email.

Attend her events. She has a home. Can host if she wishes. At this point, with such comtempt shown, I'm disappointed you all haven't withdrawn your name from the West Coast Gatherings list. None of you are hosts, thus this, like the many who've left in the last year alone, will not be mentioned. I mention hosts as it affects several, well and poorly alike.

Ed stepped away of his own accord. Talk to Ed.

Karen is no longer attending. Talk to Karen.

If you dislike this, don't attend Seriously. It's your RIGHT to choose.

Do get used to hearing where demanding explanations earns nothing. She's not attending my events. Means that you, if you've an OUNCE of loyalty to her, shouldn't attend, either. You owe ME no loyalty. Follow your loyalties Attend with her. I want this for you.

 

[AquaFeline]

So far, seeing that I still manage the list, no one here is registering their complaint by removing themselves from these events.
Do get used to hearing where demanding explanations earns nothing. She's not attending my events. Means that you, if you've an OUNCE of loyalty, shouldn't attend, either. You owe ME no loyalty. Follow your loyalties Attend with her. I want this for you.

OK, I'm asking to be removed. Not because of "loyalty" (I'm OK with the original action, even if the execution was suboptimal in my opinion) but because I don't want to be involved in a pissing/ popularity contest, exactly what I was trying to defuse. Thanks.

EDIT: Didn't say exactly what I was thinking

 

[simulated]

So far, seeing that I still manage the list, no one here is registering their complaint by removing themselves from these events.

You see, reasonable adults don't pack up and leave when they feel they've been wronged. They work to try and sort out any misunderstandings in an amicable fashion, and straight up cutting off contact is a last resort.

Karen's future absence was announced as she was a host, and I had expected that SOMEONE would miss her. So far, I would say I'm accurate there.

I'm still waiting to hear from someone who wouldn't miss her, save the afformentioned. All I've seen so far is support.

If you don't like the events, don't attend, people. It's not mandatory. Seriously. I'm not the only possibility here. YOU can host. The rest can attend your event.

I still wonder why it's such a monumental deal that someone need be part of MY event.

No one asked about those who declared mistreatment. All I'm hearing, here, is how several of you find her to be a great host. I'm NOT saying she didn't rock your world. I'm saying that she's no longer hosting MY events. It means only that she has to host her own. As you're capable of posting, you can post PMs to her. From several declarations, you're already in touch via email.

Attend her events. She has a home. Can host if she wishes. At this point, with such comtempt shown, I'm disappointed you all haven't withdrawn your name from the West Coast Gatherings list. None of you are hosts, thus this, like the many who've left in the last year alone, will not be mentioned. I mention hosts as it affects several, well and poorly alike.

Who's shown contempt? You mention "all." I know I'm pretty much dead to you now, by all appearances, but I knew that would happen when I started this thread. Take one for the team, you know...

However, you say all. I figure you're not referring to Aquafeline or bellystrokes, which leaves Spiffytickler, dailyfan, phineas, baubaloo, and tyklfynd. And if you're accusing them of showing contempt, there's more of a problem here than I anticipated.

And what it really comes down to is, as Phineas so aptly put it,

"The other thing that is causing confusion is that I was under the impression that West Coast Gatherings was simply a mailing list that was a convenience for the various hosts of gatherings to coordinate and keep everyone in the loop. I had no idea it was franchised, like Hot Dog on a Stick, or something, and that there's a difference between a west coast gathering and a West Coast Gathering. I'll bet dollars to donuts I'm not the only one."

Seriously, you'd be hard pressed to find someone with no background in this group who, after reading this thread, would want to go to one of 'your' events. You don't seem to realize how poorly you're coming off here. The issue is, well, what Phineas said.

Ed stepped away of his own accord. Ask Ed.

Karen is no longer attending. Ask Karen.

If you dislike this, don't attend Seriously. It's your RIGHT to choose.

Do get used to hearing where demanding explanations earns nothing. She's not attending my events. Means that you, if you've an OUNCE of loyalty, shouldn't attend, either. You owe ME no loyalty. Follow your loyalties Attend with her. I want this for you.

THIS ISN'T A F'N POPULARITY CONTEST. Goddamn, I thought we got over those after high school.

 

[dvnc]

You missed the part where it was astutely mentioned that positive info isn't posted in such situations. Again, opt out.

After high school, in social situations where you didn't find things appropriate, if you don't find things to your satisfaction, and can find no explanation to suit, you leave. I hear you saying exactly this - you're unsatisfied. ExistentialFeline was bold enough to state she's out. Since I know her, and her email address, I've done her the courtesy of removing her from the mailing list and mailing her to notify her that her request was executed.

Mail in and show your support for your preferred host. Demand to be removed. AquaFeline did. I personally admire where she's bold enough to stand by her beliefs.

 

[AquaFeline]

Mail in and show your support for your preferred host. Demand to be removed. AquaFeline did. I personally admire where she's bold enough to stand by her beliefs.

I am not showing support for a preferred host. I am showing my lack of support for the entire situation.

It saddens me how things are playing out.

For the record, I don't believe anyone is beyond changing behavior if approached in the right way. I'm wondering if this all came about because of a lot of talking and not much listening.

 

[Floydie]

"The other thing that is causing confusion is that I was under the impression that West Coast Gatherings was simply a mailing list that was a convenience for the various hosts of gatherings to coordinate and keep everyone in the loop. I had no idea it was franchised, like Hot Dog on a Stick, or something, and that there's a difference between a west coast gathering and a West Coast Gathering. I'll bet dollars to donuts I'm not the only one."

Without getting dragged into this dispute (I am not a member of any 'scene' or 'group') ...

And from my own (long-term) experience in 'alternative' sexual worlds ...

And in my opinion only ...


If my name was on a fetish list of ANY kind, and that list was given to anyone else, for whatever reason, even with the best of intentions, I would be mighty pissed off.

Privacy is paramount for me. Trust in someone who runs parties or clubs or any regular event takes time to build, and the concern for the attendees of such events is what gains respect in my book.

That's it. That's the main thing that jumped out of all of this for me.

Best of luck to everyone here. There is room for all sorts of events!

Lisha

 

[simulated]

Without getting dragged into this dispute (I am not a member of any 'scene' or 'group') ...

And from my own (long-term) experience in 'alternative' sexual worlds ...

And in my opinion only ...


If my name was on a fetish list of ANY kind, and that list was given to anyone else, for whatever reason, even with the best of intentions, I would be mighty pissed off.

Privacy is paramount for me. Trust in someone who runs parties or clubs or any regular event takes time to build, and the concern for the attendees of such events is what gains respect in my book.

That's it. That's the main thing that jumped out of all of this for me.

Best of luck to everyone here. There is room for all sorts of events!

Lisha

Oh, I totally understand that, and I too would be pissed. However, sending out an email to an existing list saying hey, these people over here are hosting events that may be in your area, you can contact them here, in no way betrays that trust.

 

[simulated]

You missed the part where it was astutely mentioned that positive info isn't posted in such situations. Again, opt out.

After high school, in social situations where you didn't find things appropriate, if you don't find things to your satisfaction, and can find no explanation to suit, you leave. I hear you saying exactly this - you're unsatisfied. AquaFeline was bold enough to state she's out. Since I know her, and her email address, I've done her the courtesy of removing her from the mailing list and mailing her to notify her that her request was executed.

If I was an outsider who had just attended my first event and found it not to my liking, there is no way I'd kick up a fuss, as I'd have no right to. But when you're a preexisting part of a group that you care about, the correct course of action is to try and talk it out and work through the issues that come up.

I also don't like the jab at my age and experience. I assure you it's been shown to be a non-issue in this case.

Mail in and show your support for your preferred host. Demand to be removed. AquaFeline did. I personally admire where she's bold enough to stand by her beliefs.

Did you miss my big, all caps statement about popularity contests? Shall I bold it this time?

 

[AquaFeline]

If I was an outsider who had just attended my first event and found it not to my liking, there is no way I'd kick up a fuss, as I'd have no right to.

I dunno, I don't want a fuss, but I'd still like to hear why it wasn't to their liking.

 

[simulated]

I dunno, I don't want a fuss, but I'd still like to hear why it wasn't to their liking.

Agreed, I think my point got a bit muddled.

 

[Floydie]

Oh, I totally understand that, and I too would be pissed. However, sending out an email to an existing list saying hey, these people over here are hosting events that may be in your area, you can contact them here, in no way betrays that trust.

