The Unspoken Eleventh Principle

[otakup0pe]

You all know what they are. Sitting there just beneath the gleaming surface of each and every appropriately manifested temporal autonomous zones. Silently judging us all - waiting for the appropriate moment of awareness.

It's no secret that the Burning Man Organization works to control it's image. I am perfectly aware of and support their IP and trademarking policies. I am less sure of my feelings around allegations that there has been censorship of personal social media outlets.

I propose that the eleventh principle may very well be tightly controlled brand messaging.

Or is it perhaps something else.... What do you think.

[Gunslinger]

Interesting idea certainly. I think any time something becomes as large as BM it draws attention both from wanted and unwanted sources, being both positive and negative. Surely BMOrg has their hands full trying to control their image and at the same time give the event the freedom that spawned the idea to begin with. Along with this they're trying to please and cater to the free expression of a myriad of individuals (who disagree about everything) while at the same time keep themselves from getting too much negative attention/ and remain in good standing with government entities and politicians (who would love to see it end or fee/tax it to death). Add to that all the attention BM is getting from commercial outlets / also media (such as the Rolling Stone article) to fratboys who only look at BM as a way to fucked up and have a sexual encounter with a (willing or unwilling) stranger, to candyravers who just come because DJ Skrillex is playing dubstep at such n such.

BM is a strange, wonderful, and at the same time fragile organism. There are so many things that could destroy it (yes including itself or its members) and in that is much of its beauty. I'm for sustaining the magic bubble for as long as possible by almost any means. However, eventually bubbles burst (and my hope is that it doesn't happen with BM) yet if it does, one thing BM has created in anyone who has ever attended is: The idea! and therein lies its phoenix and its strength.

But wtf do I know, I just go there to see nekkid people dance and meet drunk chicks

[Captain Goddammit]

It's already been established that depussyfication is the eleventh principal.
But that other shit could be the twelfth.

[BBadger]

Concentrate on your own burn, not how others burn.

[Simon of the Playa]

the price of dust is eternal vigilance.

[MikeVDS]

Did radical inclusion not die when they started reserving passes for specified camps? So we're back down to 10?

Edit: I'm not griping about it. I agree that something along those lines is required for our situation; I just don't think radical inclusion applies anymore.

[MikeVDS]

From the Burningman website:
http://www.burningman.com/whatisburning ... -zJZONdUuA

Radical Inclusion
Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.

[AntiM]

11th principle is always in flux. Broadly, I see it as Don't Be a Dick. Apply directly to forehead.

[Captain Goddammit]

Burning Man needs to start sucking a lot more, so fewer people will want to go.
Otherwise as long as the BLM is going to arbitrarily cap it, it inevitably shifts toward radical exclusion.

[Dr. Pyro]

it inevitably shifts toward radical exclusion.

If you ask me, some of these yahoos need to be radically excluded.

[MikeVDS]

Maybe we need to start the "Burningman sucks; don't go" campaign again. Dedicate sites to horror stories heat and dust storms. I think many of the bad ones weed themselves out after the first year. All people post about burningman is the cool shit and do not educate them about the culture, principals, and ethics.

[LongWayUp]

I think of the yahoos as an unconscious form of QA testing. Just as the wind will take down any structure that is insufficiently secured, so will the boorish masses take down a cultural product whose creators aren't passionate enough about it. When a slack-jawed dullard in full default mode trudges up to your bar and demands a free drink, that is a test of your art: can your performance break through their calcified layer of expectations? Can you get them to strip, have a rap battle with the person behind them in line, or what have you, and so create an opportunity for participation?

Yahoos, and annoying people in general, keep artists honest. They do not play along because they are trying to be nice to you; they play along because your enthusiasm for your craft showed them that taking a giant leap into a peculiar world is fun and rewarding--because you found a way to throw a spark onto the dry tinder of their dreary behavioral patterns.

