ACK! I just bought my first BM ticket . . .

[LeChatNoir]

4) DO NOT pick up a hitch-hiker until you've eyeballed their ticket. LOOK AT IT UNDER THE LIGHT. It's YOUR pain in the ass if it's counterfeight. The whole car gets to come up with the money to front him/her.

I think precipitate was questioning the “whole car” thing in reference to a counterfeit ticket, not willingly hiding a stowaway.

> The whole car gets to come up with the money to front him/her.

What, I can't boot the lying fuck to the side of the road and go on my
merry way with my non-counterfeit ticket?

I mean, I guess it's one way to go to make the whole car responsible.
Probably pretty effective as well. But is this a change in rules or just
something I never heard before?

[precipitate]

Indeed. I was responding directly to robbidobbs's hitchhiker scenario, not
to any carload of people who decide to try to smuggle someone in and
then disavow responsibility.

As I said, making the whole car responsible is an interesting choice.

However, I think it'd be nice to have it not be at the total discretion of the
gate staff what happens to violators. In the interests of fairness and all.

[robbidobbs]

However, I think it'd be nice to have it not be at the total discretion of the gate staff what happens to violators. In the interests of fairness and all.

Nice?...(must keep my voice down)...right.

WHO EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS JOB?!?!? Hold a fucking TRIAL??

Yah, the Gate/Perimeter are the bad-asses, and occasionally it sucks, but someone's got to do it, or the whole shebang falls apart. These "lying fucks" think its a GAME. So the Gate just plays along. Bummer, that tickets fake, there's the Box Office.

That hitchhiker has a well-stocked camp waiting with open arms for them, then they too are a parasite.

There is a definite chain of command within Gate/Perimeter. Training is conscientious, relatively complete, and reflects the history of the event. So if you want to have a "hand" in these decisions, then YOU come and volunteer some shifts.

See ya out there.
RobbiDobbs clear

[precipitate]

Calm down. I think Gate staff does a wonderful job. I'm not attacking
them.

I'm saying that I would like to see uniform rules applied. That's all. I don't
want this fucktard to be allowed to buy a ticket, but that RV turned away
with all occupants. OK?

And the reason I believe that uniform rules are not necessarily applied is
due solely to discussion on the eplaya. So maybe those people were
wrong, or lying, or whatever. In particular, I remember The Judge
discussing how gate personnel were given some leeway in decision
making, but I can't find the discussion now. May have been auto-pruned.

[Badger]

That was a pretty reactive reply to a post Robbi.

I don't think one point you ranted on was ever suggested by Precipitate in any way. It certainly wasn't a criticism as far as I can see.

[robbidobbs]

Indeed. I was responding directly to robbidobbs's hitchhiker scenario, not to any carload of people who decide to try to smuggle someone in and then disavow responsibility.
As I said, making the whole car responsible is an interesting choice.
However, I think it'd be nice to have it not be at the total discretion of the
gate staff what happens to violators. In the interests of fairness and all.

What got my ire up was this notion that hitchhikers are somehow magically self-sufficient once they enter BRC. Maybe they have a good story to tell, maybe they can juggle. They probably didn't spend weeks preparing for becoming part of a Community. It's a generalization, but it still irks me. My recommendation to look at the ticket under the light still holds.

The other part of Precipitate's question (?) was that he suggested that "someone else" should be involved in Gate policy. The closest thing we got to a Benevolent Dictator out there in the dirt is the Gate Manager. The "whole car" rule was handed down by someone who's done Gate exclusively since 1991. Over time the situation called for serious measures, and Shiloh stepped up to the plate. The rule was created out necessity, not cruelty or snobbery. It was approved by Senor Staff. It was created due to the frustration of "babysitting" the ticket-less, abandoned-at-the-Gate person(s). Countless times during 2001, the guilty party was left at the Gate, only to jump into the next available RV and away they went. This phenomenon I witnessed.

Sure I got uppity, but I dealt with the real people, not just fantasies or wishful thinking. So there's some education, to flesh out the rant.

[precipitate]

> What got my ire up was this notion that hitchhikers are somehow
> magically self-sufficient once they enter BRC.

Huh? Where did I suggest that? I merely questioned why I would somehow
be responsible for this person's attempting to pass off a counterfeit ticket.
I beg pardon if my use of the word "fucker" offended you, but I feel
strongly about anyone who willfully attempts to commit fraud in that way.

And are you also saying that if I bring in a hitchhiker who's got nowhere
to go, he is now my responsibility for the duration of the event?

