Rejected Mutant Vehicles

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:24 am

using a few cases of success doesnt have much of an impact compared to the ones that dont. in this situation its easier to simply redefine what a successful discussion is.

of course i always welcome an org group to discuss changes in policy and why. but when compared to to all the people impacted with added emphasis on the number of those who dont recieve any decent direct reply, its a no-brainer to pass judgement on how much effort is required compared to any valuable benefit of discussion, especially when weighed against the fact that nothing will change from it.

hence, futile.

and people wonder why, when you multiply this by a thousand people involved over something more pressing and significant like camera use or moop issues, effecting any measureable change is impossible?

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:26 am

spectabillis wrote:
Ron wrote:Hmmmm. I'm not seeing how my pointing out that calling folk, 'nazi,' isn't likely to get them to listen to you...
hmmm... i'm not seeing how name calling is what i was referring to. it was about...

If we took a moment to understand that and considered things from the POV of the org, as well as from our own tired and work drained position, the odds of an actual conversation go way up, IME.
which once again has proven to be an exercise in futility. if you still dont think so (ignoring the doc's feedback from them) then we look foreward to you engaging the dmv to prove us wrong.

Same answer. I wasn't telling Dr. Pyro to accept anything. I was telling him that starting his conversation by calling folk a nazi is very likely to create that futility you're talking about.

Is the situation screwed? Of course it is. From a systems point of view it is way screwed up. If the DMV is going to be in the business of approving MV then a few things should be true that aren't. The standards that they are using for that approval ought to be clear and publically available. There are hints that I can find, but no clear single page. Those standards ought to be clear enough so that anyone can read them and know wether or not their MV will be approved before they start building.

There should be an appeal process, and the results of the screening ought to be public. DMV should put up a web page with both the approved and disapproved projects so folk can look 'em over and know what's going on. In the event of a rejection that decision should include a letter to the builder clearly and expressly saying with the denial was issued. And so on.

Now I'm not an apologizer for the org. Far from it. As I've said about half the time I've had to deal with an org person in some kind of authority role it's been great, and the other half they've been a power mad bully. I've had folk from DPW demand bribes of illegal substances for my camp to do what it already had approval to do, I've had gate staff demand bribes to let folk in early, even though their names were on the list and the head of ticketing had just told the gate staff over the radio that that was true. And let's not get started on the contract they want the little guys with cameras to sign, even though the big guys won't b/c the contracts are silly and unenforceable. Of course the burn isn't perfect, nor the org. However, in every one of those times, when I've dealt with the person in front of me by calling them a "nazi," or otherwise losing my cool, things got worse, not better. In every one of those times when I've remembered that I'm dealing with a volunteer doing their best in a difficult circumstance things have improved.

In fact, I'm encouraging Dr. Pyro to act on his disappointment but to do so in a way that maximizes the odds of improvement, not minimizes them. You can be as certain as you like that there is no way he could get involved and improve thing even marginally. That's cool. I only share that certainty when he, or anyone else, begins their interactions with the org by displaying the kind of asshole-ishness they are complaining about. Then, indeed, the chances of getting involved and helping do go to zero. Positive efforts have different chances of success even if they still aren't 100%

Ron

PS DMV isn't my thing. I'll be working with different departments this year to continue putting my efforts where my mouth is. Personally it wouldn't hurt my feelings if *all* MV's were banned so I think DMV is probably a round hole that my square ass wouldn't fit comfortably in. :)

PPS I'm also not saying that the only way for Dr. Pyro to get involved is via volunteering with DPW. A protest page, say, where he clearly and calmly laid out the facts of the situation may do more to gain him public support than calling folks, 'nazi,' on the eplay will. Who knows maybe he could get a couple hundred burners to write the org demanding a reconsideration? And that's just one example from the universe of possibilities.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:55 am

Ron wrote:In fact, I'm encouraging Dr. Pyro to act on his disappointment but to do so in a way that maximizes the odds of improvement, not minimizes them. You can be as certain as you like that there is no way he could get involved and improve thing even marginally. That's cool. I only share that certainty when he, or anyone else, begins their interactions with the org by displaying the kind of asshole-ishness they are complaining about. Then, indeed, the chances of getting involved and helping do go to zero. Positive efforts have different chances of success even if they still aren't 100%

oh jesus.

