Misgivings about the current direction of gatherings in the Bay Area

[WhiteToad]

If by "banned" you mean she's no longer attending my events, this is true. She's no longer attending my events.

If she doesn't understand, it's between her and I. As she and I have already exchanged mails on this, and I've no further mails awaiting on this from her, it's resolved. I don't disclose such mails.

I do acknowledge where you and a few in this thread think this should be announced here. I disagree, hence it's not. My apologies to all this offends, as this is not my intention or desire. I don't wish to open private discussions for all. Mine is a private gathering. Much private data.

Part of why I have the attendee list I do is for precisely this reason. I keep people's private date private. This won't be changing.

From what I've gathered it's not resolved.

 

[dvnc]

From what I've gathered it's not resolved.

Sadly, not all resolutions in the world are multilateral. Sometimes, a problem is resolved by one person deciding not to deal with the actions of another. I chose this. I choose it still. I've no interest in debate with anyone about my decision, as I know that, as a person with her own friends, she can meet with them at her will. There's enough, even in this thread, to support a gathering wholly separate from mine.

As LA Gathering had done, there's General Western Gatherings in which to post.

You can host. Post your announcements there. Meet others. Folks do it nationwide, and in England and Australia. If they can, she can, as I did.

When you don't agree with someone, and choose to deal with them no more, that IS a resolution. It's not desirable for ANYONE. I didn't like it. You don't like it. Several people in this thread don't like it.

It's unfortunate. It is as it is, though. It will remain as it is now.

 

[WhiteToad]

Sadly, not all resolutions in the world are multilateral. Sometimes, a problem is resolved by one person deciding not to deal with the actions of another. I chose this. I choose it still. I've no interest in debate with anyone about my decision, as I know that, as a person with her own friends, she can meet with them at her will. There's enough, even in this thread, to support a gathering wholly separate from mine.

As LA Gathering had done, there's General Western Gatherings in which to post.

You can host. Post your announcements there. Meet others. Folks do it nationwide, and in England and Australia. If they can, she can, as I did.

When you don't agree with someone, and choose to deal with them no more, that IS a resolution. It's not desirable for ANYONE. I didn't like it. You don't like it. Several people in this thread don't like it.

It's unfortunate. It is as it is, though. It will remain as it is now.

This isn't a resolution. This is simply you ignoring the problem. I think your avoiding the question because of the consequences your answer will bring. As you can see avoiding this problem has already brought you unfavorable consequences. People are refusing to attend.

 

[dvnc]

This isn't a resolution. This is simply you ignoring the problem. I think your avoiding the question because of the consequences your answer will bring. As you can see avoiding this problem has already brought you unfavorable consequences. People are refusing to attend.

We disagree. I see it as a resolution, you don't.

Perhaps you're thinking of a MUTUAL resolution. Clearly, what you describe isn't mutual.

There are indeed consequences. Action and reaction. It's the nature of the world. I do have two people who've removed themselves from attendance. This is sad. Adults get to choose what they wish to do, though.

I'm certain you're correct that some folks will be disappointed with the way this happened, or the way they perceive that it happened, and will not join. That's unfortunate, too. I don't control this, and honestly don't want to.

I want to take a home on a hill with a lot of rooms and a splendid view. I don't get to do this. We all face things outside of our control. I don't get to control how you respond to this. Likewise, you don't get to control how I respond. There are few situations where this isn't true.

This isn't one of them.

 

[WhiteToad]

We disagree. I see it as a resolution, you don't.

Perhaps you're thinking of a MUTUAL resolution. Clearly, what you describe isn't mutual.

There are indeed consequences. Action and reaction. It's the nature of the world. I do have two people who've removed themselves from attendance. This is sad. Adults get to choose what they wish to do, though.

I'm certain you're correct that some folks will be disappointed with the way this happened, or the way they perceive that it happened, and will not join. That's unfortunate, too. I don't control this, and honestly don't want to.

I want to take a home on a hill with a lot of rooms and a splendid view. I don't get to do this. We all face things outside of our control. I don't get to control how you respond to this. Likewise, you don't get to control how I respond. There are few situations where this isn't true.

This isn't one of them.

But when your decision directly effects another than that's where your resolution dissolves because they might not let you forget. They might keep hounding you until you finally give them the answer they deserve.

Let me ask you this. Did you honestly give Karen a reason why she isn't allowed to attend future gatherings? Did you list the events that took place that led up to this decision?

 

[Redmage]

If I, for whatever reason, had to step away from hosting duties of my own events and I selected someone I thought to be trust-worthy to fill in for me, I would expect them to hold up every guideline I currently base my events on without question. If I then learned that they broke several rules of those very guidelines in which my events were based, and I was losing long standing regulars from my events because this person took the gatherings in a whole new direction that many found objectionable or offensive, then you can damn well bet I would remove their hosting priveledges immediately. ...

So why the hell is this turning into a playground brawl when the solution is sitting right there on the table for all to see and act on? This isn't rocket science.