> suggested that "someone else" should be involved in Gate policy.

No, I didn't. I suggested that Gate policy should be official Gate policy.
Maybe it is, I don't know, and your reactionary response isn't clarifying it
much for me. If there's a set of rules, written down before the event and
passed on to every Gate staffer, that's all I'm suggesting would be fair.
The guidelines passed down by an old-timer is great. I like to see
experience put to work. But you're not really reading what I'm saying,
so I'll just let it go now.

[III]

btw, i find it odd that badger's and robbidobb's comments about the negative influences of hitchhikers on brc have never been really been backed up by messages (say, in the jrs) admonishing citizens to not pick up hitchhikers, especially at places such as the reno airport, or at the black rock hostel, or at least mentioning that should one of them have accidentally purchased an counterfeit ticket that you risk being barred from the event yourself, lest you manage to cover their cost.

perhaps a note to marian/actiongrl to include such a warning in the survival guide, or the jrs, or both, is in order.

[robbidobbs]

First off, I want to apologize for not being in "educator" mode when I started writing. Common knowlege is neither.

However, I think it'd be nice to have it not be at the total discretion of the gate staff what happens to violators. In the interests of fairness and all.

Is that the "gate staff" or the "official gate staff"?

The "whole car" rule is published in the Gate/Perimeter training manual. All problems go through a chain of command: a volunteer kicks an issue to a Gate Supervisor who will kick it up to the Shift Lead if there are questions. Other than that, Gate, like everything else, is an organic system within BRC. And they do allow for the human element.

Your confusion about this new rule is founded. This rule was put in place in 2002. Prior to that, it was chaos and frustration. I can expound off-line.
Ok, I'm done.

[Badger]

Robbidobbs wrote:

The "whole car" rule was handed down by someone who's done Gate exclusively since 1991.

That's refreshing. I had no idea that it was actual policy. Personally, I find it good policy. I'm glad it's in effect.

Trey wrote:

btw, i find it odd that badger's and robbidobb's comments about the negative influences of hitchhikers on brc have never been really been backed up by messages (say, in the jrs) admonishing citizens to not pick up hitchhikers, especially at places such as the reno airport, or at the black rock hostel, or at least mentioning that should one of them have accidentally purchased an counterfeit ticket that you risk being barred from the event
yourself, lest you manage to cover their cost.

perhaps a note to marian/actiongrl to include such a warning in the survival guide, or the jrs, or both, is in order.

Wholly agree. Although I'm always a bit wary of sticking my nose into the inner workings/machinations of other departments - especially around policy issues - I think it's a good idea and one that CONTINUALLY needs to be reinforced through the Jackrabbit, newsletters, survival guide and inserts when mailing tickets.

BTW, I don't think I made any reference to gate hadr-ass-ness to people unfortunate enough to try to get in with a counterfeit ticket. Living in San Francisco I know enough people who were dealt the crushing blow of being denied entry into BRC until a real ticket was purchased. My limited gate experience has been that such unfortunates have been treated quite kindly by gate staff who understand that people - lots of people - get fuck over by buying counterfeits. A hitchhiker coming to the event with a counterfeit ticket should be given the benefit of a doubt and told that they need to buy a ticket with no 'penalty' to the car providing the ride. A hitchiker asking to be dropped off 1/4 mile away at night in order to sneak into the event should be hammered. If the occupants of the vehicle make it a point to notify gate staff of the situation then no penalty or denial of entry should take place. However, if it can be proven that a car has participated in an attempted fence break *I* believe that car should be turned around after confiscating the tickets of all people in the vehicle. I fell the same way with any vehicle rolling into the event knowingly trying to sneak someone in the trunk/trailer/other storage area.

I'm probably sounding like a hard as here because, well, I AM a hard ass when it comes to parasites on the evnt.

No quarter says I.

None.

BTW, as usual, the opinions are mine and mine only.[/quote]

[III]

>>This rule was put in place in 2002.

huh. i think it's kinda lame to have rules than can very negatively affect peoples experience at the event (to the point of not having an experience at the event) without actually informing those people of it.

but then again, i think lots of things are lame.

[Otisserie]

i think it's kinda lame to have rules than can very negatively affect peoples experience at the event (to the point of not having an experience at the event) without actually informing those people of it.

