2009 placement

[theCryptofishist]

Does anyone know how the move affected the placement process?

[CapSmashy]

I'll be arriving early (Thursday). For the highest bidder I'll secure your "Land" for you. I'll drive stakes every 20' and use Yellow Caution tape to keep everyone off until the highest bidder shows up. A $200.00 surcharge will start @6a.m Monday if you have not arrived by then. This surcharge will add $200.00 every 2 hours with no cap to how much is added onto the winning bid.

Please look up Land Grab on E-Bay for more details.

I'll be your kneecapper for a 20% cut.

[ibdave]

I'll be arriving early (Thursday). For the highest bidder I'll secure your "Land" for you. I'll drive stakes every 20' and use Yellow Caution tape to keep everyone off until the highest bidder shows up. A $200.00 surcharge will start @6a.m Monday if you have not arrived by then. This surcharge will add $200.00 every 2 hours with no cap to how much is added onto the winning bid.

Please look up Land Grab on E-Bay for more details.

I'll be your kneecapper for a 20% cut.

Glad to have ya....

[Skye2kx]

I'm sure I'm not the only one with these feelings. So now we get to join the land-grab but this year it's not just a dozen tiny camps hoping to secure large parcels of land, but well over 100 small to gigantic camps. Gotta say this is the saddest news I've had in a long time...

Apparently, the Placement Team feels differently. Received the following from our "placer" (who, incidentally, is a really nice guy and probably just trying to do his best with the structure he was given) this morning:

"First of all, I understand how you feel. But I want you to know that it is nothing personal... This year was an especially hard challenge for the placement team with the number of requests going up and the amount of space desired also going up plus the amount of space we can work with going down. That put us in the very unfavorable position of having to tell 130 camps that this would not be a good year for them, yours included.

We can not give you one EA pass and let you stake out a space for yourself, because if we did that it would defeat the whole purpose of the placement process altogether and initiate a wholesale land grab of playa space. That is not fair to the rest of the participants coming out after Monday. Our process for placement prior to the event (and yes, we place the entire city until the gates open on Monday) is that you get only enough for your immediate needs, nothing more. so even if you came out early, you would not be allowed to stake out a space. Nobody is.

I know that you all are disappointed but understand that we had less space to give and that truly forced us to make some very hard choices."

Clearly, they have a different impression of what it's going to be like at 12:01am Monday morning. Does anyone else feel like BRC is being punished by the BMORG for complaining about the size last year? "So it was too big for ya? OK, you asked for it...."

And STILL no explanation of why we were rejected. Let's say, hypothetically, that all of the rejected camps submitted complete and timely applications. What happened after that? In the final summation, I'm really curious how subjective the process really is....

Nevertheless... moving on....

[The Chinese]

I have a feeling it's also about space used. We actually asked for a smaller chunk of land, and so we were easier to Fit. That, and a history of being out there, bringing something more on the unique side (live music stage), helped. I totally feel for those who got left out... I can only imagine how dissappointed we would have been had it happened to us. I doubt the selection is totally objective, but at the same time I'm sure it isn't easy to fit 600 camps in so they all fit.

[Zang]

Someone said much earlier upstream that the metric was likely ratio of interactivity to number of people and space needed. Some of the camps that didn't get placed had neat ideas, but wayyyy too many people. A 50x50 shade structure with a bamboo dance floor sounds awesome, but 130 people to build and operate that? The 50 foot tower with interactive LED stuff also sounds awesome, but over 100 people to build and operate that?

I kind of wish they had a single point of feedback: "Your application will not be approved because of the following reasons, please resubmit..." This would probably more than double the effort required to do placement, though, so I don't think it's likely.

Anyway, the common theme for rejection seems to be space and people versus interactivity. If your camp featured 130 people and hosts, say, 26 one-hour events during the week, you have to figure you could staff each event with 2 people and have everyone working a whopping 1 hour each for the whole week.

That kind of thing isn't going to fly. If I were on the placement team I'd be thinking, "This camp has 60 people in it, and 70 people just camping there."

[Skye2kx]

A 50x50 shade structure with a bamboo dance floor sounds awesome, but 130 people to build and operate that?

While you may very well be right about why we were rejected, just for the sake of clarification our camp has about 85 people and we schedule two to three offerings (of dance, yoga, meditation, etc.) every day.