I'd like to suggest that, assuming that all of this were actually the case, then it probably wouldn't be unreasonable to say that the person in question could no longer host your events, Mimi. But I think you'll agree that it's a step beyond that to say that this person cannot even attend your events. And that is assuming that everything in the situation is exactly the way one side perceives it, and that the other side's position is completely without merit, not even worthy of discussion or examination.

I think you'll also agree that matters are almost never this clear-cut.

I'd say very broadly there is little question about Dave's right to run his events as he sees fit. I think at the beginning of this thread there were a few people who hadn't fully appreciated the ownership issues involved in the West Coast Gatherings, but I think that was clarified almost immediately and is no longer really on the table. Dave has every right to make such decisions. But there still remains each person's need to decide whether or not he or she can continue to participate in those events under that style of management, and for some people that's a question they need to address through open discussion. I'd like to suggest that trivializing or ignoring that need does a disservice to the people involved.

More generally, Dave, Mimi, and Bella, I'm a little puzzled by the approach that I'm seeing here. I understand the wish to support a friend, do I ever. But at least to me it seems, well, careless to frame my support in such a way that I simply assume the validity of one side or another in a situation that I see, at best, from a great distance away. When those who are dealing with it up close and personal are obviously having trouble working it all through, I would be very reluctant to walk in and declare that it was a clear-cut matter that they shouldn't even be worried about. If it were truly that simple then I would expect them to see that before I did.

It's one thing to say that someone is entitled to make a certain decision. It's something else to say, from a distance, that a decision is clearly right or wrong based solely on who is making it.

Just a few thoughts that I had to get off my chest.

 

[dvnc]

But when your decision directly effects another than that's where your resolution dissolves because they might not let you forget. They might keep hounding you until you finally give them the answer they deserve.

Let me ask you this. Did you honestly give Karen a reason why she isn't allowed to attend future gatherings? Did you list the events that took place that led up to this decision?

This might be true.

I'm still not discussing aspects of that private conversation.

 

[WhiteToad]

This might be true.

I'm still not discussing aspects of that private conversation.

Well I respect that decision. I just hope everything works out for Karen and you.

 

[dvnc]

Thank you kindly.

 

[AquaFeline]

redmage,

application of occam's razor, in as much as it can be applied to social situations, and some kind of cost-benefit analysis of your own needs is useful.

 

[NorCaliTickle]

where is the love ya'll...anyways thanks dvnc for changing my email

 

[bellystrokes]

where is the love ya'll...anyways thanks dvnc for changing my email

Wow, what a lovely surprise to pop in and see this pix of this handsome guy!!!!!

 

[LVTicklr]

Well I respect that decision. I just hope everything works out for Karen and you.

I just hope so,too(for the sake of both the West Coast Gatherings attendees and the California tickling community).

 

[starfires]

postmortem analysis and moving forward

Ok, so we've got ourselves a dead horse. There's enough left for a couple more pages of beating. Meanwhile I'll take a stab at figuring out what just happened and why, and what can be done better next time.

Issue 1: misconceptions and clarifications
There appear to be several common misconceptions about what West Coast Gatherings is and is not. From the name and the prominence of the list, to an outsider it looks like a general community list for the geographical are of the west coast of America. As Phineas put it,

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 know this is true for me. Until a conversation with dvnc a few weeks ago, I was under the impression that he held this list in stewardship/regency/trust for the collection of hosts on the west coast. I know now that this is not the case. This general misconception leads to several corollaries, including these:
A. Joining the list is a right, not a privilege. Unless one is shown to be an axe murderer or otherwise socially unacceptable, Joe Random has a reasonable expectation of being allowed in. Conversely, removal from the list completely excludes the target from the local tickling events. Disputes about membership are subject to arbitration by the community.
B. An event called a "gathering" is a pseudo-public event, and anybody who is on the list is invited to attend.
C. Anybody who hosts tickling events in the geographical area known as the west coast has a say in the way this list is run.
D. Anybody who hosts tickling events in this geographical area without the blessing of the list administrator(s) is stepping on said administrators' toes.

Whereas the actual facts are as follows (dvnc, please correct me if I am wrong):
West Coast Gatherings is a list held and run by dvnc, for the purpose of facilitating events that are run in a certain format and held to a certain standard, both set by dvnc, and which have become his trademark over the past ten years. In other words, this list is, in fact, a franchise governed personally by dvnc. Therefore:
A. Joining the list is not a right. dvnc will accept or reject anybody for his own reasons, which he does not have to explain. His decision applies to his list only, and does not affect any other events anywhere, even if hosted by the same people that occasionally host West Coast Gathering events.
B. The term "gathering" implies no guarantees of inclusion whatsoever.
C. The hosts are usually have advisory voice, ability to share experiences, etc., but no actual "vote" in the running of the list. Furthermore, ability to host events under the West Coast Gathering franchise at all is a privelege, not a right, and dvnc gets the final say on who gets to do so and who does not.
D. Anybody is welcome to host events on the west coast in any format they wish, as long as they don't call them "West Coast Gathering" (capitalized), without any negative response from dvnc.