They came here to burn, just like everyone else. So burn them. And give them fire with which to burn their fellow yahoos.

[AntiM]

Actually, I won't do tricks for drinks. Does that make me a bad burner? Nah, I just mosey along to the next opportunity.

[FIGJAM]

Post nothing but whiteouts on youtube!!!

[MikeVDS]

Another problem we've been having is this great weather the last few years dammit! We need another 2007 tornado combined with the dust storms of 2008!

[Simon of the Playa]

We need another 2007 tornado

( psssssssssssssst....thursday afternoon.....don't make any plans....just sayin' )

[BBadger]

Did radical inclusion not die when they started reserving passes for specified camps? So we're back down to 10?

Edit: I'm not griping about it. I agree that something along those lines is required for our situation; I just don't think radical inclusion applies anymore.

Radical inclusion didn't die at all.

1) These principles are only really applicable once you are at the event, not leading up to it. Sure, people try and practice the principles outside the event, but following through strictly with that would be impossible. For one, decommodification is impossible if the event exists at all. Ticket are, and always have been, commodities. Attending the event also requires resources, even if bartering is not allowed at the event. Likewise, people have always been excluded from the event even before these ticket scarcity problems (see #2).

2) Just as "universal healthcare" is only "universal" for citizens, non-attending people are already "excluded" because of other problems like finances, transportation, age, location, limits to tickets, how fast you can connect to servers, etc. This has always been the case, even when there was no ticket scarcity. Directed distribution is at least based on useful metrics such as LNT, past projects, involvement etc. and not on something stupid like how many years you've attended. This ensures that responsible communities are able to continue to participate in the event, which leads to #3.

3) Burning Man is equally about the inclusion of communities (camps) as it is individuals. Humans are social creatures, and many of the projects and camps are only possible via cooperation. Scattering tickets randomly in a true random process, as demonstrated in the lottery, harms the communal structure of Burning Man by fragmenting camps. This is more harmful to the event than equal opportunity access to tickets for individuals across the board. Despite this, the majority of tickets are still sold to individuals and resellable as well. With ticket scarcity we will always have people left out, all other things equal.

[remi]

Did radical inclusion not die when they started reserving passes for specified camps? So we're back down to 10?

Edit: I'm not griping about it. I agree that something along those lines is required for our situation; I just don't think radical inclusion applies anymore.

Radical inclusion didn't die at all.

1) These principles are only really applicable once you are at the event, not leading up to it. Sure, people try and practice the principles outside the event, but following through strictly with that would be impossible. For one, decommodification is impossible if the event exists at all. Ticket are, and always have been, commodities. Attending the event also requires resources, even if bartering is not allowed at the event. Likewise, people have always been excluded from the event even before these ticket scarcity problems (see #2).

2) Just as "universal healthcare" is only "universal" for citizens, non-attending people are already "excluded" because of other problems like finances, transportation, age, location, limits to tickets, how fast you can connect to servers, etc. This has always been the case, even when there was no ticket scarcity. Directed distribution is at least based on useful metrics such as LNT, past projects, involvement etc. and not on something stupid like how many years you've attended. This ensures that responsible communities are able to continue to participate in the event, which leads to #3.

3) Burning Man is equally about the inclusion of communities (camps) as it is individuals. Humans are social creatures, and many of the projects and camps are only possible via cooperation. Scattering tickets randomly in a true random process, as demonstrated in the lottery, harms the communal structure of Burning Man by fragmenting camps. This is more harmful to the event than equal opportunity access to tickets for individuals across the board. Despite this, the majority of tickets are still sold to individuals and resellable as well. With ticket scarcity we will always have people left out, all other things equal.

Thanks for typing what I thought.. but was too lazy to type. Every time I hear someone talk about the death of radical inclusion I just think "le sigh"

[Captain Goddammit]

I brought along a couple friends for their first time in 2001... we arrived Sunday night, and there was a Holy Mother Of God dust storm blowing. We had just driven 700 miles, and it took a lot of effort for me to convince them not to turn around and go back home!
I do seem to remember the dust storms used to be worse, the heat a lot hotter... WTF is going on?