I think that's a good idea. In fact, if I were working the gate I would get up to the car, ask how many, take the tickets, and then say: "I'm going to check the car for stowaways. If there are any other people in the car they can get out right now and buy a ticket with no penalty. But if they stay hidden and I find them, I'm going to keep these tickets, turn your car around and send you all home. Is there anyone else in this car?"

The reaction of the people in the car to that little speech will probably tell you exactly how hard you need to search.

[III]

>>stowaways

as far as i can tell, this isn't about stowaways, it's about people who have no or counterfeit tickets, and the car *not* being allowed to just ditch them at the gate.

[Badger]

I think that's a good idea. In fact, if I were working the gate I would get up to the car, ask how many, take the tickets, and then say: "I'm going to check the car for stowaways. If there are any other people in the car they can get out right now and buy a ticket with no penalty. But if they stay hidden and I find them, I'm going to keep these tickets, turn your car around and send you all home. Is there anyone else in this car?"

Pretty fair and refreshing idea.

I like it.

A lot.

[technopatra]

perhaps a note to marian/actiongrl to include such a warning in the survival guide, or the jrs, or both, is in order.

Consider it done.

[LeChatNoir]

Other than that, Gate, like everything else, is an organic system within BRC. And they do allow for the human element.

Thank you, Robbidobbs, for your apology and clearing the air on this (at least for me). I have to admit, my nonstop giddiness for the playa was replaced with a sickly feeling in my gut for a little while. Zero tolerance policies don’t ever seem to help anybody and for a moment I thought that was the case here. After all, I’m coming out there to get away from such things. If my ticket was confiscated because of someone else’s misfortune or misdeed (that was unknown to me), I would feel I was owed a justification for those actions, at the very least, after driving 1900 miles to only have to turn around. All for doing what I thought to be in the spirit of Burning Man the whole time... giving someone a ride out there.

Seems to me that it boils down to just doing the right thing. And, not wanting to start some long winded philosophical debate (as fond of them as I am), you guys know what I mean. What’s right for one case may not be right for the next, but you have a good idea in your gut of what is right for each situation. Otisserie’s idea seems the fairest approach for the stowaway problem and right in line with what I’m saying. I'm sure the Gate Folk have, and will continue to act fairly and above all, be cool.


Thanks and Kudos to those who are in the trenches.

[III]

>>Otisserie’s idea seems the fairest approach for the stowaway problem

it doesn't, however, address the problem that the "make the car pay for the actions of the individual" solution addresses, namely that once the hitchhiker/stowaway/gatecrasher is out of the car, they are still there at the gate being a pest for the entry people.

[LeChatNoir]

I will state that I am in no authority to reply on any policy matters for anyone. Hell... I’m just a newbie. But I am pretty logical and fair minded, and since you responded to my post, I’ll respond in kind.

they are still there at the gate being a pest for the entry people.

But Otisserie’s suggestion didn’t have that as a result and was only addressing the stowaway problem. Using the line of reasoning put forth, the people in the car know the stowaway is there. That makes them accomplishes. Now the stowaway is their problem. They can leave with him/her or pool the funds to get said stowaway in the gate. Seems ok to me.

hitchhiker/stowaway/gatecrasher

Three different situations, which I would surmise have three different remedies.

Hitchhiker: I’m guessing by this you mean picking up someone who turns out to have a phony ticket. If you don’t know it’s phony (even after looking at it) seems to me that’s one thing, but if you do know and willingly go along with it... that’s another.

Stowaway: See above

Gatecrasher: I don't have enough information to answer to this. Is there a problem with people rushing the gate?

Either way, if an authority exists able to compel a carload of people to turn around, then one could reasonably conclude that the same authority could also compel the straggling gate pest to cough up the funds, or beat it (willingly or not), thus solving the problem you posed.

[precipitate]

> I'm guessing by this you mean picking up someone who turns out to
> have a phony ticket. If you don't know it's phony (even after looking at
> it) seems to me that's one thing, but if you do know and willingly go
> along with it... that's another.

And you, as gate personnel, would ascertain this how? Counting on the
goodness of human nature ain't gonna cut it.

My original discussion of this point wasn't against the policy. On the
contrary, I think it's a good deterrent to helping people cheat. But it does
need to be publicized better. And, after this discussion, I have high hopes
that it will be publicized.

[Otisserie]

I agree that a counterfeit ticket and a stowaway are very different situations. In the case of the first, I would have to give the holder the benefit of any doubt about whether they knew their ticket was counterfeit. And I don't think you could hold a whole car full of people responsible for one counterfeit ticket.