2. legitimacy and power

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

Several reasons. Firstly, because of the misconception from above that YOUR events are THE events.
Secondly, because your events are popular: to see what I mean, just compare the number of recent posts under the "General Western Gatherings" subforum versus "West Coast Gatherings". You'll see that your subforum gets more traffic by a factor of 6 or 7. Why is this? Maybe (probably) it's because you are doing something right, and have been for the last 10 years or more.
Regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that people perceive you as an authority, which gives you power. For example, the public exclusion of Karen from your events will probably cause other hosts, technically unaffiliated with West Coast Gatherings, to exclude her as well, even though they know nothing of the reasons for your decision: they trust your judgement. However, nobody elected you, so you are not responsible to anybody on that account. Whether you get the responsibility simply by virtue of having the power, is open to drawn out philosophical debate, which is beyond the scope of this thread.
My point is that whether asked for it or not, your actions have far-reaching consequences.

3. criticism and loyalty

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

I hope I am misinterpreting this statement. Do you mean that you will not accept complaints in any form other than a request to be removed? What about requests or suggestions? Also, do you interpret the desire of an individual to remain on your list as active support for your decision(s)?

4. my suggestions
Assuming that you are willing to consider suggestions without an accompanying withdrawal from your list:

For point 1, I think it behooves you to go to greater lengths than you have in the past, to make it clear to the community that your list is, in fact, yours (as opposed to a community effort). Adding a description to this effect to the "West Coast Gatherings" forum subtitle would be a start.

Also, during the same conversation I mentioned above, you described certain standards and practices that your events usually entail (I will go into more detail if you wish). If this list is a franchise, I suggest you run it as such, complete with a Three Ring Binder[1] containing these standards and practices, that would be given to prospective West Coast Gatherings hosts. This would prescribe the responsibilities of the hosts above and beyond the enforcement of the set of rules given out to all the guests at the gatherings. Having never been a primary host, I don't know if there is already such a document. If so, consider the comment withdrawn.

[size=-2][1] This is a literary reference. It doesn't have to be a binder, or any physical object at all.[/size]

For point 2 (specifically, the exclusion of Karen from non-WCG events), I suggest that the two of you get together and come up with a statement of either a mutually agreed upon list of the actions that got Karen kicked off, or both your opinions separately. This statement could then be sent to other hosts, by mutual consent, should they inquire about the details with intent to make their own informed decision to exclude Karen or not.

Finally, as a gesture of good will, I suggest mentioning it to your list members when other lists they might be interested in start up in their area, and giving them the contact info that they can use to apply to those new lists.

 

[dvnc]

Ok, so we've got ourselves a dead horse...

Yep.

In answer, though:
1. Your analysis of what I do (quoted below) is mostly correct. Inclusion of attendees is a goal, but there are individuals who aren't welcome (a child molester named Mike from the first year of the event comes to mind), and some folks join and leave, asking to be off the mailing list (a fellow I miss from Sac comes to mind, who married and stepped away).

West Coast Gatherings is a list held and run by dvnc, for the purpose of facilitating events that are run in a certain format and held to a certain standard, both set by dvnc, and which have become his trademark over the past ten years. In other words, this list is, in fact, a franchise governed personally by dvnc. Therefore:
A. Joining the list is not a right. dvnc will accept or reject anybody for his own reasons, which he does not have to explain. His decision applies to his list only, and does not affect any other events anywhere, even if hosted by the same people that occasionally host West Coast Gathering events.
B. The term "gathering" implies no guarantees of inclusion whatsoever.
C. The hosts are usually have advisory voice, ability to share experiences, etc., but no actual "vote" in the running of the list. Furthermore, ability to host events under the West Coast Gathering franchise at all is a privelege, not a right, and dvnc gets the final say on who gets to do so and who does not.
D. Anybody is welcome to host events on the west coast in any format they wish, as long as they don't call them "West Coast Gathering" (capitalized), without any negative response from dvnc.

2. Up until this whole ridiculous thread, it was a simple understand that she was no longer attending. *I* did not make the SLIGHTEST effort to malign the lady, and still wish the folks beating this horse had stopped promptly, and that she'd lended it no credence.

I can do NOTHING about the opinions of folks who know me, and don't have the right to change their minds

3. I received, before this public debacle, mail from only ONE person concerning this interaction, besides Karen. Since, I've heard from three others, of whom one still hasn't decided my actions merit shunning my events.

It's not REQUIRED, man. I just don't understand why anyone complaining vehemently about Karen not attending would deign to give me their time, attention, support and participation.

Thus, your hopes are met.

I do, though, view remaining on my list as support of how I run the West Coast Gatherings. Not supporting how they are run, yet attending, doesn't communicate that I'm mistaken. Apart from direct communciation (text or voice), removing oneself from the events is the simplest means, and in my opinion, the easiest.

4. If you check the suggestions area, I have already heeded a mention from Icycle where he wants a subhead about West Coast Gatherings stating they are my events. Myriads is aware of this, and knows I support whatever he sees as right.

I *will* go back to using my rules mail for each event. Events do have varying rules (as when, for instance, at a bondage club, the rules will differ from a person's home). Rules are announced, and amongst those attending before I had moved away and back, rule were understood after so many years of repeating them, in text of the mail that gives the directions to the event, and in host's participation AT the events. I respect where you suggest this. Was already doing this as of the last Sac event.

Perhaps I should circulate the standard structure again, though. I'll consider this in the next event announcement.

How I deal with other hosts and how Karen deals with other hosts are individual. I don't tell her how to run her personal life, and don't wish to have such done to me. That, sir, is personal.

I actually have, at the request of other hosts, mentioned their events. I've not had a host ask this of me in a while. All hosts are all able to announce on the TMF, and it's simple to support them here. This is still my preferred method.

Max didn't have to have me push NEST on my list, and he does just fine. GLAT does just fine. Etc.

You give me more credit than I believe I'm due. People who NEVER KNEW ME have hosted successfully. Karen knew me. Knows how I do events. Has chosen a different path than mine. Folks who want that will attend her events. Look at this horse, brother, and note several men who will attend.

Most of them have not deigned to drop from my list either, and you'll not notice me "banning" someone for their friendships. Bagelfather is my friend, and is friends with Karen. It IS actually possible.

Hope this covers your concerns. Thanks for a very considered, concise and focused post on this. While I don't agree with all of it, I respect your effort immensely.

 

[Phineas]

Since, I've heard from three others, of whom one still hasn't decided my actions merit shunning my events.

Assuming you're talking about me, since I'm one of the only people who's posted to this thread and then not come back, I haven't said anything else because ultimately I realize that what went on between you two is none of my business, and now that the administration confusion is cleared up I have no further opinion on the matter.

I thought Ed and Karen did a fine job hosting. I'm sure Dave will likewise. And that's all I really have to say about it.

 

[starfires]

1. Your analysis of what I do (quoted below) is mostly correct. Inclusion of attendees is a goal, but there are individuals who aren't welcome (a child molester named Mike from the first year of the event comes to mind), and some folks join and leave, asking to be off the mailing list (a fellow I miss from Sac comes to mind, who married and stepped away).

I think a child molester qualifies as "an axe murderer or otherwise socially unacceptable".

2. Up until this whole ridiculous thread, it was a simple understand that she was no longer attending. *I* did not make the SLIGHTEST effort to malign the lady, and still wish the folks beating this horse had stopped promptly, and that she'd lended it no credence.

You announced that she won't be showing up anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong, when a person drops out of their own free will, you don't usually send a general announcement about it. Given this and no other information, the rumor mill tends to go in high gear. That's not your responsibility, of course. However:

I can do NOTHING about the opinions of folks who know me, and don't have the right to change their minds

You could assure them, for example, that to your knowledge Karen has not physically endangered anybody, outed them to general public, etc. However, if you started doing that whenever you announce that somebody won't be showing up anymore, eventually one time you'll forget and people will think that the latest person did exactly that. So that's probably not a good idea in the long term, but my point is that you do have choices.

3. I received, before this public debacle, mail from only ONE person concerning this interaction, besides Karen. Since, I've heard from three others, of whom one still hasn't decided my actions merit shunning my events.

Acknowledged, though I don't see how this applies.

It's not REQUIRED, man. I just don't understand why anyone complaining vehemently about Karen not attending would deign to give me their time, attention, support and participation.

This I can explain, I think. (To the people who were complaining: if I misrepresent your motivations, please correct me.) I believe the people who were complaining vehemently, demanding explanations, etc. were doing so because they were under the impression that West Coast Gatherings list claimed jurisdiction for the geographical area they lived in, and therefore you were answerable to them for your actions in the administration of that list. When a democratic community leader acts against the will of the community, members don't leave the community, they express their discontent, and when that doesn't work, they kick the leader off and choose a new one. But you are not (and are not trying to be) a democratic community leader, you are the holder of a personal mailing list with a long standing reputation. Notice that as soon as this confusion got cleared up, the vehemence and the demanding stopped.

Thus, your hopes are met.

I do, though, view remaining on my list as support of how I run the West Coast Gatherings. Not supporting how they are run, yet attending, doesn't communicate that I'm mistaken. Apart from direct communciation (text or voice), removing oneself from the events is the simplest means, and in my opinion, the easiest.

Have you never patronized a business whose practices you did not completely agree with? Sometimes it is more convenient to use what's available, even if it is not perfect, than to start your own thing. However, in this thread direct text communication abounds, so why did you bring up the point that those communicating should also withdraw themselves from the list?

4. If you check the suggestions area, I have already heeded a mention from Icycle where he wants a subhead about West Coast Gatherings stating they are my events. Myriads is aware of this, and knows I support whatever he sees as right.

Thank you.