he didnt do that ron, his correspondance was very polite and it didnt get him anywhere. read his posts again. none of your other suggestions will have an effect either, at least not any effect thats worth the effort.

ironically, its not when people create huge shit-storms that org groups will occasionally reply, but by then its too late. sure, in an ideal world we would all be happy with pulsed rainbow enemas from furry pink unicorns to the rhythm of a house soundcamp, but the org is so far in the disORGanized and petty world thats never going to happen...

...well, not unless you are some multi-year huge themecamp mayor, repeat funded artist, paid org employee, or personally know a board member if-you-know-what-i-mean.

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:04 am

But the point in the end is it really isnâ€™t and has never been a mutant vehicle and will never be unless they make Major changes to it . SO shit or get off the pot and make room for those willing to put in the work.

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:06 am

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:29 am

spectabillis wrote:...
oh jesus.

he didnt do that ron, his correspondance was very polite and it didnt get him anywhere. read his posts again.

His first post here read, "I'll tell you what's happening here Badger: the pissants who get just a whiff of authority somehow think their shit doesn't stink. We've known one another for awhile and will on occasion poke one another, but it's with a modicum of respect and understanding. These DMV Hotties have neither. Sure, let us blow over $1000 getting ready. Hell, I certainly didn't need the money."

That's not what I'd call "very polite."

Now I'm agreeing with you that the org has problems with inconsistency, nepotism, and so on. But calling folk, "pissants," isn't going to address that. You can see the truism there or not, up to you, but dismissing folk who could agree with you as pushing some kind of candy raver acceptance bs isn't helping your cause. In fact, it's demonstrating the kind of snap to judgement snarkiness that helps to infect many interactions between campers and the Org.

In this case even the vague guildlines that do exist have lead folk outside of DMV to agree with the decision. That hardly seems to make it a clear example of the kind of abuses we're bitching about, seems to me. Which is not to say that I have an opinion on Doc Pyros's specific case, I'd need much more information for that to happen...

Ron

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:29 am

strange zule, i thought the point was a mutant vehicle is no longer considered a mutant vehicle, and that change was a complete surprise.

That's not what I'd call "very polite."

then i guess you didnt read his comments again, because he posted that here and wasnt how he addressed it with the dmv.

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:34 am

As I understand it they have been warned for the past 3 years and did nothing .

There was no surprise just anger at losing the camps private transport....

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:04 am

We have been on the playa now for three years (this would have made four). We never argued that it wasn't the most mutant of vehicles, clearly it is not.

is this what you are referring to zule? because i cant find a reference to any warning. boarderline mutant vehicle yes, but strikes me as something so vague that not having anything mentioned to them on two or three previous times would naturally lead someone to think there isnt an issue.

... but dismissing folk who could agree with you as pushing some kind of candy raver acceptance bs isn't helping your cause.

heh... you misunderstood my post ron, again. hey i can hold up que cards if you need

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:11 pm

spectabillis wrote:strange zule, i thought the point was a mutant vehicle is no longer considered a mutant vehicle, and that change was a complete surprise.

That's not what I'd call "very polite."
then i guess you didnt read his comments again, because he posted that here and wasnt how he addressed it with the dmv.

I did read his posts. But doesn't change the fact that in this thread he started by calling them names. Thats just a fact, and it's that fact to which I'm referring. Up to you to see it or no, but it's a fact.

In terms of his report of how he began his interaction with DMV, it's not really relevant. I'm not forming an opinion on the merit of this rejection as I don't have the needed information. I do have an opinion on the system as a whole, and I've expressed it.

And if I'm not understanding your writing you're free to use cue cards, or more clear writing, as you see fit. If your intent with the above candy raver crap was not to frame my point as such I'd be open to hearing what your intent was.