Stowaways are a different story. You can't just sneak into the back of a car or van without anyone knowing it, you have to be carefully placed there by the owners. I suppose there could be some situation in which an innocent burner with a valid ticket hitches a ride in car that has a stowaway and they didn't know it. But even that sounds a little fishy, as I would assume that most stowaways crawl into their hiding places sometime in the last hour on the way to the gate, not in Reno where they would likely pick up the hitcher.

As for stowaways being dumped at the gate, that would only occur if the car owners fess up and kick the stowaway out of the car before he's found. Otherwise he'll have a ride back to Reno with the rest of the people in the car.

[LeChatNoir]

And you, as gate personnel, would ascertain this how? Counting on the
goodness of human nature ain't gonna cut it.

Assuming I were gate personnel?

Perhaps not, but counting on my own judgement, and assuming (for the sake of this discussion) I have a means of recourse, certainly would. And you are right to point out that this is venturing into murky water. The “not knowing is one thing/knowing is another” I mentioned might ultimately apply to only your own Karma... the need for gate personnel to ascertain the nature of it may not be necessary. The “hitchhiker”scenario (and arguably others) would seem to fall back to the (albeit paraphrased) rule of “no ticket, no entry”. The valid ticket proceeds, the invalid one has the option of purchase or scram. If problems arise (i.e. getting rowdy, becoming a problem for the gate staff), resort to the authority figure(s). I can deduce that this is an option, for to not have an authority structure to fall back on would be relying on the goodness of human nature, which you said yourself ain't gonna' cut it. But we are digressing into a deeper theoretical than I can address since I’m basing my points of view strictly upon my own (non BM) life experiences and hypotheticals.

I think it's a good deterrent to helping people cheat

For those who willingly cheat, it is and I support it. But for myself, a person who likes to help others and could conceivably pick up someone along the way, the idea of being punished for something that was not my doing (when I thought I was doing good) was a deterrent to my zeal for attending my first burn. To act in such a manor seemed, to me, behavior unbecoming of a burner. My thoughts now are that the gate staff can and do resort to their own judgment and fairness when faced with any such situation. In fact, I’ve only personally heard stories that praise the gate folks and support such thoughts.

And I have to say, that counting on the goodness of human nature, sprinkled with a little common sense and trusting my gut, has done pretty well for me so far... but that is another thread.

[III]

>>option of purchase or scram

you haven't been paying attention, have you?

[LeChatNoir]

you haven't been paying attention, have you?

please explain... I'm missing your point.

[III]

the reason we've been having this whole debate is that there's nowhere to scram to. (i seem to remember that you haven't been before, so this is understandable). the nearest town is about an 8 mile walk from the gate. that town has no public transportation to the next nearest town, which is about 100 miles away. for someone who hitchhiked there, "scram" is really not an option. and that whole scram is not an option thing is why the "you are responsible for the people you drive up to the gate, including hitchhikers: rule is put in place.

as mentioned by a number of people here, it's not a bad rule - people not being able to make arrangements to get to the playa before hand is a clue that they may not be self sufficient enough to attend the event. the only thing that's been asked for is that those rules are made known, so that you don't get blindsided as a result of a misguided effort to help out your fellow burner.

[LeChatNoir]

I put a lot of time and respect into composing, proofing, and posting every one of my replies. I ask only for the same in return. Thank you for doing so. Now we can get somewhere.

the reason we've been having this whole debate is that there's nowhere to scram to. (i seem to remember that you haven't been before, so this is understandable)

Well, my text you were referring to in the previous post may appear a bit out of context by itself. Not only was it part of a hypothetical situation addressing a question posed directly to me from precipitate, not necessarily aimed at the entire debate, but it was assuming (as stated with it) that there is an authority structure in place. Though it certainly could be applied to the entire topic of this thread. And thank you for you understanding of my greenness. Though I already knew that the playa was quite a distance from Gerlach, which was quite a distance from anywhere else. I’ve spent some time looking at maps, planning my routes, and just general daydreaming.

for someone who hitchhiked there, "scram" is really not an option

I will reiterate: If an authority is in place that could compel a car load of people (who don’t want to turn around) to turn around and get, then one could conclude that same authority could address the “hitchhiker”. If they are told to scram and don’t then all of the sudden they’re trespassing. Then it would fall to the authority to remove this person. I’ve read of folks getting carted off site for various other reasons and sent to sit a night (or longer) in a jail cell, right? What would protocol be for someone who arrived completely alone with a bogus ticket? How is this situation any different? I’m certain this problem has arisen before now, and I suspect it has been dealt with in many different creative ways.

