From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Pennsic Land Allotment
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:08:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Aug25.170856.14113
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <mjc.714753649@NL.CS.CMU.EDU> mjc+@cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) writes
:
>The philosophy this year was that each person got a certain amount of land,
>and it was up to you to decide how to use it.  This is the only truly fair
>allocation method.
>
>Last year's autocrat had a different philosophy: if you can cover it with
>canvas (or nylon, or...), you can have it.  From what I was able to gather
>at Pennsic this year, next year's autocrat has a similar philosophy.

Last year(PWXX) there was a 250 sq ft per person limit. I remember hearing(from
the Autocrat) that they(the staff) had to make some camps smaller. This was
because the camps were using  more than 250 per person.

>Under the fair method, my group can decide to double-up in small tents so
>that we can have a large courtyard, play area for the kids, firepit, etc.
>Under the unfair method, the courtyard goes away because it's "obviously"
>wasted space.  (Yes, they did tell people this at Pennsic XX.)  Also, and
>more problematic, under the unfair method, I can secure nice comfy
>arrangements for myself by renting a 20x20 from Grimm's and maybe bringing
>along a dining fly or two. There just plain isn't enough room for all the
>camps to use 600+ square feet per person, so for every greedy person,
>someone else pays the price.  This is why I consider this method to be
>unfair.

We had many persons doubling up, and used the extra space for a "common" area.
Although noone said our camp was wasting space as such, we had genltes(from the
autocrats staff) measure our camp 2 times, which is basicly the same thing.

The problem is that when someone has a lot of open land in their camp, someone
esle(who does not) will complain. When these complaints reach the autocrat,
they will check out the problem.

>Of course there is plenty of argument possible on whether 235 square feet
>is adequate.  I will not put forth an opinion on that question.  The real
>problem this year was that more people said they were coming than acutally
>did; had there been a better picture of how many would be there, the land
>parcels could have been bigger.

I don't see how. The 235 per person was set up _before_ the land-lotto. The 
space per person would still be 235.

>                                 I suspect we won't solve this problem until
>pre-registration happens.  (I mean real pre-registration, with at least
>partial fees paid in advance.)

As long as someone feels that somebody else got an advantage, there will be
complaints.

If I pre-register a camp of 50 and only 40 show up, do I lose the extra space?
Under pre-registration I have already "Paid" for it, so I should get it. This 
would give my camp an extra 2500 sq ft of common area.

If the persons in this camp were SOBs, they could purposefully preregister 10
people for the camp, saying on friday of the war, that they could not make it.
(Assuming a fee of $40 each for the weekend, it would cost each person in this
camp $10 each for the extra common area.) This arangement _would_ happen, if
allowed. The persons with money will then get the advantage.

>Ellisif

Otto
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
From: Dave.Aronson@f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP