How could we make a rotating NAC a reality?

And subject line = entire point of thread How could we, as a community, cause the NAC to rotate to a different city each year? Who has the authority to make this decision, and what would they need demonstrated in order to be convinced? (My suggestion would be to remove the NAC from GenCon, and replace it with a non-regional Qualifier, supplemented by small 1 round tournaments, casual games, and draft tournaments. These would all be aimed at being short, fun, and easy for new players to get into, while still drawing a good number of experienced players.) There are many good reasons, I believe, to move the NAC around--seeing the country, giving Canada and Mexico a chance, general crappiness of Indianapolis...hey, that rhymes...I think we should brainstorm and approach whoever is in charge. Who's in charge? What are your goals with regards to V:TES play at GenCon? -- Brian General Crappiness of Indianapolis

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > And subject line = entire point of thread > > How could we, as a community, cause the NAC to rotate to a different > city each year? Who has the authority to make this decision, and what > would they need demonstrated in order to be convinced? Probably Steve, Chad, and Phil at WW. Oscar has a proposal that he's presenting to the decision-makers (or maybe already has). Similar proposals have been spontaneously appearing in Oscar's email box, IRC chats, etc. Hopefully we'll hear good news in the near future. -Robert

<firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1121593962.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > And subject line = entire point of thread Why isn't it working? Is it not popular?

"carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:SzCCe.1300$PL5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz... [ quoted text not captured ] I think whether it's "working" or not is a matter of opinion. Some people seem to really like that idea of a rotating NAC and are trying to push it - hence this thread, apparently. Myself, I hope WW will stop and test the waters in some way before assuming such a change has massive support. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:T3DCe.40415$4o.37118@fed1read06... > > "carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:SzCCe.1300$PL5.1...@news.xtra.co.nz... > > > > <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1121593962.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> And subject line = entire point of thread > > > > Why isn't it working? > > Is it not popular? > > I think whether it's "working" or not is a matter of opinion. > Some people seem to really like that idea of a rotating NAC > and are trying to push it - hence this thread, apparently. Why don't they start something up then to see how it floats. Changing a established system will usually remove a lot of support from the existing people and often isn't "like last years success" enough to attract new folk. All fine if there were serious problems with the previous format but is it worth killing what little momentum is already there?

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > And subject line = entire point of thread > The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. Of those people, most of them are already willing to go to Gen Con, depending on how far it is from them, and not everyone can take 2 weeks of vacation for gaming-related activities, and so they would have to choose between the two. I know I, personally, haven't been able to get the time off (and fiance-approval) to even go Gen Con the last 2 years, much less going to an NAC-only event that could be a long plane ride instead of a medium-length drive.

Chris Berger wrote: > firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > And subject line = entire point of thread > > > The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the > continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen > Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. We all certainly understand that point. The thing is that the people who have been travelling to GenCon, have been doing so almost exclusively for V:TES. When that happens, the convention fees become an uneccessary burden (from the players' perspectives. WW may have another view). The NAC's multiple day structure makes it even less likely that participants are there for anything other than just V:TES. > Of those people, most of them are already willing to go to Gen Con, > depending on how far it is from them, and not everyone can take 2 weeks > of vacation for gaming-related activities, and so they would have to > choose between the two. I know I, personally, haven't been able to get > the time off (and fiance-approval) to even go Gen Con the last 2 years, > much less going to an NAC-only event that could be a long plane ride > instead of a medium-length drive. If you haven't been able to get time off for the medium length drive, imagine the expense involved for players who must always fly to GenCon for the NAC. Rotating the NAC gives all players the occassional opportunity to participate after making a medium-length drive. As I mentioned above, going to GenCon is essentially the same as an NAC-only event. Another option would be to abandon the multiple day championship--again allowing the casual V:TES players time to do something other than V:TES. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1121714626....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Chris Berger wrote: >> firstco...@aol.com wrote: >> > And subject line = entire point of thread >> > >> The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the >> continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen >> Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. > > We all certainly understand that point. The thing is that the people > who have been travelling to GenCon, have been doing so almost > exclusively for V:TES. Actually, that's where I think you're making an assumption that's not entirely valid. To me, GenCon is an extravaganza that's worth seeing in and of itself. The NAC is great and Week of Nightmares is great but whether they're worth going to for their sake alone is somewhat questionable. I think one thing you're definitely not taking into account in your calculations are people who haven't qualified. Such people may very well travel to GenCon and try their luck with the Last Chance Qualifier and if they don't make it, so what? There's this HUGE gamefest going on all around them. But the whole notion loses quite a lot if you rotate the NAC away from GenCon. You can schedule other VtES tournaments at GenCon, of course. But from the perspective of the Continental Championship, the LCQ loses a lot of participants it would otherwise have. And there may be more tournaments, but none of them will be as good as the huge LCQ with the opportunity to qualify for the huge NAC tournament. That's what bugs me about this. GenCon is an attraction and the NAC is an attraction. Split them, and both events lose something. Enough so it not be worth bothering with either. I don't get a flying fuck about Convention Fees. After spending money on plane flights and hotels, convention fees, even a GenCon 4-day pass, don't amount to squat by comparison. Fred