Hi simulated,

Yes, I agree. You make a good suggestion here.

For me, I look at the *intention* behind the actions. From what I can glean, the intention here was to look after the best interests of the attendees. That can't be a bad thing. It doesn't really matter if we agree with the style of the gathering or not. The intention behind all this is our safety and enjoyment. And to continue to hold on to that in the face of all this adversity shows strength. Which, for me, means that I would feel safe at such a gathering.

Again, I am only speaking for myself here.

Lisha

 

[SpiffyTickler]

This thread has gone through 3 pages and we still don't have any substantive information about whats going on.

I don't think anyone here is looking to involve themselves in some petty rivalry, if that's even what it is. We just want some answers, like why we can't be mature, rational adults and discuss the situation as a community. Doing anything less than that would not be keeping the communities interests in mind, no matter what is claimed.

 

[LindyHopper]

Do get used to hearing where demanding explanations earns nothing. She's not attending my events. Means that you, if you've an OUNCE of loyalty to her, shouldn't attend, either. You owe ME no loyalty. Follow your loyalties Attend with her. I want this for you.

Mail in and show your support for your preferred host. Demand to be removed. AquaFeline did. I personally admire where she's bold enough to stand by her beliefs.

Okay... I'm barely awake right now, but I wanted to say one thing before this gets any farther out of hand.

I'm grateful to have so many good friends, but I want to make sure that I'm clear on something important. I've never asked any of you for your loyalty, especially not this "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" kind of nonsense. I appreciate that so many of you have stood up for what you believe is in the best interests of our little community. To the extent that you see me in that picture, I'm grateful, and I'll try to be worthy of the trust that you're placing in me.

But there is absolutely no reason that any of you, community members in good standing, who are accused of no crime other than asking questions and expressing your honest opinion, should be cut off from the West Coast Gatherings list. You should be free to attend Steph's events in Sacramento, Bellystroke's events in L.A., or Dave's events in San Jose if you want to.

If you wish to be removed from Dave's list because you don't like what you're seeing here, that totally makes sense. But please, do not for one second think that I would ever ask you to make such a choice. I only care about what's best for all of you, and clearly, that is to go wherever you want, and meet whomever you choose.

It's like I told another friend recently: anyone who asks you to choose between friends cares more about himself than he does about you. Please... I urge you to seek Door Number 3. 😉

 

[Wirchler]

I don't get it....

Like it says... There is not one whit of information in this ENTIRE thread that I could see, that explains ANYTHING specifically. Karen is no longer attending West Coast Gathering events, but she's still hosting Bay Area events, which last time I looked were still on the west coast.

I'm willing to take it in a private message and not on the thread, but could someone PLEASE tell me what the hell is going on? Karen and Dave were two of the first people I met, when I first discovered I wasn't alone in this community of ours. I like them both, I respect them both, and this back and forth bulls**t, is driving me crazy.

I left the scene(s) more than a year ago, not due to any one person, but because I had it put into my head that all of this 'stuff' that I enjoyed was wrong, and that I needed to fix myself.

So, I was happy to start getting in touch with old friends, and had made good progress on that path, and suddenly, half the people I wanted to contact aren't welcome anymore, or are fighting over who gets to host what, where, and with who.

Dammit, I'm healthy, human, and over 21. I can attend wherever I'd like, and I'm not afraid OR ashamed to tell anyone if I don't like something, and if they're offended by my comments, then I simply won't bother to attend that particular event/gathering/party or whatever you want to call it.

The point is, i suppose, that we're supposed to be a community, but it doesn't seem like we're ACTING like one.

That's my .03 worth.

Wirchler

 

[dvnc]

I dunno, I don't want a fuss, but I'd still like to hear why it wasn't to their liking.

Here's a great reality - people who drop are welcome to speak. I have yet to see such happen for ANY event. I keep trusts for a large number of people on a list. I'm not breaking their trust. I'm just bummed that folks got to where they quietly slipped out.

I'd rather see some angry at my choice of wording. If simulated is upset that I chose to mention that he's got two years of experience with this, so be it. I'm old. He's not. If he finds that derisive, can't help that. It DOES show some experience missing in how these events have been shaped.