I *will* go back to using my rules mail for each event. Events do have varying rules (as when, for instance, at a bondage club, the rules will differ from a person's home). Rules are announced, and amongst those attending before I had moved away and back, rule were understood after so many years of repeating them, in text of the mail that gives the directions to the event, and in host's participation AT the events. I respect where you suggest this. Was already doing this as of the last Sac event.

Perhaps I should circulate the standard structure again, though. I'll consider this in the next event announcement.

Thank you. Does that mean, though, that you have not circulated the standard structure in the time that Karen has been hosting?

How I deal with other hosts and how Karen deals with other hosts are individual. I don't tell her how to run her personal life, and don't wish to have such done to me. That, sir, is personal.

Point accepted.

I actually have, at the request of other hosts, mentioned their events. I've not had a host ask this of me in a while. All hosts are all able to announce on the TMF, and it's simple to support them here. This is still my preferred method.

Max didn't have to have me push NEST on my list, and he does just fine. GLAT does just fine. Etc
You give me more credit than I believe I'm due. People who NEVER KNEW ME have hosted successfully.

True, on all counts. Yes, people can run events without your participation. But your participation would make it easier. NEST and GLAT would not benefit much from being advertised on your list, because they are not on the west coast.

Karen knew me. Knows how I do events. Has chosen a different path than mine. Folks who want that will attend her events. Look at this horse, brother, and note several men who will attend.

Most of them have not deigned to drop from my list either, and you'll not notice me "banning" someone for their friendships. Bagelfather is my friend, and is friends with Karen. It IS actually possible.

I never implied that you would ban somebody against their wish for complaining. But you seemed to expect people to remove themselves, which is what I was asking about.

Hope this covers your concerns. Thanks for a very considered, concise and focused post on this. While I don't agree with all of it, I respect your effort immensely.

Yes, subject to the comments above, my concerns are covered. I do appreciate the effort you are putting into the running of these events. If nothing else, the fact that people put up so much fuss about the membership on your list is evidence that your list is a wonderful place to be -- that is a collective compliment if I've seen one.

 

[Phineas]

Does that mean, though, that you have not circulated the standard structure in the time that Karen has been hosting?

There've been rules handed out and gone over at nearly every gathering I've attended for the last year (and I've attended all but one). The only time rules were not addressed prior to the gathering were when the entire membership list was a small "core" group of people who were already aware of them and could be trusted to follow them. Whenever larger events, that expected people not already "in the know" (or first-timers, or what-have-you), were to be happening, rules were discussed.

Whether or not they met with Dave's standards, I don't know - but they were handled.

 

[starfires]

There've been rules handed out and gone over at nearly every gathering I've attended for the last year (and I've attended all but one). The only time rules were not addressed prior to the gathering were when the entire membership list was a small "core" group of people who were already aware of them and could be trusted to follow them. Whenever larger events, that expected people not already "in the know" (or first-timers, or what-have-you), were to be happening, rules were discussed.

Whether or not they met with Dave's standards, I don't know - but they were handled.

I am not talking about the rules for guests. I am talking about the rules for hosts. Hosts have responsibilities besides simply enforcing the guests' rules -- the particulars of these responsibilities (I assume) is what distinguishes dvnc's gatherings from other gatherings.

 

[inthenameoffun2]

Just a little comment about both Karen and Dave.
I have has the pleasure of metting both of them at differant times. I have knowen Dave longer than I have Karen, yet they have both been respectful to me and my request as to who I am as far as this West Coast Group. When I first met Dave, I was introduced to him by the one and only QB Weaver. A wonderful and special women to me. If you do not know who she is, then that should show you how long I have knowen Dave. He was very good at explaining to me the issues of what the list is about and who controls it and why. If I'm not cool with anything or anyone on the list, then I can explain my concerns and if nothing is handled to the best of my liking I can leave. No hard feelings will be had. After all, when we all meet, it is a place for us to meet, relaxe have a wonderful time to hang with those that share an interest and or just want to talk with some freinds ( or future freinds ) in person. Never untill this tread have I ever heard anything bad said about or to Dave, so I have to be honest I'm a little taken back. Yet I have also had time to spend with Karen. To me a wonderful and fun person too. Out spoken and always on the ball with any kind of conversation. She has been honest with me and I have no ill feelings for her. I did attend a gathering last year. With my wife attending for the first time. Karen and her husband offered their home as a place to meet ( thanks to both of them ) and we joined in the gathering of their home. Though I was not all the comvertable with how things were going while we were there, ( I had to work early that morning so I was a little tired, lol ) I had noticed that the style of who and what was going on in the gathering was differant than what I have been used too and thats the whole reason of this little reply. I feel that when all is said and done, if someone if not easy with or has a major problem with what they see, hear or understand to be seen or heard, it should be handled with the ones involved not with others that did not feel or see or hear what it is that has that person in a bothersome state. We are all adults and though many of us choose to handle ourselfs differant than others do, that dose not make any of us right or wrong, to me it makes us differant. Thats a good thing, I mean if we all wanted to be and think the same, then for those of you who know me, imagine two of me, ( not a pretty thing) lol , but to get back to what I'm attmepting to say. There are two people ( Karen and Dave ) who have an issue and I belive that it should be handled between them. if they wanted my opinon, they would ask me, because both are very much able to speak out if needed. We are allowed to add our two cents ( and sometimes more ) to what is happening and such, but when it is all said and done, it is about Karen and Dave. So I would like to say maybe we should let them take care of this as I have enjoyed both of them and would like to be able to speak and or hang out with them another time. I do not post much and as you can see, with my long winded ways, thats a good thing too. I'm not out to be bashed with anything I said, because I do not feel I have bashed anyone. But if you feel that you disagree with anything I have written then please feel free to let me know, in a nice and respectful way as thats is how I feel I am being. One last thing before I stop ( I know come on dude enough all ready ) I have seen here on this post a few others that I have sent private PM's too, some have replied and others never reply. Now if we are going to get in here and complain about what we think is right or wrong when it comes to others then maybe we need to remember that sometimes when we act a certain way, that it is noticed and yet it make those like me say um they will get upset about this or that, but they could not even reply to a PM saying thanks, but not interested in talking?? To both Karen and Dave. You both are ok in my book, so I hope this is all worked out and some time down the road all will be fine and we all can laugh at this. After all this is a place that is all about laughing...