The 130 number was in regards to my suggestion that each rejected camp (all 130 of them) be given one early entry pass.

[MozyBonz]

Someone said much earlier upstream that the metric was likely ratio of interactivity to number of people and space needed. Some of the camps that didn't get placed had neat ideas, but wayyyy too many people. A 50x50 shade structure with a bamboo dance floor sounds awesome, but 130 people to build and operate that? The 50 foot tower with interactive LED stuff also sounds awesome, but over 100 people to build and operate that?

I kind of wish they had a single point of feedback: "Your application will not be approved because of the following reasons, please resubmit..." This would probably more than double the effort required to do placement, though, so I don't think it's likely.

Anyway, the common theme for rejection seems to be space and people versus interactivity. If your camp featured 130 people and hosts, say, 26 one-hour events during the week, you have to figure you could staff each event with 2 people and have everyone working a whopping 1 hour each for the whole week.

That kind of thing isn't going to fly. If I were on the placement team I'd be thinking, "This camp has 60 people in it, and 70 people just camping there."

For the most part I would agree.
I have seen that very thing happen.

I also know that things like Root and large interactive camps and Bars all take lots of money and people to pull it off.

I also see some who put absolutely no effort into the space they have occupied.

I fine that disappointing.


Placement has to be a hard job.

[tisha2]

since when do burners follow rules so much?

what's the quote about people in positions of authority only have as much power over us as we allow them to... something like that.

once upon a time, folks just showed up in the desert and built some cool shit for each other. you can still do that.

i'm jus' sayin....

we don't get placed. several of us work setup to get in early and then build our camp at night after building the city all day. we have about 20 people running a 24/7 bar camp complete with interactive entertainment. and we didn't have to ask anybody to okay it..

[Skye2kx]

once upon a time, folks just showed up in the desert and built some cool shit for each other. you can still do that.

I love that. Next year.... Unless it's not too late to get on set-up crew.

[flashingjanet]

I don't really understand the bias against camps where a core team of 10-20 people builds a structure that is shared and enjoyed by 100+ campers, who are contributing a wide range of other things to our camp and to BRC in general. Having help with their personal shelter/shade could mean that they spend longer hours volunteering with other projects, for example. Even if some people contribute less (in terms of time, money, labor, whatever), isn't that better than having them "just camping" off by themselves?

Of course, the size of these camps makes them harder to fit into prime theme camp real estate in our existing system. But without early access, there are serious limits on how ambitious a non-placed camp project can be. It's too bad we're being asked to choose between having a fancier camp (with fewer people), or camping with more friends (but with simplified camp setup).

[tisha2]

ya. way too late. fill out a volunteer questionnaire in january.

[Token]

... a core team of 10-20 people builds a structure that is shared and enjoyed by 100+ campers

Look at the bright side of things; you were going to have a half dozen folks build a camp for 100+ in two days.

Now you get 20, 50, maybe 80 people to build the same camp in one day!

Wont that make it more exciting and actually build community within your camp?

[Zang]

I don't really understand the bias against camps where a core team of 10-20 people builds a structure that is shared and enjoyed by 100+ campers, who are contributing a wide range of other things to our camp and to BRC in general. Having help with their personal shelter/shade could mean that they spend longer hours volunteering with other projects, for example. Even if some people contribute less (in terms of time, money, labor, whatever), isn't that better than having them "just camping" off by themselves?

I think the short (and snark-free) answer is, "No, it's not."

The longer answer still comes down to the ratio of interactivity to people. Placement looks at the scenario you described and says, "We have enough space left for 120 people. Well, we can place Big Camp with 120 people -- and reject these other six camps who each provide as much interactivity as the core 20 in Big Camp. Or we can reject Big Camp and place these other six camps with 20 people each, yielding six times as much interactivity." That's a very easy decision to make (assuming that it's that easy to figure out.)

It's probably NOT that easy to figure out when it comes to actual placement, but it should answer your question about why there's a bias against "theme" camps that are 85% residential.

[icnivad]

I think that what they are trying to avoid is having the inner eschelon of BRC becoming a tent-zilla. I feel for all of the people who didn't get placed and I understand that there are probably many legitimate camps who weren't able to make it in that would have helped bring up the general awesomeness of BM. But I also understand that the BMORG wants to make BRC as awesome as possible, and so that means cutting out people that are registering as a theme camp so they can get a good camping spot, or ones that just look that way, maybe from a writeup that didn't do their idea justice. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck to be denied, but I can see their side of it as well.

