[Artemisia] Event Thoughts

[Bruce Padget]

--- Mistress Gefjon writes:

> I would have to agree with Gregory about the camping
> events.   
> 
> Also, my 2 cents - I don't know about the other
> groups in Artemisia, but I
> know that the 'core' group of people who can be
> counted on to work on/at
> events is not so very large in BSK.  I don't think
> that stretching ourselves
> even thinner by trying to do even more events is the
> answer.  I sometimes
> think there are too many events for our smaller
> groups to try to support
> without wearing out our willing workers.    
> 
> As far as how late the events run - camping events
> are *great* in that folks
> have the whole night (or several nights) to
> socialize or do what ever they
> choose. (and if need be dinner dishes *can* be done
> in the morning)   Indoor
> one day events are a different story.  I think I can
> safely say that no one
> in our group wants to be cleaning a hall at 2 in the
> morning, any more.
> That is the reason many of our events end by 10:30
> or 11 pm. 

Concerns acknowledged, but with a question back -- How
are we growing that "core?"

When a group only has, say, four events a year, every
event is high stakes.  One failed big event destroys
the group's budget.  So we don't dare entrust those
events entirely to a new feast steward.  Upshot: 
restricted opportunities for new potential "core"
players to step up.

Of course, the more players you have, the more "core"
players you're likely to find.  I don't know about
anyone else, but I find we really shoot ourselves in
the foot in terms of recruitment when we have to tell
wide-eyed newcomers that, "Oh yeah, we have feasts,
and tourneys, and battles, and balls....but not for
another two months around here."

It's also hard to maintain the interest of the
wide-eyed newcomer when the lights come up and he's
shooed out just as the event gets rolling for him. 
It's easier on the "core," but it's hard to grow the
"core" that way.  (I'm pretty sure nobody in Artemisia
was at the First Tourney -- so every "core" player had
to be recruited somewhere along the line.)

Consider a new (but as it always happens, old as well)
paradigm for event structure -- the event steward's
job is to secure a site at low or no cost, be at the
site throughout the event (or have a designee to cover
some times), make sure the site doesn't burn down
during the event (again, can be partially delegated),
and make sure it's clean afterwards.  That's *all*.
The steward doesn't make an event happen, he simply
makes a time and place for the attendees to make an
event happen.  Some folks call these "mini-events,"
and back when groups were doing an event a month, this
was the model for at least a third of the events.

With smaller events, you can experiment with low- or
no-cost sites.  If it turns out that first-time event
steward ain't got what it takes, then it's
no-harm-no-foul.  It he does, move him up to the bigs.
 Yes, there is a little risk.  There are no chances to
succeed without matching chances for failure.

But what of feasts at such events? When Sir Gregory
and I spoke last night, he brought up the death of
off-board feasting.  Somewhere, somebody decided that
the only choices for eating at events are full-blown
feast or off-site dining.  Nobody's fessed up, but if
I meet the SOB, I'll throttle him :D  Best feast I've
ever been to in terms of ambience was in Arn Hold,
where folks had access to a kitchen for warming, but
brought their own food.  There was no formal
"competition," but we didn't need no steenking
competition to spend the evening amiably one-upping
each other.  Martha Stewart would have been a piker
there.  And nobody had to plan, cook, or clean up for
more than a dozen people.  I like good period food as
much as the next three guys.  (This may explain why I
take up the space of the next three guys. :D)  But
feasting isn't what you eat -- it's where, how, and
with whom you eat.

Regards,
Niccolo
Abbastanza Buon Non E Abbastanza Buono
bapadget at yahoo.com