 

[Phineas]

I am not talking about the rules for guests. I am talking about the rules for hosts. Hosts have responsibilities besides simply enforcing the guests' rules -- the particulars of these responsibilities (I assume) is what distinguishes dvnc's gatherings from other gatherings.

Yep, you're right. I misread. Sorry! 🙂

 

[dvnc]

Phineas, several people have started in on me here. I still wonder why y'all want to deal with me when there's such objections to how I run things in these events. Not my business. It still seems curious, though. I think starfires covers

Starfires:

Correct me if I'm wrong, when a person drops out of their own free will, you don't usually send a general announcement about it. Given this and no other information, the rumor mill tends to go in high gear. That's not your responsibility, of course.

Last time a host was removed, and I announced it, the "rumor mill" didn't bother to grind. Was just a change in the hosts. Hosts DO change.

No one's grinding about Ed, for instance.

This is a chosen spectacle. It will persist for as long as you folks wish it to persist. That, too, is not my responsibility.

Again, it's the folks keeping this alive that have made this a public spectacle.

I didn't start this thread. I didn't tell y'all t'post. I'm responding as the listfather for these events. Folks wanting to know her side can PM her. Her address for such is open. Likewise, my list has always had my address on it, hence anyone caring to ask would have and will.

This I can explain, I think. (To the people who were complaining: if I misrepresent your motivations, please correct me.) I believe the people who were complaining vehemently, demanding explanations, etc. were doing so because they were under the impression that West Coast Gatherings list claimed jurisdiction for the geographical area they lived in, and therefore you were answerable to them for your actions in the administration of that list. When a democratic community leader acts against the will of the community, members don't leave the community, they express their discontent, and when that doesn't work, they kick the leader off and choose a new one. But you are not (and are not trying to be) a democratic community leader, you are the holder of a personal mailing list with a long standing reputation. Notice that as soon as this confusion got cleared up, the vehemence and the demanding stopped.

I've noticed that I got a lot of demanding. Got hostility. Got treated poorly here. Ain't notice a lot of different since people demanded explanations.

Have you never patronized a business whose practices you did not completely agree with?

No.

Sometimes it is more convenient to use what's available, even if it is not perfect, than to start your own thing. However, in this thread direct text communication abounds, so why did you bring up the point that those communicating should also withdraw themselves from the list?

I'm a convenience in your description? Nice.

I'll write it again: If you don't like how West Coast Gatherings are run, please write me to ask to be removed, and attend something else.

I'm still hearing where things are being questioned. Where there's thoughts that, after a week of this thread, there's people hoping for a change in my disposition for a former host. If that were going to change, and it would have (as has happened previously within my events), it would have to be a LONG time from now, as this thread is something for which I'm getting support and condolensces.

On the kind side, I'm hearing supportive things from friends worldwide now.

On the local side, as the valley is a BIG place, densely populated, there's NO reason for me to have to deal with more than the vaguest possibility of accidentally encountering that lady. Such will be quick and uneventful from my side of this (as I can speak with surety only for me in that).

Does that mean, though, that you have not circulated the standard structure in the time that Karen has been hosting?

No.

It means that the emphasis on that structure (which is still how NEST is run out here in Philly, FWIW) will be far stronger. Apparently, it now has to be.

Yes, people can run events without your participation. But your participation would make it easier.

Those that call me friend and treat me well have my support. I don't support her. Now that this is being outted in this fashion, I have NO problem declaring this publicly.

NEST and GLAT would not benefit much from being advertised on your list, because they are not on the west coast.

You speak in error. Have you not travelled to events outside of California? Did you not know that West Coast Gatherings not only have spanned multiple states, but have had guests from out of the country, as well as from the east coast? If not, do let this declare it clearly. When host friends of other events ask it, I post general announcements. When they ask for locale-specific announcements, I do that for them. I like doing so.