I've seen lots of examples of camps that were denied, but I'd like to give an example of a camp accepted if it might help others plan next year, ours was given a 100x200 lot on Esplanade. We have a beautifully, and artistically made 60 foot dome (not just a geodesic, but something hand-crafted), large sound system, satellite shade structures, misters, climbing wall, ping pong, pool table, hammocks, etc. We are bringing 50 gallons of liquor for an open bar, having dance parties, giving out smoothies, meals, etc. Our plan came with detailed maps, detailed explanations, was well written, and contained 3d renderings of our site. With all of this, we have only 22 members in our camp, and have had to cut it off there because we just don't have any more room for more tents. So I can kind of understand why a 100+ group requesting a 100x100 lot might get denied since it would take that much space just to tent the people. We are already looking at parking our cars on the outskirts just to help free up some more room for stuff in our camp.

Hope that helps.

[icnivad]

[quote="Zang"]It's probably NOT that easy to figure out when it comes to actual placement, but it should answer your question about why there's a bias against "theme" camps that are 85% residential.[/quote]

Right. Being a theme camp isn't about camping, it's about creating something. Nearly every member of our camp is helping the cause. We try very hard to prevent dead weight.

[Skye2kx]

I've seen lots of examples of camps that were denied, but I'd like to give an example of a camp accepted if it might help others plan next year, ours was given a 100x200 lot on Esplanade. We have a beautifully, and artistically made 60 foot dome (not just a geodesic, but something hand-crafted), large sound system, satellite shade structures, misters, climbing wall, ping pong, pool table, hammocks, etc. We are bringing 50 gallons of liquor for an open bar, having dance parties, giving out smoothies, meals, etc. Our plan came with detailed maps, detailed explanations, was well written, and contained 3d renderings of our site. With all of this, we have only 22 members in our camp, and have had to cut it off there because we just don't have any more room for more tents. So I can kind of understand why a 100+ group requesting a 100x100 lot might get denied since it would take that much space just to tent the people. We are already looking at parking our cars on the outskirts just to help free up some more room for stuff in our camp.

Hope that helps.

I really appreciate the last couple of posts. And yes, they do help put things in perspective. Perhaps we were rejected for being too "residential" - I can see how it could've looked that way.

My question regarding the quote above, though, is: how can you afford all that with only 22 people in your camp (and presumably paying dues).

We're fairly new - third year - and still paying for our sound, shade, chill space, generators, evaporators, etc. We set a budget, establish a reasonable camp/food fee, then base camp size on the number of people needed to meet that budget.

I feel like I must be missing something....

[icnivad]

haha. I didn't say we were reasonable, by any means. Definitely a few of our members have put in a tremendous amount of personal resources, both time and money. We have several engineers, and people generally good at making things, so a lot of the stuff we've made from scratch, which has helped a bit. We try to take an unofficial give-what-you-can stance, rather than a flat tax.

We do ask for each of our members to contribute $100 and 3 handles of booze as camp dues, though. We expect that to cover gas for our primary gear and people-hauling bus and trailer, gas for the generator, more booze, and will buy us a new 7000 watt generator this year. Everything else has been contributed directly from individual pockets.

[Skye2kx]

We do ask for each of our members to contribute $100 and 3 handles of booze as camp dues, though. We expect that to cover gas for our primary gear and people-hauling bus and trailer, gas for the generator, more booze, and will buy us a new 7000 watt generator this year. Everything else has been contributed directly from individual pockets.

Of course. That makes sense. It's like the difference between being tuition dependent (like us) and having an endowment (like you guys). Which model is the more sustainable? I think we'll answer that question on the playa this year....

Don't suppose ya'll have room for 85 dancers and a 40' x 40' bamboo floor, do you?

[Zang]

My question regarding the quote above, though, is: how can you afford all that with only 22 people in your camp (and presumably paying dues).

This, I think, is the most interesting question in this entire thread. The short version is: funding the startup of a new camp requires significant capital, probably not solely from camp dues.