[FIGJAM]

My powerful Karma won't let "Bad" weather into MY burn!!!

[MikeVDS]

Did radical inclusion not die when they started reserving passes for specified camps? So we're back down to 10?

Edit: I'm not griping about it. I agree that something along those lines is required for our situation; I just don't think radical inclusion applies anymore.

Radical inclusion didn't die at all.

1) These principles are only really applicable once you are at the event, not leading up to it. Sure, people try and practice the principles outside the event, but following through strictly with that would be impossible. For one, decommodification is impossible if the event exists at all. Ticket are, and always have been, commodities. Attending the event also requires resources, even if bartering is not allowed at the event. Likewise, people have always been excluded from the event even before these ticket scarcity problems (see #2).

2) Just as "universal healthcare" is only "universal" for citizens, non-attending people are already "excluded" because of other problems like finances, transportation, age, location, limits to tickets, how fast you can connect to servers, etc. This has always been the case, even when there was no ticket scarcity. Directed distribution is at least based on useful metrics such as LNT, past projects, involvement etc. and not on something stupid like how many years you've attended. This ensures that responsible communities are able to continue to participate in the event, which leads to #3.

3) Burning Man is equally about the inclusion of communities (camps) as it is individuals. Humans are social creatures, and many of the projects and camps are only possible via cooperation. Scattering tickets randomly in a true random process, as demonstrated in the lottery, harms the communal structure of Burning Man by fragmenting camps. This is more harmful to the event than equal opportunity access to tickets for individuals across the board. Despite this, the majority of tickets are still sold to individuals and resellable as well. With ticket scarcity we will always have people left out, all other things equal.

I do not agree, that is one reason I quoted the burningman site:

Anyone may be a part of Burning Man.

I agree that there is inclusion to be part of burningman but the radical part died. Anyone may be part but some people are more likely to be part. Not radical.

[BBadger]

Anyone may be a part of Burning Man.

I agree that there is inclusion to be part of burningman but the radical part died. Anyone may be part but some people are more likely to be part. Not radical.

So let me get this straight, the mere fact that not every ticket is up for sale (less than the increase in population from 2012-2013) is what reduces this principle from "radical" to not-radical? Tickets that can only be purchased for those who decide beforehand to attend, with limits on the numbers, restrictions on use, and no guarantees that they'll even be available.

What about the LIT program? The existence -- and expansion -- of that program favors those with lesser incomes (which does not necessarily imply means). 4000 tickets are sold via this program, reserved exclusively for people with a certain tax return record. Wouldn't that be undermining complete open access?

Or what about means in general? People have been calling this an elitist event since it was invented because the price of a ticket and travel/prep precludes a lot of people from attending. There are fences around the perimeter for a reason after all. A lack of means has always been the most major hurdle to attending this event, especially as ticket prices have gone up dramatically, and there are no more tiers. Many of the people who used to attend the event when it was much smaller, and much cheaper, are unable to afford even the pre-sellout prices. That's just the ticket price.

There was never a radical initiative to enable everyone to attend. That has been the traditional hurdle. What makes this event far less accessible to people is the fact that this event is hosted out in the middle of nowhere, requiring ground transportation of goods both in and out of the event excludes many people who cannot dedicate resources to renting vehicles, staying with other camps, or other accommodations that require heavy investment of resources and time.

The same camps that get access to DD are also those that already have the infrastructure in place to attend, and the reality is that the ability for other people to attend often hinges on the existence of established camps. We've already seen how services such as Burner Express can help enable more people who have fewer resource-means to attend the event. Directed Distribution therefore becomes more about ensuring proper infrastructure, and not just keeping an old boys club of established camps.

[Eric]

I do not agree, that is one reason I quoted the burningman site:

Anyone may be a part of Burning Man.