I never implied that you would ban somebody against their wish for complaining. But you seemed to expect people to remove themselves, which is what I was asking about.

Yup. After criticizing me and my events to the extreme that has been shown, I wonder why this debate is waging still, and why anyone would bother with me, as I'm at nearly all of my events again, and traditionally always was.

Everyone hosting my events supports me.

More than a couple of my attendees support me.

Hence, the folks not happy with this are going to be stuck in a room with folks disagreeing with the way this was handled, and with folks completely ignoring that this exists. That doesn't seem comfortable.

Their host will be someone who didn't enjoy this. That doesn't seem comfortable.

I want folks to enjoy their stays. It can't be very enjoyable to bask in unresolved conflict.

Yes, subject to the comments above, my concerns are covered. I do appreciate the effort you are putting into the running of these events. If nothing else, the fact that people put up so much fuss about the membership on your list is evidence that your list is a wonderful place to be -- that is a collective compliment if I've seen one.

Thank you kindly, sir. Very nice of you. I appreciate your thoughts. I'm hoping I've given you more clarity.

 

[Phineas]

Phineas, several people have started in on me here.

It does seem that way. I just want to make sure you don't think I'm one of them, because my initial post could have been taken as such.

No one's grinding about Ed, for instance.

Well, if I'm understanding things correctly, Ed's bowing out of hosting of his own free will, and is at least allowed to come back as a guest, if he so desires. Karen is not. It's a slightly different set of circumstances.

Anyway, you're right. Not much left to say about this. Keep me posted on the August event. Last year's was a fun one.

 

[starfires]

First, I think I should mention what I am trying to do and why.
dvnc, I personally have no problem with any decisions you have made recently. Nor do I feel the need to drop from your list.

I am continuing this discussion with the intent of smoothing out the relationship between yourself and the other people who have argued with you. I am hoping to achieve this by explaining to you where they were coming from, and explaining to them where you were coming from. I believe I am qualified to try this, because I have enough information to see both sides of the issue.
I am doing this publicly because I do not speak only for myself -- this way the other people involved can correct me if I misrepresent them. If you wish to continue this in private, let me know. If you have no interest in continuing this discussion, likewise, let me know.

Last time a host was removed, and I announced it, the "rumor mill" didn't bother to grind. Was just a change in the hosts. Hosts DO change.

That was a host. Karen was also removed as a guest. I understand why this announcement went out (based on stuff that did not come up in this thread), but it is a different case.

This is a chosen spectacle. It will persist for as long as you folks wish it to persist. That, too, is not my responsibility.

Again, it's the folks keeping this alive that have made this a public spectacle.

I didn't start this thread. I didn't tell y'all t'post. I'm responding as the listfather for these events. Folks wanting to know her side can PM her. Her address for such is open. Likewise, my list has always had my address on it, hence anyone caring to ask would have and will.

I believe the reason this was brought to the public was so people could exercise their right to public arbitration (this being their second resort, after Karen failed to explain what just happened). They don't have any such right, seeing as this is not a public or pseudo-public list. But they did not know that at the time.

I've noticed that I got a lot of demanding. Got hostility. Got treated poorly here. Ain't notice a lot of different since people demanded explanations.

I perceive a difference in the general tone before and after Phineas' pivotal observation about the franchise nature of the list. There was also a definite difference in the assumed facts. Some examples:

I wonder who decided on a change in hosts. Certainly not the group at large, who has been meeting at Ed and Karen's places for the past couple of years.
...
And tell me again, why you've banned Karen from the community.

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.

I also do not feel that such a decision should be made behind closed doors. If these gatherings are still a public affair open to those who wish to come, rather than a private party open to those whom the host wishes to come, then these sorts of decisions should be made by those who attend and in an open forum.

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.

When I found out what your list was during our conversation on May 19th, it was rather shocking. The idea was so alien that the possibility had never occurred to me before. I asked a couple of questions while the lightbulb slowly went up above my head, and then things made sense. I could see the same process happening above some other heads as this thread progressed. The difference is, I was not in the middle of a shouting match when I absorbed the new concept.

Have you never patronized a business whose practices you did not completely agree with?

No.

You are the most conscientious person I know. You have my respect.

I'm a convenience in your description? Nice.

Yes, having access to a group of like-minded people that meets regularly; where somebody has already done the hard work of organizing and advertizing; where all you have to do is show up and behave; is very, very convenient. Why are you taking that as a negative statement?

I'll write it again: If you don't like how West Coast Gatherings are run, please write me to ask to be removed, and attend something else.

I'm still hearing where things are being questioned. Where there's thoughts that, after a week of this thread, there's people hoping for a change in my disposition for a former host. If that were going to change, and it would have (as has happened previously within my events), it would have to be a LONG time from now, as this thread is something for which I'm getting support and condolensces.

You are correct, I was hoping to point out some extenuating circumstances surrounding Karen's actions. I see now that I need not try further, as the damage is too great. I will cease this line of questioning.