Our camp (25-30 people, depending on how many we add in the next few days) was started in 2008 based on 15% camp dues and 85% personal investment, almost entirely by the camp coordinators. This year we're building more stuff (a completely new dedicated shade structure for the performance space, additional lights and sound, plus all sorts of amenities for visitors), but the camp dues ($250 per person) and some small fund raisers are covering about 60% of the cost. Next year I think we'll be done adding major pieces of infrastructure and will probably operate solely from $200 camp dues and some fund raisers.

So here's the kicker: it's tempting for the 20 core people to treat your camp as a fund raiser, "selling" camping memberships. You think, "Hey, if we get 100 people to camp with us at $100 a pop, well damn. We could pocket $10K!" The problem is that this inflates your camp size without adding to the core offering of your camp. You're not asking, "Hey, what could we do with 120 people?" Instead, you're asking, "Hey, how much funding for what we're already doing could we generate with 120 people?"

Don't suppose ya'll have room for 85 dancers and a 40' x 40' bamboo floor, do you?

I think you guys should find out who is really dedicated to the core concept, and build your camp on residential.

But funny you should ask, because we can accept absolutely no more than five more people. Here's what we expect of every single one of our members without exception:

• $250 camp dues.
  Contribution to camp preparation. If this isn't possible (e.g. because you're not local to Seattle, or because you're joining late -- probably both of which apply here) then we expect you to make up for it with additional contribute with on-playa tasks and event staffing.
  Be on site by Saturday, 28 August to take part in 2 days of camp construction.
  Remain on site through and including Sunday, 6 September to take part in camp strike and deMOOPing.
  Take on camp maintenance activities (this turns out to be fairly minor, really -- the infrastructure runs itself pretty well for the week).
  Staff a full day of events. We are open Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday so you can spread out your event staffing if you wish.
  Be a fully dedicated member of our crew. The shade structure is our shelter, but our crew is our sanctuary. Part of the reason we limit our crew to 30 is to maintain a close culture.
  Show up when you're needed; do what you say you'll do.

This kind of commitment from the entire camp crew may be part of what makes the cut between placed, and not placed. Like nearly everyone else we lost a large amount of space (and subsequently have to amputate precious parts of our camp) so we didn't emerge unscathed. But if someone asked me what I'd do with 100 more people I'd say, "Build three, maybe four more independent camps."

[wildilocks]

Have been posting this all over Tribe but some people may miss it sooo:

we've gone through the stages of grief (or some of them) and I ... got stuck on anger and never moved on to acceptance. Looks like we can't change the Org's mind on placement no matter how much we beg. We won't have early entry (though I'm sure a few camps will wangle one or two), and will be behind the 8-Ball the whole way compared to placed camps. But what we can do, is concentrate our energy and support each other - and ask for assistance from those who may be willing to give it (ie, everyone except the Org).

To this end, I have a proposal.

We create our OWN What/Where/When guide, and we print it on-playa. It will be open ONLY to camps who are not placed and events that are not listed in the official print WWW. We can include events which occur after the Official Closing Time, and events which people haven't even thought of yet (though we will still have deadlines).

I have tabled this idea to the awesome folks at the Black Rock Beacon, and they are interested in helping us out, which is, well, really, REALLY awesome.

There are a few needs to be met, and those are: extra funds for paper & ink, and volunteers to assist in production and distribution. Some extra editorial assistance may be appreciated also. Members from listed camps, unlisted camps, are all invited to assist: after all, it's not like those listed were those making the choice. And those of us in unlisted camps have a bigger workload & less time to achieve greatness, so if you're not in a camp or in a listed camp but wanna help out, please raise yer hand. The Org however, can kindly get fucked.

This is the way I see it going down: I've created a Tribe for this purpose over here:

tribes.tribe.net/toohotforburningman (name open to suggestions/revision)

Please JOIN this Tribe to show your support and your disapproval of the Org's decision. READ & CONTRIBUTE if you want to assist creating an alternative, underground WWW for printing & distribution on-Playa. Details on finer points will be added as we have them, separate posts will be made on the above-mentioned Tribe for different aspects of the project.

Also, PLEASE donate to the Black Rock Beacon (bitethe.com/brb/) and mention your donation is for this purpose so they know this is a supported venture, as it won't happen without some extra $ going their way. Every little will help, and with support, we'll have an alternative What Where When which will be used just as much as the Offficial edition - if not more.