My reasons for sounding off in the thread were to address something that made me question coming out there, even though I’ve already purchased my ticket, and that is the idea that the rule we are discussing should be a zero tolerance issue. Like it or not, as we sit here and type, we are influencing people all over the world who read our words. When I first read Robbidobbs’ slightly grouchy post, I was really turned off. That is why I posted a thank you for it. It meant a lot to me.

I have come to the conclusion that the gate staff use their better judgement for each situation and the previously mentioned concern is no longer one I have. I only hoped to clear the air for myself, but more importantly , for the many lurkers that may have also been having second thoughts too, but didn’t speak up.

people not being able to make arrangements to get to the playa before hand is a clue that they may not be self sufficient enough to attend the event.

This is true, but we both should know by now that no situation is cut and dried. Generalizations generally don’t work (Har!). Each situation is its own, so use your better judgement if you pick someone up along the way.

as mentioned by a number of people here, it's not a bad rule

You know... I think I agree with this as long as its applied fairly. Meaning that it’s made clear to everybody and, most importantly, is a last resort, not a first inclination. By being a participant in this, I owe some responsibility to you and everyone else out there. It would be just as wrong for me to pick up a guy and figure, “Fuck it, he’s not my problem... let the gate people worry about it”, as it would for you to not let me in when I have a valid ticket and my buddy was duped unknowingly. Just as I have a responsibility to you and everyone else out there, so do you guys have a responsibility to me.

If you wish me to clear up any other points of view, I’ll be happy to. Otherwise, for me, this is no longer an issue and for me to push further would seem to be beating a dead horse. And if I made anybody upset, I ask your forgiveness. I didn’t intend to.

[stuart]

All for doing what I thought to be in the spirit of Burning Man

be careful with that axe eugene. That slippery 'in the spirit of burning man' has sparked many a fiery debate.


I have a question for y'all.
Who the fuck hitchhikes to burning man? I do not see how adhering to tenets of the survival guide and hitchhiking are mutually agreeable. How the fuck do you prepare? I would think that if you are leaving a RIDE to chance then it is likely you are leaving other things to chance, like say water. How the fuck are you self sufficient? Lets ignore the obvious fact that you are NOT self sufficient if you are hitchhiking. Do you see someone in Reno who is standing by the side of the road with food, shelter, water (not to mention enough crap to be contributing, not simply attending the party). I don't quite get it. How do you, in the context of the event, leave a thing like that to chance? My wife picked up someone at the Reno airport once so I am familiar with that particular angle as well. Lets juts say it did not work out super well.

If you pick up someone on the way would you not likely check that they have a ticket first? Would you not compare it to your own ticket? There is a lot of spiffy anti-counterfeitting shit on the tickets nowadays. Would you not notice the emboss, hologram, pricey printing and other sparkly shit being absent from the hitchers ticket? Would you not excersise some personal responsibility?

Isn't radical self sufficiency 'in the spirit of burning man'?


***skip next paragraph if you don't need to read a useless anecdote***

two years ago I met a self-described fence jumper. He wandered over to our camp with an electric guitar. We greated him in a very friendly manner. He sat down and as a way of making chit chat told us how he had jumped the fence but had been caught on the other side. He laughed it off. He said he thought he might be caught and so was prepared with cash to pay for a ticket but he owed it to himself to try anyway right? After this admission we got frosty with him and conversation dried up right quick. As a parting comment, he gestured to his electric guitar case and asked if we knew anyone with amps and power where he could go jam. 'I sure couldn't crash this big fuckin party luggin all that shit man!'

FUCK OFF!

[Isotopia]

I agree that a counterfeit ticket and a stowaway are very different situations. In the case of the first, I would have to give the holder the benefit of any doubt about whether they knew their ticket was counterfeit. And I don't think you could hold a whole car full of people responsible for one counterfeit ticket.

As far as I can tell damn near every instance relayed to me of people stuck with a counterfeit ticket ARE pretty much given the benefit of a doubt. Trends tend to emerge when bad tickets are snatched at the gate. "I bought it from a 'vendor' at the Chevron station in Reno' or 'I bought these two from a woman in San Francisco who was selling them on Craig's List' are two instances in which unwitting folks ended up getting burned. More often than not these bogus tix are printed with the same serial number, etc. People should know that the tickets have very elaborate (and quite beautiful) counterfeit-proof thingies that make good tickets easily identified and bogus one stick out like a sore thumb. As I mentioned though, the gate staff are sympathetic but can only do so much when it becomes obvious you've been fucked over with a ticket scam.