I agree that there is inclusion to be part of burningman but the radical part died. Anyone may be part but some people are more likely to be part. Not radical.

I agree with Bbadger - anyone can still be part of Burning Man. Everyone has an equal chance to get a ticket in the regular sale, STEP & OMG, it's luck and computer speed that determine if you do (mostly luck). Even with the Directed Sale it's first-come, first-served, so those people are in a similar boat to everyone else (and if they miss that sale they are in the exact same boat as everyone else). Just because you're unhappy that you didn't get a ticket this year doesn't mean that you didn't have the same chance to get one as the majority of Burners.

There are simply more people who want to go than the BLM will allow. Period. You don't have to like that fact, but that doesn't stop it from being a fact.

[theCryptofishist]

Did radical inclusion not die when they started reserving passes for specified camps? So we're back down to 10?

Edit: I'm not griping about it. I agree that something along those lines is required for our situation; I just don't think radical inclusion applies anymore.

Radical inclusion didn't die at all.

1) These principles are only really applicable once you are at the event, not leading up to it. Sure, people try and practice the principles outside the event, but following through strictly with that would be impossible. For one, decommodification is impossible if the event exists at all. Ticket are, and always have been, commodities. Attending the event also requires resources, even if bartering is not allowed at the event. Likewise, people have always been excluded from the event even before these ticket scarcity problems (see #2).

2) Just as "universal healthcare" is only "universal" for citizens, non-attending people are already "excluded" because of other problems like finances, transportation, age, location, limits to tickets, how fast you can connect to servers, etc. This has always been the case, even when there was no ticket scarcity. Directed distribution is at least based on useful metrics such as LNT, past projects, involvement etc. and not on something stupid like how many years you've attended. This ensures that responsible communities are able to continue to participate in the event, which leads to #3.

3) Burning Man is equally about the inclusion of communities (camps) as it is individuals. Humans are social creatures, and many of the projects and camps are only possible via cooperation. Scattering tickets randomly in a true random process, as demonstrated in the lottery, harms the communal structure of Burning Man by fragmenting camps. This is more harmful to the event than equal opportunity access to tickets for individuals across the board. Despite this, the majority of tickets are still sold to individuals and resellable as well. With ticket scarcity we will always have people left out, all other things equal.

Thanks for typing what I thought.. but was too lazy to type. Every time I hear someone talk about the death of radical inclusion I just think "le sigh"

Everytime I see "le ___" I think, fuck, why does french occupy that space, What I'd give for a die or an il.

[otakup0pe]

Ah so if I am understanding this thread properly the unspoken eleventh principle is debating which of the ten principles are legit.

And something about how ticket sales and BLM stipulations are unfair. Or is it about how people seem to be confused about how an event where the minimum cash outlay to not suffer personal injury or impose upon others is somewhere around eight hundred dollars US is or is not elitist.

[MikeVDS]

I agree with Bbadger - anyone can still be part of Burning Man. Everyone has an equal chance to get a ticket in the regular sale, STEP & OMG, it's luck and computer speed that determine if you do (mostly luck). Even with the Directed Sale it's first-come, first-served, so those people are in a similar boat to everyone else (and if they miss that sale they are in the exact same boat as everyone else). Just because you're unhappy that you didn't get a ticket this year doesn't mean that you didn't have the same chance to get one as the majority of Burners.

I am not unhappy with it and I have a ticket already and I have no doubt I'll get another, so your assumption about that is completely off-base. I just don't believe it applies to the event anymore (not mad about it). I was annoyed with it last year (I got tickets right away) but it's their event and I can understand how it's necessary. I completely agree with you Badger about the ticket prices also degrading the radical inclusion and almost mentioned it myself. I think transportation to the middle of nowhere is a weak argument though since I know plenty of burners who found transportation when they had none.

"No prerequisites exist for participation in our community" but they should add the qualifier to the statement "but if you meet certain prerequisites you're 25% more likely to get a ticket" When you start to add qualifiers to everything you cannot call it "radical" anything, It's just "inclusion". The low income tickets could be argued either way. it really helps remove a barrier for a lot of people. Since it allows more people to be in the eligible pool I would say it helps rather than hinders, but I can see your argument as well. I guess it was ultimately the selling out of the event that put the final nail in the coffin in my mind. The end of tiered tickets that allowed slightly easier access for those with less income. They also allowed increased inclusion based on some seemingly arbitrary system. There were camps that seemed like they should get them and didn't and others who appeared less "necessary" who did.

I just read the radical inclusion statement they make and to me it's laughable. They should tweak their wording is all to make it an accurate statement or it takes away credibility of the other principals for those new to the community.

[MikeVDS]

Radical inclusion didn't die at all.

1) These principles are only really applicable once you are at the event, not leading up to it. Sure, people try and practice the principles outside the event, but following through strictly with that would be impossible. For one, decommodification is impossible if the event exists at all. Ticket are, and always have been, commodities. Attending the event also requires resources, even if bartering is not allowed at the event. Likewise, people have always been excluded from the event even before these ticket scarcity problems (see #2).

2) Just as "universal healthcare" is only "universal" for citizens, non-attending people are already "excluded" because of other problems like finances, transportation, age, location, limits to tickets, how fast you can connect to servers, etc. This has always been the case, even when there was no ticket scarcity. Directed distribution is at least based on useful metrics such as LNT, past projects, involvement etc. and not on something stupid like how many years you've attended. This ensures that responsible communities are able to continue to participate in the event, which leads to #3.

3) Burning Man is equally about the inclusion of communities (camps) as it is individuals. Humans are social creatures, and many of the projects and camps are only possible via cooperation. Scattering tickets randomly in a true random process, as demonstrated in the lottery, harms the communal structure of Burning Man by fragmenting camps. This is more harmful to the event than equal opportunity access to tickets for individuals across the board. Despite this, the majority of tickets are still sold to individuals and resellable as well. With ticket scarcity we will always have people left out, all other things equal.

Everyone keeps saying it only applies to whe you're at the event and if that's the case I would agree with you. It's their wording that kills that. "Anyone may be a part of Burning Man." Then they qualify that further by saying there are no prerequisites! That's obviously talking about being part of burning man, not just "once you're here". That wording should change. Does it honestly sound right to you?

I completely agree with #2 and #3. I don't blame BMORG for killing their definition of radical inclusion but it still died according to their definition.

If you think they should change decommodification I think you need a better argument. They wrote it with no absolutes.

Decommodification
In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience.

"Seek", "stand ready", "resist". It does not deal in the same type of absolute terms they use when explaining Radical Inclusion. I think the decommidification still works, but I do think fewer and fewer of us are seeking, standing ready, and resisting.

[GreyCoyote]

MVDS: Lets make this easy for ya. Come to burning man, get dusty, shit-faced drunk, oogle at cool art, cheer the Burn, fall in love, chase sparkleponies, get exhausted, have a major crisis, dehydrate, feed your inner child, and have a life-changing revelation about tulips and windmills.

If, after all of this, you still want to argue semantics and philosophy, we can talk.

[MikeVDS]

If, after all of this, you still want to argue semantics and philosophy, we can talk.

Not only am I willing to argue semantics after the burns I'll even do it during. I like to play devils advocate, but I do really think they need to change the text. I no longer think it's fitting.

[GreyCoyote]

Good for you! I will be drinking heavily and taking great pleasure in heckling any passing philosophers.

Please submit your proposed changes to the 10 P's in this thread. We will review them promptly, suggest changes, refer them to the proper Eplaya committee, vote upon their inclusion in future editions of the Guide, and tell Larry Harvey he is doing it wrong.

Or you can show up at my camp, have a beer, and try your hand at heckling with my new bullhorn.