You speak in error. Have you not travelled to events outside of California? Did you not know that West Coast Gatherings not only have spanned multiple states, but have had guests from out of the country, as well as from the east coast? If not, do let this declare it clearly. When host friends of other events ask it, I post general announcements. When they ask for locale-specific announcements, I do that for them. I like doing so.

Thank you. And you are right, people do travel between locations so their place of residence is not so significant a factor as I thought.

Yup. After criticizing me and my events to the extreme that has been shown, I wonder why this debate is waging still, and why anyone would bother with me, as I'm at nearly all of my events again, and traditionally always was.

Everyone hosting my events supports me.

More than a couple of my attendees support me.

Hence, the folks not happy with this are going to be stuck in a room with folks disagreeing with the way this was handled, and with folks completely ignoring that this exists. That doesn't seem comfortable.

Their host will be someone who didn't enjoy this. That doesn't seem comfortable.

I want folks to enjoy their stays. It can't be very enjoyable to bask in unresolved conflict.

I see why you expect people to drop out. I hope you can see why I am trying to cool the tempers down so those people who are still on the list *can* coexist in some degre of comfort, without having to walk away. Again, if this is also a lost cause, let me know and I will stop.

 

[dvnc]

First, I think I should mention what I am trying to do and why.
dvnc, I personally have no problem with any decisions you have made recently. Nor do I feel the need to drop from your list.

Good to know, brer. Thank you for saying so.

I am continuing this discussion with the intent of smoothing out the relationship between yourself and the other people who have argued with you. I am hoping to achieve this by explaining to you where they were coming from, and explaining to them where you were coming from. I believe I am qualified to try this, because I have enough information to see both sides of the issue.

I respect the effort, moreso because it's a solo effort. Props t'ya.

That was a host. Karen was also removed as a guest. I understand why this announcement went out (based on stuff that did not come up in this thread), but it is a different case.

Uh, no. Him I removed entirely. Was not this delicate, nor did I make even the SLIGHTEST effort to be diplomatic about it.

I see where you feel differently about this than I and others in the event. Sadly, there are folks who WERE staying out of this that are now very much taking sides for or against. That was avoidable. These are my friends, and folks who respect me. Where I've no problem with people disliking my views on my events, I don't know that any of you wanted her to be seen in a negative light.

Has she and her husband not participated here, this could still have been left as a conflict between two people.

That wasn't her choice, nor the choice of any others here.

I believe the reason this was brought to the public was so people could exercise their right to public arbitration (this being their second resort, after Karen failed to explain what just happened). They don't have any such right, seeing as this is not a public or pseudo-public list. But they did not know that at the time.

Their former hosts failed to carry this message? Odd, as I know it came out other hosts in California on my list. I don't control these hosts, so I have to expect that they'll behave according to the roles assigned.

In a subculture such as ours, role-play is not a foreign entity.

We're also ALL adults here. No one was asking here initially. My email address has been KNOWN for a long time. As I get constant questions on other topics, I know folks can approach me that way. This could be handled via mail. Would have saved some difficulties for others.

I perceive a difference in the general tone before and after Phineas' pivotal observation about the franchise nature of the list. There was also a definite difference in the assumed facts.

Yep. A very small group from my list started out shouting here. Got silent when they realized that things were not as they assumed.

When I found out what your list was during our conversation on May 19th, it was rather shocking. The idea was so alien that the possibility had never occurred to me before. I asked a couple of questions while the lightbulb slowly went up above my head, and then things made sense. I could see the same process happening above some other heads as this thread progressed. The difference is, I was not in the middle of a shouting match when I absorbed the new concept.

Yes. A shouting match. I'm not shouting, brer. It's not a match. I wasn't playin', and still ain't.

You are the most conscientious person I know. You have my respect.

You're in California, man. I'm nowhere near the most of such, here. I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless.

Yes, having access to a group of like-minded people that meets regularly; where somebody has already done the hard work of organizing and advertizing; where all you have to do is show up and behave; is very, very convenient. Why are you taking that as a negative statement?

I'm a PERSON, starfires. A participant in our interest, same as the rest. Very, very few people in the culture at large and ours in particular wish to be seen as a convenience. It's not pleasant. I see where you didn't mean this as a negative, too.

You are correct, I was hoping to point out some extenuating circumstances surrounding Karen's actions. I see now that I need not try further, as the damage is too great. I will cease this line of questioning.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. And you are right, people do travel between locations so their place of residence is not so significant a factor as I thought.

I'm glad I could clarify this. I had figured, knowing your accuracy in such analysis, that this was a missing piece.

I see why you expect people to drop out. I hope you can see why I am trying to cool the tempers down so those people who are still on the list *can* coexist in some degre of comfort, without having to walk away. Again, if this is also a lost cause, let me know and I will stop.

I respect your effort. Speaks well of you.

Oddly, I still have had no requests for removal. I don't know that this thread needs to live any longer, save as historic reference.