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1121713376....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > firstco...@aol.com wrote: >> And subject line = entire point of thread >> > The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the > continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen > Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. > Given the length of qualifier and finals (and VTES games in general) a strong point for the rotating (non-con) NAC was that it wouldn't change ddicated VTESser's gaming habits much (they'll be there regardless), and might give dedicated con-goers more time for other pursuits at their major cons (the idea there being that time spent at a major con is almost totally about VTES, if its hosting a championship). Also, it might help VTES to re-focus the major con effort into soliciting new players, perhaps with a Origins '05-style, rotating tournament schedule for newbies, or a Rapid Thought format. Other, elaborate discussions are in the now-poorly-named subject thread: "GenCon 2005 Event Registration Information" > Of those people, most of them are already willing to go to Gen Con, > depending on how far it is from them, and not everyone can take 2 weeks > of vacation for gaming-related activities, and so they would have to > choose between the two. I know I, personally, haven't been able to get > the time off (and fiance-approval) to even go Gen Con the last 2 years, > much less going to an NAC-only event that could be a long plane ride > instead of a medium-length drive. > Different times of the year and different locations will, on average, probably not change the number of attendees much, as there are as many who would take advantage of a proximal location as there are people for whom it would be inconvenient. My personal conflict is temporal; I'll never get the week of GenCon free in the next five years, no matter what (as I nauseatingly drone on about everytime this topic arises ;-). *Shrug* I guess my point is, everyone has conflicts... So long as you don't hold the NAC on Christmas Day in Alaska, things will work out... DaveZ AW

In message <1121713376....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >Of those people, most of them are already willing to go to Gen Con, >depending on how far it is from them, and not everyone can take 2 weeks >of vacation for gaming-related activities, and so they would have to >choose between the two. Hmm, this is true, and probably missed by a number of the European suggestions. The company I work for has a number of employees in the US. Over here, our standard holiday holiday allocation is 20 days in the first year, 25 thereafter, plus bank holidays - things like Christmas, May Day etc. In the US, it's 15 then 20. And in the US, that's apparently considered pretty standard. Which would make booking random days off for the NAC (or the EC or whatever) a little harder. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:aFTCe.41403$4o.29269@fed1read06... > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > news:1121714626....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> Chris Berger wrote: >>> firstco...@aol.com wrote: >>> > And subject line = entire point of thread >>> > >>> The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the >>> continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen >>> Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. >> >> We all certainly understand that point. The thing is that the people >> who have been travelling to GenCon, have been doing so almost >> exclusively for V:TES. > > Actually, that's where I think you're making an assumption that's not > entirely valid. To me, GenCon is an extravaganza that's worth seeing in > and > of itself. The NAC is great and Week of Nightmares is great but whether > they're worth going to for their sake alone is somewhat questionable. > > I think one thing you're definitely not taking into account in your > calculations are people who haven't qualified. Such people may very well > travel to GenCon and try their luck with the Last Chance Qualifier and if > they don't make it, so what? There's this HUGE gamefest going on all > around them. Interesting point. I guess that there is some data out there to support or refute this hypothesis; one would need to check for repeat appearances in the names of the non-qualifying players of the LCQ in later tournaments, to arrive at a "rate of decay" for interest in non-NAC games. It doesn't capture pick-up games for VTES, but might give us an idea of how many people are still playing _after_ they've failed to qualify... > But the whole notion loses quite a lot if you rotate the NAC > away from GenCon. You can schedule other VtES tournaments at GenCon, of > course. But from the perspective of the Continental Championship, the LCQ > loses a lot of participants it would otherwise have. And there may be > more > tournaments, but none of them will be as good as the huge LCQ with the > opportunity to qualify for the huge NAC tournament. > > That's what bugs me about this. GenCon is an attraction and the NAC is > an attraction. Split them, and both events lose something. Enough so > it not be worth bothering with either. Does your hesitancy to separate the two hold only for GenCon? What if the NAC was rotated to other major cons? (Dragon Con being the most interesting, in particular). I'm not opposed to this variant, if the idea of Mega-SpectaculaCon 2020 is seen by the PTB's to have some value in furthering VTES... > I don't get a flying fuck about > Convention Fees. After spending money on plane flights and hotels, > convention fees, even a GenCon 4-day pass, don't amount to squat by > comparison. > Consider the person for whom a rotating NAC might be of value, because they cannot even consider the flight or the hotel... Under the current system, if that person isn't within six hours drive of Indy, what is their chance for attending? I like the idea of a rotating NAC, because eventually, everyone will be able to say that they had a good-to-fair oportunity to attend (even if they chose not to)... DZ AW

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > news:1121714626....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > >> firstco...@aol.com wrote: > >> > And subject line = entire point of thread > >> > > >> The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the > >> continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen > >> Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. > > > > We all certainly understand that point. The thing is that the people > > who have been travelling to GenCon, have been doing so almost > > exclusively for V:TES. > > Actually, that's where I think you're making an assumption that's not > entirely valid. To me, GenCon is an extravaganza that's worth seeing in and > of itself. The NAC is great and Week of Nightmares is great but whether > they're worth going to for their sake alone is somewhat questionable. I might be more inclined to agree if it weren't for the 2-day championship and Thursday last chance qualifier. The GenCon "extravaganza" is an interesting backdrop to me but that's about it. I feel fortunate if I can squeeze in a 2-hour sprint through the dealer room on Sunday before they shut it down. I'd be willing to swap the extravaganza for a setup tailored for V:TES play. But that's just me. If I'm not typical then the WW folks will have to take that into account when they make their decision. > I think one thing you're definitely not taking into account in your > calculations are people who haven't qualified. Such people may very well > travel to GenCon and try their luck with the Last Chance Qualifier and if > they don't make it, so what? Maybe. I'm not sure how this will work this year. How many non-qualified people will show up to play in the LCQ. If they fail to qualify, will we see those same folks in the Shadow Twin tournament or will they scatter to play German boardgames. :) I'm certainly open to this possibility. > That's what bugs me about this. GenCon is an attraction and the NAC is > an attraction. Split them, and both events lose something. Enough so > it not be worth bothering with either. I don't get a flying fuck about > Convention Fees. After spending money on plane flights and hotels, > convention fees, even a GenCon 4-day pass, don't amount to squat by > comparison. True, the fees are small compared to the rest of the cash we're spending. In addition to the fees I'd personally prefer to drop the waiting in lines, ticket hassles, expensive food, noise, and so on. An an occassional NAC within driving distance would be nice. -Robert

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:EUTCe.1045$fx4...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:aFTCe.41403$4o.29269@fed1read06... >> I think one thing you're definitely not taking into account in your >> calculations are people who haven't qualified. Such people may very well >> travel to GenCon and try their luck with the Last Chance Qualifier and if >> they don't make it, so what? There's this HUGE gamefest going on all >> around them. > > Interesting point. I guess that there is some data out there to support or refute this hypothesis; one would need to check for > repeat appearances in the names of the non-qualifying players of the LCQ in later tournaments, to arrive at a "rate of decay" for > interest in non-NAC games. It doesn't capture pick-up games for VTES, but might give us an idea of how many people are still > playing _after_ they've failed to qualify... I'm not sure what you're trying to figure out exactly and what significance you would assign to the information if you had it. But the last year I was there, the LCQ was huge (50+? more?) and the Shadow Twin tournament was puny - 12 players if I recall correctly. It was on Sunday that year and a number of explanations were given for the lack of attendance: people leaving GenCon early and people losing interest in VtES given the less important nature of the Shadow Twin tournament and wanting to do other things, especially with the 8 AM start time of the tournaments were the main two I heard. But I don't know which was more true or if either of them was really the main reason. Doesn't matter anyway - I don't think either explanation says much that would be useful in providing clarity to this issue anyway. >> That's what bugs me about this. GenCon is an attraction and the NAC is >> an attraction. Split them, and both events lose something. Enough so >> it not be worth bothering with either. > > Does your hesitancy to separate the two hold only for GenCon? What if the NAC was rotated to other major cons? (Dragon Con being > the most interesting, in particular). I'm not opposed to this variant, if the idea of Mega-SpectaculaCon 2020 is seen by the > PTB's to have some value in furthering VTES... I don't know. Never having attended DragonCon, I suspect it isn't quite what GenCon is but OTOH it wouldn't be bad, either. Or Origins. But I don't know that there's too many other choices to rotate through. (GenCon West is maybe the only other possibility I can think of offhand.) >> I don't get a flying fuck about >> Convention Fees. After spending money on plane flights and hotels, >> convention fees, even a GenCon 4-day pass, don't amount to squat by >> comparison. >> > Consider the person for whom a rotating NAC might be of value, because they cannot even consider the flight or the hotel... Under > the current system, if that person isn't within six hours drive of Indy, what is their chance for attending? I like the idea of a > rotating NAC, because eventually, everyone will be able to say that they had a good-to-fair oportunity to attend (even if they > chose not to)... I'm not saying rotating NAC wouldn't be a superior option for some people. I think some people, given their particular gaming proclivities, budget, traveling, latitude for vacation, and so forth have reason to prefer it the way it is. Others would prefer to change it in some way, such as for the reasons you give above. I'm just trying to point out that different populations have different interests here that are not mutually compatible. They're not going to be resolvable by any other means than, perhaps trading off from one year to the next or just by some form of voting and whoever loses gets quashed or something. I guess I'm just trying to raise peoples' awareness about that point. Fred

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1121717121.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> > The thing is that the people >> > who have been travelling to GenCon, have been doing so almost >> > exclusively for V:TES. >> >> Actually, that's where I think you're making an assumption that's not >> entirely valid. To me, GenCon is an extravaganza that's worth seeing in and >> of itself. The NAC is great and Week of Nightmares is great but whether >> they're worth going to for their sake alone is somewhat questionable. > > I might be more inclined to agree if it weren't for the 2-day > championship and Thursday last chance qualifier. > > The GenCon "extravaganza" is an interesting backdrop to me but that's > about it. I feel fortunate if I can squeeze in a 2-hour sprint through > the dealer room on Sunday before they shut it down. I'd be willing to > swap the extravaganza for a setup tailored for V:TES play. But that's > just me. If I'm not typical then the WW folks will have to take that > into account when they make their decision. Well, that's kind of my point. Who's to say which sort of player is "typical"? And as I've pointed out elsewhere, WW likely has some of their own interests they should be taking into account. Besides the exposure thing, I might also suspect that creating another event from scratch is likely to be another distraction for them and possibly will cost them some money, depending on the economics of it. >> I think one thing you're definitely not taking into account in your >> calculations are people who haven't qualified. Such people may very well >> travel to GenCon and try their luck with the Last Chance Qualifier and if >> they don't make it, so what? > > Maybe. I'm not sure how this will work this year. How many > non-qualified people will show up to play in the LCQ. If they fail to > qualify, will we see those same folks in the Shadow Twin tournament or > will they scatter to play German boardgames. :) > > I'm certainly open to this possibility. And what conclusion would you come by from each result? I suspect if I thought about it, I might be able to suggest other conclusions that were attributable to the same information. My impression is that the Shadow Twin tournament is sparsely attended. Of course, this year we now have two since the NAC is a two-day tournament: the regular constructed Shadow Twin and the limited event. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > news:1121717121.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Well, that's kind of my point. Who's to say which sort of player is > "typical"? And as I've pointed out elsewhere, WW likely has some of their > own interests they should be taking into account. Besides the exposure > thing, I might also suspect that creating another event from scratch is > likely to be another distraction for them and possibly will cost them > some money, depending on the economics of it. May save them money as well. :) A rotating NAC would be hosted by some players in a region. AFAIK, WW doesn't put money out for the EC. The locals would probably have a lot more initiative when it comes to promoting their event anyway. > My impression is that the Shadow Twin tournament is sparsely attended. Yes, true. Could that be because most everyone at GenCon is playing in the NAC? Last year the LCQ was 90 players and the NAC was 72. Now I'm curious how many people don't attend simply because they aren't qualified. I've never met anyone from L.A. who didn't attend for that reason but I wonder if it is an issue for some people. I wonder if that will change at all with the new 2-day format or the Thursday qualifier? -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: >>The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the >>continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen >>Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. > > We all certainly understand that point. The thing is that the people > who have been travelling to GenCon, have been doing so almost > exclusively for V:TES. Eh? Most people going to Gen*Con probably don't even play V:TES. :-) Most of the people that attend Gen*Con and play V:TES probably are not attending Gen*Con exclusively for V:TES. > When that happens, the convention fees become an > uneccessary burden (from the players' perspectives. WW may have another > view). The NAC's multiple day structure makes it even less likely that > participants are there for anything other than just V:TES. There is still plenty of room left for other activities (dealer's room, autographs, parties, demos, etc.). -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > >>The thing is... how many people would be willing to travel across the > >>continent *just* for the NAC, as opposed to people who are going to Gen > >>Con and also have the chance to play in the NAC since it's there. > > > > We all certainly understand that point. The thing is that the people > > who have been travelling to GenCon, have been doing so almost > > exclusively for V:TES. > > Eh? > > Most people going to Gen*Con probably don't even play V:TES. :-) > > Most of the people that attend Gen*Con and play V:TES probably > are not attending Gen*Con exclusively for V:TES. > It is quite probable that most of the people that attend Gen*Con to play in the NAQ/NAC are attending Gen*Con primarily for V:TES. If that's the case, perhaps a venue change should be considered. Jeff

jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It is also quite probable that most of the people attending G*C with the plan to play in the NAC (or at least the LCQ) are attending G*C primarily for VTES and also for the rest of G*C. That they're there primarily for VTES doesn't imply that VTES alone would be sufficient reason to get them there. Parallel: I work (at my primary job) primarily to get paid, but if it was just the pay, I wouldn't work where I work. You may hold the opinion that most players would find VTES alone to be sufficient reason. That's fine. But I don't think it's quite so clear, and that's the primary reason for this thread in the first place, I think (that is, if it were clear, there'd hardly be a need for such a lengthy thread). [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > That's what bugs me about this. GenCon is an attraction and the NAC is > an attraction. Split them, and both events lose something. Enough so > it not be worth bothering with either. I don't get a flying fuck about > Convention Fees. After spending money on plane flights and hotels, > convention fees, even a GenCon 4-day pass, don't amount to squat by > comparison. > What about other CONs? DragonCon or Origins or sth. in LA? Probably people are just getting bored of Indy. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Indy SoCal! Hell yeah! beach, sun, nice cities (except for LA), lots to do!

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:vGUCe.41406$4o.30101@fed1read06... > > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:EUTCe.1045$fx4...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com... >> >> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >> news:aFTCe.41403$4o.29269@fed1read06... >>> I think one thing you're definitely not taking into account in your >>> calculations are people who haven't qualified. Such people may very >>> well >>> travel to GenCon and try their luck with the Last Chance Qualifier and >>> if >>> they don't make it, so what? There's this HUGE gamefest going on all >>> around them. >> >> Interesting point. I guess that there is some data out there to support >> or refute this hypothesis; one would need to check for repeat appearances >> in the names of the non-qualifying players of the LCQ in later >> tournaments, to arrive at a "rate of decay" for interest in non-NAC >> games. It doesn't capture pick-up games for VTES, but might give us an >> idea of how many people are still playing _after_ they've failed to >> qualify... > > I'm not sure what you're trying to figure out exactly and what > significance > you would assign to the information if you had it. But the last year I > was there, the LCQ was huge (50+? more?) and the Shadow Twin tournament > was > puny - 12 players if I recall correctly. My thought was that a strong LCQ showing with a correspondingly weak ST showing equated to an interest of those in attendance for more than just VTES at GenCon, and would be partial evidence supporting the idea that pairing the NAC with a big convention is actually a Good Idea(tm)... > It was on Sunday that year and > a number of explanations were given for the lack of attendance: people > leaving GenCon early and people losing interest in VtES given the less > important nature of the Shadow Twin tournament and wanting to do other > things, especially with the 8 AM start time of the tournaments were the > main two I heard. These are factors which dilute the value of the data, sure. >> Does your hesitancy to separate the two hold only for GenCon? What if >> the NAC was rotated to other major cons? (Dragon Con being the most >> interesting, in particular). I'm not opposed to this variant, if the >> idea of Mega-SpectaculaCon 2020 is seen by the PTB's to have some value >> in furthering VTES... > > I don't know. Never having attended DragonCon, I suspect it isn't quite > what GenCon is but OTOH it wouldn't be bad, either. I've only attended DragonCon. Its interests cover a wider range of gaming plus fandom, and its numbers are larger than GenCon... I guess neither of us are qualified to comment, but I'm sure there are plenty of people here who are... > Or Origins. But I > don't know that there's too many other choices to rotate through. (GenCon > West is maybe the only other possibility I can think of offhand.) > Not many choices are needed, if they are selcted judiciously. I'm not opposed to a limited rotation (three or four major events, spread geographically), as any rotation is better than none, from my perspective... DZ AW

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:biC1+$zhWA3...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1121713376....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Chris > Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >>Of those people, most of them are already willing to go to Gen Con, >>depending on how far it is from them, and not everyone can take 2 weeks >>of vacation for gaming-related activities, and so they would have to >>choose between the two. > > Hmm, this is true, and probably missed by a number of the European > suggestions. The company I work for has a number of employees in the > US. > > Over here, our standard holiday holiday allocation is 20 days in the > first year, 25 thereafter, plus bank holidays - things like Christmas, > May Day etc. In the US, it's 15 then 20. Ug. Misconception. More often, its only 10 days of vacation in the first year, with 15 being "awarded" after five years service with a single co, and 20 only coming after ten years. Of course, good negotiation skills can accelerate that timetable significantly. They're not kidding when they say USsers are work-aholics, but its not always by choice ;-) BTW, a typical US work calendar only has 8 to 10 observed "bank", national, and religious holidays total; Jan 1st, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day being pretty static. The last one or two are either Martin Luther King Day, the day after Thanksgiving, and/or a so-called "floating holiday" (which is usually used to extend another long weekend). Regional weirdness (like Columbus Day in Massachusetts, or opening day of deer hunting season in the South) to the tune of one extra day, is also present. >And in the US, that's > apparently considered pretty standard. Which would make booking random > days off for the NAC (or the EC or whatever) a little harder. > Harder than you even originally thought!!! ;-) DZ AW