Stowaways are a different story. You can't just sneak into the back of a car or van without anyone knowing it, you have to be carefully placed there by the owners. I suppose there could be some situation in which an innocent burner with a valid ticket hitches a ride in car that has a stowaway and they didn't know it. But even that sounds a little fishy, as I would assume that most stowaways crawl into their hiding places sometime in the last hour on the way to the gate, not in Reno where they would likely pick up the hitcher.

A realistic scenario. That's why I really like the idea of sings warning of the penalties before actually arriving on the playa and like even better the ticket taking gate person who issues a verbal last-chance-to-claim-your-unticketed-stowaway. In the end it may not catch ALL the parasites but I'm thinking it'll go a L O N G way towards catching most of them.

As for stowaways being dumped at the gate, that would only occur if the car owners fess up and kick the stowaway out of the car before he's found. Otherwise he'll have a ride back to Reno with the rest of the people in the car.

I'm thinking part of the price to pay for anyone trying to knowingly sneak someone in - even if they fess up at the last minute - is that they have to provide a ride to Reno for the schmuck that's not getting in, turn around after the drop off and head back to the playa. Proof of a return to Reno might be to ask for something like...a napkin from McDonald's or a book of matches from a gas station or something that'd. Yeah, it's a simplistic way of providing proof but something along those lines. Anything to discourage folks fromdropping people off in Nixon/Gerlach/Empire.

And yeah, people do hitchhike in from all parts. My experience has been that a good number of them congregate in Gerlach and try to hitch/sneak in by soliciting rides with folks who stop at the Empire store. A good way to deter these people might also be to have a sign posted in or near the store spelling out the consequences of enabling people to try to get into the event who have no intention of paying.

[precipitate]

> Who the fuck hitchhikes to burning man?

Well, I've had mixed experience with folks who leave their ride to chance.

On the one hand, a guy from Portland who camped with us three years in
a row never made formal ride arrangements to the event. He had enough
money on reserve to rent a car, so it wasn't totally chance, but he'd just
show up at the Reno airport and stick out his thumb (so to speak). Never
had a problem. He had his clothing, shelter and cooler with him. Usually
he tried to hook up with folks who were making a shopping run on the
way out, and that's where he bought most of his food. Also, camping with
us, there was a community kitchen so all he really needed to pick up was
water. He always had a pre-arranged ride back to the airport, but didn't
always use it -- sometimes he just walked out to the outer ring road and
hopped in a car.

On that same hand, a friend picked up a guy in Reno last year who was
completely prepared for the desert - had everything he needed except
water with him. The event kind of blew his mind, and it's a bit iffy to show
up in Reno the Saturday *before* the event looking for a ride, but it
worked out.

But, on the other hand, my first year I ended up giving a ride home to this
guy who was a total wack job. Not dangerous, just ... crazy. He'd hitched
out, had no food or shelter, hooked up with the people I was camping
with and mooched off them all week. My friend offered him a ride to LA,
and then couldn't stand him and stuck him in my car instead. Nightmare.

So, in brief, it's possible to hitch to the event and not be completely
unprepared. But in my experience it's a lot more work.

Would it have occurred to me, before this year, to ask about a ticket?
Probably not. The people I'd mentally peg as gate-crashers or complete
fucktards probably would never make it into my car, and the rest it
wouldn't really cross my mind. Now that I know it's my ass on the line,
you betcha.

And (again) the most important thing that can come out of this discussion
is the dissemination of the rule to the greater Burning Man community so
they know what they're getting themselves into when they help out a
fellow burner.

[LeChatNoir]

be careful with that axe eugene. That slippery 'in the spirit of burning man' has sparked many a fiery debate.

Fair enough...

Perhaps I should rephrase that into, “All for doing what I thought to be a good thing in the name of helping others. Which, so far, is strictly my personal take on “the spirit Burning Man”".

And I'm glad to learn that the tickets incorporate anti-counterfeiting measures. I had assumed they did, but have not yet received mine to verify it.

[precipitate]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but one honestly has no idea about
the various spirits of Burning Man until one has actually attended the
event. And I guaranfuckingtee you that your spirit of Burning Man will
not be the same as mine, though there may be some commonalities.

"Helping others" is what I volunteer and donate to charities for in real life.
It's not why I go to the playa.