A lot of people would rather be at a clean Motel 6 in podunk with a DVD player and a handful of even-less-than-thrilling things to do if it meant that everyone could come. For me, it's not so much the place as the company.

The list of requirements - things that HAVE TO BE THERE - does not stop at a DVD player. It includes internet access in every room, a hospitality suite in situ, and a facility large enough to host up to seventy people, with a dance floor and permission to play loud music.

If a Motel 6 with a DVD player is the minimum allowed, maybe you can get Abi to change the requirements list. In the meantime, however, that isn't the case.

The list of requirements - things that HAVE TO BE THERE - does not stop at a DVD player. It includes internet access in every room, a hospitality suite in situ, and a facility large enough to host up to seventy people, with a dance floor and permission to play loud music.

Hence, the compromising.

Right, okay, whatever.

Abi, talk to me. You're in charge, ma'am. I want clarification.

I'm not arguing with the requirements list; I think it's fine and I think it can be met. However, I don't think it can be met in this area for $100 a night inclusive of tax.

If Trudy is right, and all we need is a DVD player, can you please post that up? Because I've been going with the dictionary definition of requirement, which is pretty damned specific.

And while I'm happy to check some of the outlying areas - as nuts as I think the idea is, because the likelihood of you finding the kind of hotel the requirements list calls for in Gilroy or Pleasanton or Livermore is right up there with the likelihood of Beyonce windsurfing down the side of Annapurna with a pizza on her head - I'm not spending two hours on a train in each direction to view some armpit motel out in the middle of nowhere.

If all we need is a DVD player, no hospitality suite that allows us to keep our own munchies in there, no room for prom? Dude. I'll have a list with 15 motels, here in town, by the end of the week.

Clarify, please.

If Trudy is right, and all we need is a DVD player, can you please post that up? Because I've been going with the dictionary definition of requirement, which is pretty damned specific.

Oh please read my actual post before you commence your rant.

What I said is what PERSONALLY that is all that *I* (and others who see maximum attendance as the one and only priority) would need for a successful F2F.

SOME people would like something very snazzy.

What Abi has presented as parameters is an attempt at a compromise between the two. Lets see what we can get in those parameters and proceed from there.

Lets see what we can get in those parameters and proceed from there.

My impression is that people already have a good idea of what you can get from those intersecting sets -- close to nil in SF and perhaps others.

Then, the question is what gives first? The physical requirements, or the financial one?

It has seemed that the physical requirements are more important than the amount, no matter who'd be happy with no internet connection -- those that would be bereft have been vocal. And the financial requirement hasn't recently been met.

I did read your post. I also checked the dictionary, as follows:

Main Entry: re·quire·ment Pronunciation: -'kwIr-m&nt Function: noun : something required : a : something wanted or needed : NECESSITY b : something essential to the existence or occurrence of something else : CONDITION

I see wanted, needed, essential. It says nothing about compromise. It says nothing about negotiable.

Try reading MY post before you commence your eyeroll; if we're talking loose parameters and not requirements, I've got hotels for miles. But until Abi - who is the lady in charge - tells me differently, I'm assuming those requirements are hard and need to be met.

My impression is that people already have a good idea of what you can get from those intersecting sets -- close to nil in SF and perhaps others.

The only point person to check in on the issue is San Francisco. I'm having positive signs in Seattle. I'm pretty sure rooms in Vegas for under a hundred bucks also happen. Let's let people do their jobs and then see what our options are.

IFB sent to Vegas convention people.

FWIW, staying under $100 on The Strip nie impossible.

Let's let people do their jobs and then see what our options are.

Which, right now, means no hotels from SF. Is that what you mean? Because if you lose that requirement and present rooms that go for $109 or $119, then people can make up their own minds.

Obviously point people aren't aiming for penthouse suites, and are bearing financial restrictions in mind, but I think disallowing the presentations entirely is a little drastic.

A lot of people would rather be at a clean Motel 6

Maybe we could just steer clear of speaking for anyone else. Stating your own opinion is fine. Saying a lot of people tends to lead to problems.