"I think (that is, if it were clear, there'd hardly be a need for such a lengthy thread" I think that this lengthy thread (a mere 22 messages) isnt really showing anything. Robert Goudie 4 Posts Frederick Scott 4 Posts David Zopf 4 Posts In fact everything seems to center around the same few posters. As far as the argument sounds overall here's what I gather: Side A: Dont move it i like it where it is Side B: Move it I dont like it where it is Side C: Voiceless and largely unconsidered Please move it because i dont even bother because of where the NAC is Side D: I just show up at gencon if there is vampire I play if not I dont care, also voiceless Which people are you trying to cater too here? The majority of players? The hard core players? The players who buy the most cards? The players who recruit the most new blood? Maybe white wolf should come out with some answers instead of just saying 'this is something we should talk about' Obviously there are different interests of different groups to consider. But if all white wolf wants is the most people to show up at its NAC then it has to take a different view then if it wants to make the most sales. What do you really want us to talk about? How could be make a rotating NAC a reality? as the title suggests? Simple pick and city and say show up. Its as easy as that to make it a reality. White wolf says move, and it does. We aren't talking about picking up the wall of china and planting it in new york. If it doesnt work it can always move back. What other large events piggyback onto other draws of people? Parallel: Does Nascar Racing try to tack its premier race onto the Detroit Auto Show? There are alot of car enthusiasts at both. Nascar would benefit from the autoshow's week long presence and advertisement exposure. Would nascar fans really benefit from the extra hassle, cost, and aggravation NO. Would they be able to pack more racers onto the track just because its at some other big event NO. Seriously come on. The number of competitors is fixed. For people to attend local qualifiers, travel out of state, attend the NAC at gencon, and say that they are not primarily there for VTES is stupid. You already have the records. Just see how many people attended gencon last year and played in the other VTES events. If you get there thursday play a draft, friday play the LCQ, saturday play the NAC, what do you think they are primarily there for? How many of those people are there? why are their threads unending about this topic? just look it up. find out if 10% of the players just drop in for a quick 8 hour long NAC between D&D and german board games or if 80% are sitting at the VTES tables full time. If so moving it should have little effect on the bulk of your players. The fringe amounts will be made or lost where ever you are. The locals to DC will fill out the people that only show because its at a game convention.

"The NosferatuStuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121965053.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > In fact everything seems to center around the same few posters. As far > as the argument sounds overall here's what I gather: > Side A: Dont move it i like it where it is > Side B: Move it I dont like it where it is > Side C: Voiceless and largely unconsidered Please move it because i > dont even bother because of where the NAC is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ EH?!? "How to claim non-posters as your supporters" - Patented technique of debate, by Aaron Steele. Heh! I think any people truly of the Please-move-it persuasion would probably be more likely to speak at this point, at least if they felt very strongly about it. Non-speaking tends to be associated with satisfaction with the status quo in most Usenet thinking I've seen. Still, it's not unreasonable to simply say we don't know what the non-posters are thinking and leave it at that. > Obviously there are different interests of > different groups to consider. But if all white wolf wants is the most > people to show up at its NAC then it has to take a different view then > if it wants to make the most sales. This is another canard, in my opinion. As I've pointed out to various people, there's nothing about rotating the NAC around that particularly makes for greater attendence. It just alternates who as the advantage in any given year, so it's not _always_ the people living around Indiana. Other venues for the NAC have advantages and disadvantages, as far as attendence is concerned. > For people to attend local > qualifiers, travel out of state, attend the NAC at gencon, and say that > they are not primarily there for VTES is stupid. You already have the > records. Just see how many people attended gencon last year and played > in the other VTES events. If you get there thursday play a draft, > friday play the LCQ, saturday play the NAC, what do you think they are > primarily there for? I think you're vastly overstating this case. You may like the VtES events and spend the majority of your time playing the VtES events but that hardly means you're at GenCon ONLY for the VtES events or that an NAC split off from GenCon is nearly as attractive to you. I think you're looking at it like Aaron Steele would look at it. Other people have other preferences and reasons to do what they do. > How many of those people are there? why are > their threads unending about this topic? just look it up. find out if > 10% of the players just drop in for a quick 8 hour long NAC between D&D > and german board games or if 80% are sitting at the VTES tables full > time. That's not a reasonable test, though. I think you're setting up a test stacked in favor of what you want to prove. Fred

""How to claim non-posters as your supporters" - Patented technique of debate, by Aaron Steele. Heh! " Or the Fred Scott, I dont think its that way, method of denying any explanation is needed? "I think you're vastly overstating this case." Why? Giving me my own opinion, which i've stated numerous times, is not explaining at all why you think that one way or the other playing VTES 4 days in a row does or does not make you there 'primarily for VTES' I believe if you play 4 days worth of VTES, and that is 8 hours per day. and the bulk of the convention day is spent playing those games(ie every single hour that the dealers room is open) that no those people are not there primarily for the convention...or if they are they are not getting to experience it. I also logically come to the conclusion that either way it works out poorly for those people. It is also logical to me that it would be hard to prove that any other single game takes up the amount of time 4 days of 8 hour VTES tournaments take. Just saying i'm looking at it how Aaron Steele would look at it really tells me nothing more about your position, or why you think I'm incorrect. As you also stated in your reply "Non-speaking tends to be associated with satisfaction with the status quo in most Usenet thinking" so am I to believe that on all other points we are in agreement?(for example that piggy backing events does not increase the draw to the event?) or are you just using the age old debate strategy of "its this way for sure...when it suits my point of view" "I think you're setting up a test stacked in favor of what you want to prove. Again, WHY? what leads you to believe this? are you disputing that VTES events are 8 hours long? are you saying that if, out of 100 active players in a weekend that 80 of those players playing VTES all day and night long is not a majority? you say it is an unreasonable test then provide something that is within reason. There must be some way to logically determine if people are at a convention for VTES or not. If you dont start offering some alternatives instead of starting every sentance with "I think" then really you are doing nothing but trolling in an attempt to hijack every NAC change thread. I am still at a loss for why you are so against the discussion of moving the NAC? are you just devil's advocating? do you really perceive benifits to gencon over the same facility, the indy convention center, week before gencon? can you show me a pro, con list where the pro's of holding the NAC at gencon reasonably outweight the cons? can you offer some kind of reasonable way to determine what the players want, instead of resorting to giving your opinion or degrading mine? Look, when you offer a concern and somoene addresses it, you gloss over the issue. Example: Fred:"we will lose the spectacle and free advertising!" Others: "we can replace it with more newbie friendly modes of play specifically designed for getting players in, and in fact cause quite a greater spectacle" Fred: "well people want to play other kinds of games thats why they go to conventions!" In fact I am looking for the best alternative to the community, not what will work best for Aaron Steele. Aaron can drive to Indy in 5 hours and play at the NAC every year. Aaron can also get a place to stay in Indy, get a badge, and take the time off work. Aaron can play VTES 4 days straight and not worry about other events, local attractions, and family concerns. But, unfortunatly, not everyone is Aaron Steele. So I have to look at the groups on the west coast that have never had the benifit of driving to the NAC. the people with 3 kids or wives who have to pay $60x4=$240 just for the privilage of walking around a gamming center. Organizers of the WoN who might have better ideas then stuck in the back of an overcrowded bar on a weekend not optimized for prolonged card gamming. I have to take into consideration travelers from other countries that might like to visit and play with us in a city that they can take direct flights to. Even if any/all of those considerations only effect a certain segment for the one year the NAC is in that particular area. I am sorry I can't just take the Fred Scott approch to everything. Move the NAC around and give everyone a chance to participate. If it was to be held this year in LA I would definatily not be able to attend, but I bet you there is a guy in LA that could who otherwise wouldnt be able to. I dont see the purpose of trading that for a place that sells clever Tshirts and $8 hotdogs. If you want to continue this line of discussion please tell me what you did last year at gencon? Cause, like i have told several people my gencon went like this: Get in a HUGE line and waste an hour and some money. Get back in another HUGE line and wait another hour and some more money...oh now i have a badge and event ticket. Go hunt for the huge spectable of VTES...that is actually up stairs in a meeting room all by itself without so much as a spellfire tournament in the same area. I personally saw not one single player stop by and ask what was going on. That was our qualifier. Then I was in the LCQ for the whole day, with no oppertunity to step out. In fact I never saw what the dealers room looked like because, oh yeah, the VTES tournament was running for every single minute it was open. Then it was time for the NAC. Showed up on time, got told by the con organizers that we had to move. Got moved and was told there werent enough tables. Got split up so the tournament was taking place all over the place. Got harassed by convention goons guarding the doors for being in the only place i could get to a phone. in fact I have not a single good memory about going to gencon last year, save getting 8th place with a beast rush deck. I had more fun, oppertunity to promote the game, and a much cheaper time playing at the ram with the people there doing pick up games. So yeah, i'm a little biased against gencon. But since I cant prove that "maybe" all those things helped VTES "if" someone else saw the NAC, and because I cant track them I tend not to throw them into my debates. And throw out totally unreasonable suggestions like "lets just look and see if people play in VTES events all day every day as a rough guide to the players dedication" Excuse me for being illogical.