Ron

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:17 pm

spectabillis wrote:
We have been on the playa now for three years (this would have made four). We never argued that it wasn't the most mutant of vehicles, clearly it is not.
is this what you are referring to zule? because i cant find a reference to any warning. boarderline mutant vehicle yes, but strikes me as something so vague that not having anything mentioned to them on two or three previous times would naturally lead someone to think there isnt an issue.

Nor is it statement of not receiving verbal warnings at inspections , I donâ€™t think we should fault the DMV for giving them a chance, nor for finally fallowing through .

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 2:40 pm

ron, you were referring to doc's discussion here - i was referring to doc's discussion with the dmv, and the raver comment was pure sarcasm.

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:15 pm

Guys guys guys, guilty as charged. Yes, I have referred to the DMV people at DMVNazis, but though not necessarily as a term of endearment, one of the thought process involved. Nonetheless, I did in fact use the term. For that, I am eternally sorry...sort of. However, what seems to be lost on the entire civilized conversation is that we need Tieland not so much for personal transport, though we have been known to take 20 revelers out on Burn Night, but for safety reasons because our flame effects are a menace to a tent community. Sure we're proud of the mutant art on the vehicle, and only rumor has it that we (read: not me, but rather Lee the trucks actual owner) were warned that it would not make the cut this year. Never in the conversation was it brought up what we were supposed to do to ensure the safety of our passangers and the people within the confines of the theme camp area with regards to our flame effects. The only way to ensure their safety is for us to place ourselves squarely out on the vastness of the open playa. It is in that regard that we believe that our issues have not been adequately addressed. I have the utmost respect for the people who monitor the flame effect equipment, they do a service to both the community and the people (dare I say sometimes at time idiots?) who ignite these things. I am eternally grateful they made us retrofit our fire cannon. Sure, it cost us a few nights on the playa and probably five or six hours of work, but it was for the good and welfare of our community. And it is in that regard that the DMV cannot or will not see our position. Again, nazi was too strong of a term. Next time I'll use comrade.

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:16 pm

.doublepost.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:47 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote:Sure we're proud of the mutant art on the vehicle, and only rumor has it that we (read: not me, but rather Lee the trucks actual owner) were warned that it would not make the cut this year. Never in the conversation was it brought up what we were supposed to do to ensure the safety of our passangers and the people within the confines of the theme camp area with regards to our flame effects. .

no offence doc, but its a completely different story if you were given some sort of heads up that there would be a problem. yeah, i know there's a lack of info given to address problems of safety, but theres a general lack of info about anything to do with huge flamethrowing mutant vehicles. i mean, its not like there are standards or build designs.

but that would be a separate issue to me because the way you posted it... it sounded like the dmv didnt give you any prior notice with a big-middle-finger NO. and it sounds like thats not the story.

oneeyeddick · Post by **oneeyeddick** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:03 am

Speckabilly...There are huge guidelines and standards for all Pyro, especially the big stuff on some MVs.
Types of hoses, types of valves, direction of flame, required safety valves, types of metals allowed and not allowed, requirements for users to know ABC first aid techniques, etc etc etc.....

and along with all of these requirements, they must also me a MUTATED VEHICLE,
unless they are DPW or a few other exceptions to the rules.

As for build designs, there are only actually a smalll handful of those, but dozens of variations possible each type.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:29 am

whateverdick wrote:Speckabilly...There are huge guidelines and standards for all Pyro...and along with all of these requirements, they must also me a MUTATED VEHICLE,..

my point was the information isnt readily available. if it was, people would simply be directed to whatever web page or doc the dmv safety peeps have. you have to take the initiative and contact them, ask around, try and track down someone specific, find technical info yourself and figure it out... etc. its not really thier responsibility.

and obviously theres going to be some confusion what defines a mutant vehicle, dick, which i guess you havent noticed was already mentioned.

zule wrote:Nor is it statement of not receiving verbal warnings at inspections , I donâ€™t think we should fault the DMV for giving them a chance, nor for finally fallowing through .

sure, and i agree with some of that, but my point was doc never mentioned recieving years of warnings which you said they did. thats important to clarify if pointing fingers, ironically, just as important to clarify that doc did seem to get some reasonable correspondance over it.

so, can everyone put that aside now?

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:19 am

Maybe me and Doc could get together and drop the fire cannon in the back of my boat... ??

thirt33n · Post by **thirt33n** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:05 am

HOT MARGARITAS!!!

mojo · Post by **mojo** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:26 am

I have my revenge for not being able to bring my silent battery powered MV - I went out and bought a really noisy nasty stand-up scooter.

MWAHHHAAAAHHHAAA

Doc - care to join my outlaw scooter gang?

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:15 am

spectabillis wrote:ron, you were referring to doc's discussion here - i was referring to doc's discussion with the dmv, and the raver comment was pure sarcasm.

Got it. :) Yeah, I have nothing to say about Doc Pyros discussion with DMV as I don't have the information I'd need to make such an opinion.

Ron

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:23 am

I love the idea of marrying the cannon to a different MV and agree that if prior warning was given then the DMV looks even less deserving of name calling.

Doc, like I said it always sucks to be told, "no," and I'm sorry that happened to you this year. The odds are pretty good that in some future year I may be told the very same thing by the org as I try to do Shady Tower again, if I do. But if you're serious about options to address the flame/MV combo would swapping the cannon to a different MV work? Or how about parking Tieland on on the open playa somewhere and not driving her around? You'd have to hike to the wienie roast, but that could be kind of fun on it's own. Refueling could be a trick but I'm not sure how you deal with that now.

In any case I'll bet that there are options for you all to make flame, if not this year than in future ones. Best,

Ron

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:45 pm

Thanks to both Ron and the good Captain GDit for your suggestions. However, we have just disassembled the fire cannon and have it locked away in storage for the duration. I guess you could call this capitulation. We may still bring Tieland out to BDC&WB if for no other reason it also doubles as one of our trailers. We put about a dozen planks of Barbies on the dance floor above the driver and the gallows and other shit down below. But still, if this thing isn't considered mutant enough (and the pics that Badger posted came off of our URL and really don't do justice to the mayhem it can cause) I can hardly imagine what would be. I mean three fire effects, naked women, and Barbies. Who could ask for anything more?

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:17 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote: I mean three fire effects, naked women, and Barbies. Who could ask for anything more?

The DMV I guess...

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:54 pm

Doc,

No one seems to have asked the question: is there any mechanism for appealing a decision or can it be resubmitted to so that licensing is for day use/night use/immobile flame effects?

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:54 am

I was informed by someone who works with flame effects (and their approval or denial) of a policy for appeal, which I did. I asked for a night-only license because of the flame effects that were going to be in place. It was also rejected out of hand.

burningflyer · Post by **burningflyer** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:50 pm

~ DEPARTMENT OF MUTANT VEHICLES ~ VOLUNTEER HOTTIE HANDOUT ~

On Playa Mutant Vehicle Approval: In service to the Burning Man community since 1997, your 2008 Department of Mutant Vehicle volunteer â€œHottiesâ€

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:06 pm

What a cold damp pile of anaerobic bullshit.

EspressoDude · Post by **EspressoDude** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:36 pm

DMV compliance with all them gov't agencies has turned DMV into another gov't agency.

burningflyer · Post by **burningflyer** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:14 pm

Over 2000 Volunteer hours are dedicated to providing the unique opportunity for less than 1% of the community to display a motive creation.

Consider the tipping point for motive versus static display. Last year the Mutant Vehicles out numbered the static art placed on th Open Playa by 2 - 1

As cities evolve, so does transportation. Unlike most cities,Black Rock Cityâ€™s survival depends on participants rejecting the prevailing car culture of the default world and embracing alternative transportation. Public safety concerns are reason enough for Burning Man to be a pedestrian/bicycle city. When the event first moved out to the playa in 1990, there were no rules about vehicles. By 1996,with still only 8,000 participants, the dust problems and hazards of casual and recreational driving had become extreme. In 1997, casual driving was designed out of Black Rock City transportation.

1997 was critical in the evolution of the event not only because it was â€œthe first year that you could bike around without worrying about getting hit by a car, â€