I didn't make this up all by myself, after all. Munches existed before I ever used that term (Palo Alto's burgermunch was where I found the term useful). Play parties divide a community as small as ours when folks aren't desirous of the extremes. True in all California sites on my list. Polled this before, years back, rather than assume anything further. The original observation was that, given that folks want to play, but don't want to be overwhelmed, it was best to screen a list and assure privacy, then gather folks together privately, by invite. Gatherings. That was my original notion, and it holds true today.

Rules were set for these, based on feedback from several. People got their knickers in a twist 'cause of nudity (to be honest, kinked as I am, *I* was surprised to see the lady topless spontaneously). I had complaints from that event, and quietly added the mention of nudity to the questionairre.

None of this occurred in a vacuum.

People

deserve

privacy.

Thus, the only way you'll see that people leave is when they announce it here. As this ain't a popularity contest, folks aren't harrassed when they won't show to events, or when they want to drop. Quietly handled.

As there's other events worldwide, and a host who can host what was preferred by a number of posts here, I still suggest you folks do what you do with Karen. I'll ever suggest this.

Why isn't Karen attending? She just posted, acknowledging this thread, so ask her. I personally suggest PM.

I also still suggest that those that are so totally displeased with the way that my list is managed really deserve, for themselves, to opt out. Request removal. AquaFeline did so openly. She doesn't want to be part of this. Nothing WRONG with that.

I run a list for hosting events for the West Coast Gatherings. It's not a community. At the events, the people you meet are part of the tickling community. You're speaking to them, here. You HAVE your community speaking, here, and precious few are actually involved in this discussion, including the rest of the hosts.

Karen deserves that privacy, and I've yet to see her state that she wants this open for discussion and debate. Even then, I'll give my views on such, but will not discuss the names of those giving opinions privately to me. They can post their own, here.

I notice that most haven't. I've a smaller number of you arguing than I'd figured. I've one person objecting enough to remove themselves.

The rest of you are simply objecting. So noted. You object publicly. Got it.

It doesn't change that the hosts in San Jose have changed. My apologies to you for the offense I apparently have provided. Doesn't change my intent, or it's result.

 

[AquaFeline]

I believe simulated and I see the WCG list as a psuedo public entity because of the following:

a) The parties, in our memory, have not been run by Dave.
b) Dave did not comment much on the parties / gatherings / etc as far as I can recall. He has screened people, sent out emails, and taken responses, but wasn't involved personally (or rather, personably involved.)

A lot of private websites, private clubs are pseudo public in that they have a right to kick you, edit your posts, etc. but generally don't without good reason.

For example, this website. People break the rules of the website and their posts are edited or the users are banned. When someone is banned, I have an expectation that we'll at least be told that the rules were broken, maybe even which rule was broken. Because of privacy I wouldn't necessarily expect to know the exact details.

Banning people without explanation in a pseudo public place, well, means it's not pseudo public anymore. That puts people off if they were expecting personal preferences to be left out of the equation. Also knowing that people are banned for breaking the rules can act as an incentive for others to follow the rules.

Now that Dave is back in the area my understanding is he is no longer going to run the list as a pseudo public entity (he probably never meant to, but that was how it was de facto.) So what I'm hearing is that he doesn't feel he owes us any explanation.

It saddens me he doesn't even want to say that his rules were broken. Entirely in his perogative, but damned confusing for all of us who weren't around when he was and it's not fair to expect us to just immediately accept and understand the switch.

 

[AquaFeline]

But there is absolutely no reason that any of you, community members in good standing, who are accused of no crime other than asking questions and expressing your honest opinion, should be cut off from the West Coast Gatherings list. You should be free to attend Steph's events in Sacramento, Bellystroke's events in L.A., or Dave's events in San Jose if you want to.

If you wish to be removed from Dave's list because you don't like what you're seeing here, that totally makes sense. But please, do not for one second think that I would ever ask you to make such a choice. I only care about what's best for all of you, and clearly, that is to go wherever you want, and meet whomever you choose.

It's like I told another friend recently: anyone who asks you to choose between friends cares more about himself than he does about you. Please... I urge you to seek Door Number 3. 😉

He's not removing others from the list, so the first paragraph isn't an issue.

We were not asked to choose between friends, but rather hosts.

If you care about what's best for all of us, it would be best if you resolved whatever issues are there with other said hosts. I don't know if I count as a host (all I hosted was a few munches) but I can tell you off-line what my views are. I won't say here.