"The NosferatuStuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121973926.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > "I think you're vastly overstating this case." Why? Giving me my own > opinion, which i've stated numerous times, is not explaining at all why > you think that one way or the other playing VTES 4 days in a row does > or does not make you there 'primarily for VTES' I believe if you play > 4 days worth of VTES, and that is 8 hours per day. and the bulk of the > convention day is spent playing those games(ie every single hour that > the dealers room is open) that no those people are not there primarily > for the convention...or if they are they are not getting to experience > it. I disagree. First of all, eight hours a day isn't a whole day of gaming at GenCon. People often go for 16-20 hours. Besides, I don't care if a person spends most of his time for three of the four days of VtES, that DOESN'T mean he's at GenCon ONLY for VtES, which is what you're claiming. There's other things there which can be important to him, as I've spelled out elsewhere. ("The Fred Scott, I dont think its that way, method of denying any explanation is needed?" is semantically incorrect! It's really "The Fred Scott, I'VE EXPLAINED THIS IN 16 OTHER POSTS I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU" method.) If other things are also important, then the NAC loses something for that person if it's not at GenCon. > Just saying i'm looking at it > how Aaron Steele would look at it really tells me nothing more about > your position, or why you think I'm incorrect. Well, I'm sorry, but I've given what I think are very good reasons to see things in other ways than the way you insist on seeing them. I understand that your preferences are going to lead to your conclusion about what is the best NAC choice and that's fine. But I really feel like I've demonstrated why someone else might feel differently about it - EVEN IF THEY PLAY IN THREE VTES TOURNAMENTS AT GENCON - and I feel like your repeated demands to hear yet some other explanation shows that you're not hearing when I do explain it. > As you also stated in > your reply "Non-speaking tends to be associated with satisfaction with > the status quo in most Usenet thinking" so am I to believe that on all > other points we are in agreement?(for example that piggy backing events > does not increase the draw to the event?) or are you just using the age > old debate strategy of "its this way for sure...when it suits my point > of view" Now that's just twisting my words. There's a difference between non- speaking implying some degree of non-dissatisfaction with the entire situation vs. implying agreement with every minor point or sub-point of every post. Obviously, the latter is impossible since the various people who do post will make contradictory points with each other and all non-posters obviously can't agree with everything everyone says. Anyway, never mind. I'm just saying you can't implicitly claim non- posters agree with you because it flies in the face of logic. I'm fine with simply saying we don't know what a non-poster thinks and leaving it at that. > "I think you're setting up a test stacked in favor of what you want to > prove. > > Again, WHY? Well, go back and read what I wrote. I would just say the same thing again. > There must be some > way to logically determine if people are at a convention for VTES or > not. I think one HUGE thing you're not getting about my position is that you can't classify people that way. People are often at a convention for VTES *AND* other things. And if you take away the other things, the event isn't as good for them. > If you dont start offering some alternatives instead of starting > every sentance with "I think" then really you are doing nothing but > trolling in an attempt to hijack every NAC change thread. Bullshit. I use the phrase "I think" because it's accurate. Some things are opinions or plain guestimates of a situation that can't be objectively quantified - but they matter none the less. > I am still > at a loss for why you are so against the discussion of moving the NAC? Well, I think the answer is that I'm not against the discussion itself. I'm just against some of the arguments that are being advanced to advocate moving the NAC. > Look, when you offer a concern and somoene addresses it, you gloss over > the issue. You need to provide specific examples of that; not just your sock puppet debates that put words in my mouth. And I mean complete quotes IN context. I have a feeling that what you think was "glossing over" are details that I don't think matter to the point I was trying to make at the time. > In fact I am looking for the best alternative to the community, not > what will work best for Aaron Steele. Sure. But notice, I was NOT claiming your position was based on, "What will work best for Aaron Steele." You're missing a very important distinction here. I was claiming that you LOOK at the whole situation based on how Aaron Steele looks at it. By that I mean, you don't seem to conceive that someone might attend GenCon, attend all the large VtES tournaments there and STILL find the other benefits of GenCon to be important. You don't seem to think of that because YOU personally don't care about the other benefits of GenCon. This clearly affects your thinking. And that's fine as far as the opinion you hold that the rotating NAC is the better choice goes. But in suggesting how this issue should get resolved, you then advocate a method totally IGNORES the idea that other kinds of people exist. If you insist on counting people who attend all the VtES tournaments at GenCon as people who MUST agree with your position (and that's the practical result of your suggestion), then you're claiming "votes" that don't rightly belong to you. That's a foul, sir! ...(yadda, yadda, all the problems of GenCon - believe it or not, I understand) > So yeah, i'm a little biased against gencon. But since I cant prove that > "maybe" all those things helped VTES "if" someone else saw the NAC, and > because I cant track them I tend not to throw them into my debates. Well, none the less, they matter. Or at least, I TIHNK they matter. But just because it can't inherently be proved, doesn't mean it's wrong. Ultimately, someone else has to decide whether in their mind such things matter. I'm only bringing them up to remind people that the situation is not so simple as, "This-is-more-fair-therefore-it's-better." That's all. > And throw out totally unreasonable suggestions like "lets just look and > see if people play in VTES events all day every day as a rough guide to > the players dedication" Excuse me for being illogical. It's not illogical. It's just overly simplistic and does not bring the accuracy which claim for it. Fred

Aaron Wrote:"There must be some way to logically determine if people are at a convention for VTES or not." Fred Replied: "I think one HUGE thing you're not getting about my position is that you can't classify people that way. People are often at a convention for VTES *AND* other things. And if you take away the other things, the event isn't as good for them." Okay this is about enough of this. Frankly I'm bored of hearing you say things like "you cant classify people that way" and then saying stupid things like "if you take away the other things, the event isnt as good for them" Aren't you pre-classifying everyone as having 'other things' and then shouting at me that i'm wrong for doing it? which way is it? You tell me "People often go for 16-20 hours." in reference to my 8 hours is most of a day of gamming. but i dont know where or why you jump to that conclusion? could you be seeing things how fred see's them? the same as you accuse me of doing? cause i classify myself as a person, but i wouldnt say i often go for 16-20 hours. In fact given my extensive experience at game conventions the 16-20 hour players are the exception, not the rule. If the 16-20 hour player was the norm there would be alot more events 24 by 7 which i just dont see. i could compare quantity of events over the 24 hour period of origins cause i have the book right here...but i guess that you would discount, and gloss over that as not representative of the gamming population. am I right? My point is, that you seem to be missing, is you are going out of your way to tear down any suggestion that we move the NAC. "I don't care if a person spends most of his time for three of the four days of VtES, that DOESN'T mean he's at GenCon ONLY for VtES, which is what you're claiming." Uh, no that is not what I claimed at all. You are claiming that, if a person does any non-VTES related thing at gencon that they must DESIRE to do those non-VTES related things. I specifically pointed out that I was speaking about people who went to conventions 'primarily' for VTES. I go to the theater to see a movie, there happens to be video games out front so I play one. I would not refuse to go to the movies just because they had no arcade. "you don't seem to conceive that someone might attend GenCon, attend all the large VtES tournaments there and STILL find the other benefits of GenCon to be important." Not at all, in fact I believe I said in my example probably 80% or so were there primarily for VTES. that leaves out a segment that does find other things important doesnt it? Again jumping to conclusions. Here is what I found out regarding origins: 55 unique players 11 that played events all 4 days 13 that played 3 days worth of events 15 that played 2 days worth of events 8 that played only in the qualifier 8 that played only 1 day, not in the qualifier I would say that the 11+13 are the real hard core players. 44% of people out there only in it for VTES and nothing else. So there is probably a mid section of 27% more that go do something else just because gencon is there and do enjoy some of the benifits of the convention. And 29% that either only play vtes because it is there, or could only afford to show up for the qualifier(i say the second one cause that is me so i KNOW that at least) is the information perfect, no not really. There is no way to tell if the 2 day so/so players were just there because of jobs and they would have been there all week other wise. But I feel very confident about the people that played 3-4 days being at gencon primarily for VTES. you can disagree because you believe that gamers play 16-20 hours a day...but see we dont have to argue about that because you explained that already so I dont have to wonder why you feel my 8 hour threshold isnt enough. we disagree but that is okay for discussions sake. again, i think you are just discounting information and ideas because you dont like them sometimes. I'm always looking for new ideas and way to figure out what all the players want. but making claims like 'people play 20 hours a games a day' seems kind of baseless to me. at least i can prove that people played VTES for 8 hours. you can only guess at what they did with the rest of their time. and that seems more important to me.

"The NosferatuStuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121981864.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Aaron Wrote:"There must be some way to logically determine if people > are at a convention for VTES or not." > > Fred Replied: > "I think one HUGE thing you're not getting about my position is that > you can't classify people that way. People are often at a convention > for VTES *AND* other things. And if you take away the other things, > the event isn't as good for them." > > Okay this is about enough of this. Frankly I'm bored of hearing you > say things like "you cant classify people that way" and then saying > stupid things like "if you take away the other things, the event isnt > as good for them" Aren't you pre-classifying everyone as having > 'other things' and then shouting at me that i'm wrong for doing it? > which way is it? What the hell is THIS?!? I'm not "pre-classifying" anyone! ALL I SAID WAS, "People *ARE* *OFTEN* at a convention for VTES and other things". Emphasize "*ARE* *OFTEN*". I am just saying IT IS POSSIBLE that people can be at convention for VtES and other things - THEREFORE claiming that people who attend VtES tournaments, even three days worth of VtES tournaments, will not lose anything by moving the NAC out of GenCon is wrong. They MIGHT feel the loss of GenCon, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY CAME FOR. Your proposal to count people attending three days worth of tournaments as folks who won't mind leaving GenCon is therefore wrong. You know nothing about whether such people mind leaving GenCon. THAT is my point. It is my ONLY point but I happen to think it's a good one. > You tell me "People often go for 16-20 hours." in reference to my 8 > hours is most of a day of gamming. but i dont know where or why you > jump to that conclusion? I jump to that conclusion because it's true. People *OFTEN* do that. Notice I haven't said anything whatsoever about any particular person. I've just said it frequently happens and procede to draw fair conclusions from that. What is the miscommunication here? There seems to be something about the way I'm phrasing things that's causing you to miss my point. My point is that you are claiming to know more about why people came to GenCon than is justified from the ways you propose to resolve the issue. I am pointing out that other possible explanations for showing up and playing three days of VtES tournaments than that a person ONLY wants to play VtES and doesn't care about anything else at GenCon. > In fact given > my extensive experience at game conventions the 16-20 hour players are > the exception, not the rule. Did I say they were a "rule"? Where did I say that? I just said it often happens. If would be one reason to question your assignment of folks in the played-three-tournaments category as folks who only care about VtES. And there are others. If you think the opporunity to shop the dealer room is important, then you may only need to do it for one day and are fine spending the other three on VtES. Does this mean you won't miss the dealer room if can't go there? You may. Then you would view that as a downside to the NAC leaving GenCon. Despite your assurances in your new thread, no local playgroup can provide that. > "I don't care if a person spends most of his time for three of the four > days of VtES, that DOESN'T mean he's at GenCon ONLY for VtES, which is > what you're claiming." > > Uh, no that is not what I claimed at all. You absolutely did - quote: "You already have the records. Just see how many people attended gencon last year and played in the other VTES events. If you get there thursday play a draft, friday play the LCQ, saturday play the NAC, what do you think they are primarily there for?" Why would you suggest the above if NOT to count people who attend these three tournaments as being "primarily there for" VtES? And WHAT is the intent of determining such a number EXCEPT to count such people as "the group of people who must want VtES to leave GenCon"? I'm saying you can't classify peoples' interests that way. They may attend gencon, play in the Thursday draft, play in the Friday LCQ, play in the Saturday NAC *AND* *STILL* prefer doing all this shit at GenCon and not else- where. They might prefer doing this because they still like the other advantages of GenCon. In short, your proposal to examine this data in this way is an attempt to use this number for something it doesn't imply. That's all. > You are claiming that, if a person does any non-VTES related thing at > gencon that they must DESIRE to do those non-VTES related things. Nope. I'm simply saying you can't claim the reverse. The quote above indicates an intent to do so. > I specifically pointed out that I > was speaking about people who went to conventions 'primarily' for VTES. But so what the fuck? So they go to a convention 'primarily' for VTES, whatever that means. If they go to it for *ANYTHING* *BESIDES* VTES that's only available at GenCon - and there are a number of such things - then such advantages are lost when you move the NAC away from GenCon. Now, whether that means they will actually miss GenCon is another matter and one that I make no claims for. Maybe lots of people will, maybe few will, I don't know. I never claimed anything. I'm just dinging you for interpreting tournament participation as a person attending Gencon 'primarily for VTES' and, in turn, suggesting you know what that means. You don't know what that means. > Not at all, in fact I believe I said in my example probably 80% or so > were there primarily for VTES. that leaves out a segment that does > find other things important doesnt it? Again jumping to conclusions. No, jumping to conclusions is assuming that anyone who plays all the VtES tournaments agrees that the NAC should be rotated. > again, i think you are just discounting information and ideas because > you dont like them sometimes. That's possible. I think we all have to fight our tendencies to do that. I pride myself on being fair minded, but my shit stinks sometimes - perhaps more than I know. (And especially when I get caught up in an argument.) But one thing I believe about myself: I don't tend to get as offended by ideas and information I don't like as I do by arguments that I think are bogus. And maybe I've been too sensitive about the way some people are phrasing their arguments, but I think I've heard a number of bogus arguments about the NAC lately. > at least i can prove that people played VTES for 8 hours. Perhaps you can. But what you can't prove is that it's relevent or means anything to this dispute. Fred