I'd also like to add that Rathskellar (formerly Spike's Vampire Bar) have offered to host a party for all non-placed camps and to launch the alt-WWW, so you'll be able to get your copy there as well as at designated distribution points. WAHOOOOOOO!

[Skye2kx]

You think, "Hey, if we get 100 people to camp with us at $100 a pop, well damn. We could pocket $10K!"

Of course, I'm not taking this personally, but it's worth noting that none of us is pocketing anything, let alone ten grand.

And while I understand your point, sadly, those of us in the "core" don't have deep pockets. Nor has an angel donor stopped by.

From a purely philosophical perspective, though, I'd rather be more inclusive than less, anyway. My experience is that EVERYONE who camps with us contributes in some way.

Now, back to problem solving!

[Elorrum]

I think Cryptofishist had it earlier. How many passes for early entry? How many theme camps... what is the limiting factor? It was even mentioned in one rejection... smaller size this year, yadda yadda, yadda, passes for early entry, yadda yadda. Perhaps the agreement with BLM gives dates and numbers for early occupancy, and also the JOTS contract figures on a certain level of service pre-event. Just my hunch:

It's passes! Soylent Green is PASSES!

I feel bad for anyone who has had their plans so crunched up by this.

[ibdave]

wOw, just read all of today's new post.. I think some of the post have turned into great understanding and problem solving. I commend you for trying to look at the issues from a different angle. A few post still are Blaa Blaa bla and I understand that as frustration. You all knew going into this process that you may not be approved, right? yes...
So this is burning man and time to continue to learn and stop bitching and move on..

[Zang]

You think, "Hey, if we get 100 people to camp with us at $100 a pop, well damn. We could pocket $10K!"

Of course, I'm not taking this personally, but it's worth noting that none of us is pocketing anything, let alone ten grand.

Ohoh, yeah, I didn't mean literally you pocket ten grand. I meant, one can start to see a whole bunch of extra camp mates as a source of funding to make the camp happen. And in fact, lacking money from the sky, that can seem like the only way to get a camp off the ground.

So yeah, I get it, I really do. Tragically it doesn't result in placement.

I hope you guys pull of your project -- and I hope to see you on the playa!

[Prometheus]

I don't really understand the bias against camps where a core team of 10-20 people builds a structure that is shared and enjoyed by 100+ campers, who are contributing a wide range of other things to our camp and to BRC in general. Having help with their personal shelter/shade could mean that they spend longer hours volunteering with other projects, for example. Even if some people contribute less (in terms of time, money, labor, whatever), isn't that better than having them "just camping" off by themselves?

I think the short (and snark-free) answer is, "No, it's not."

The longer answer still comes down to the ratio of interactivity to people. Placement looks at the scenario you described and says, "We have enough space left for 120 people. Well, we can place Big Camp with 120 people -- and reject these other six camps who each provide as much interactivity as the core 20 in Big Camp. Or we can reject Big Camp and place these other six camps with 20 people each, yielding six times as much interactivity." That's a very easy decision to make (assuming that it's that easy to figure out.)

It's probably NOT that easy to figure out when it comes to actual placement, but it should answer your question about why there's a bias against "theme" camps that are 85% residential.

I would hope that is the rationale. This fosters innovation and dense interaction, instead of a diffuse sprinkling of interest and an otherwise COA exercise.

The "bedroom communities" with 85% residential certainly are not appealing to "the rest of us." Having been to the last 4 burns, I can remember going past these monstrous camps, with something in the center, but the ring of obviously non-public encampment essentially formed a gated community. If you really want public involvement, that should be the appearance, at least from the frontage on the road. (Even then, many of the large camps were uninviting.)

Subdividing and "selling" theme camp space to support the camp is a bit strange. One would hope that everyone above the age of 6 (actual or mental) is an active participant, and gives what they can.

For the large camps with a high ratio of non-public/non-event space that were not placed, they perhaps might consider splitting the two, or splitting off of public event space from the residential area. Even if the residential area were not formally placed, you could all arrive when the gates open, and grab a large section at the outer area. All in all, it's not reasonable to as "us" to bike past your vast wasteland of bedrooms so that your theme camp placement gets you nearer the action.

Even better yet, get more people to do more different things. Break it up and do something new. Sure, I like some of the repeats for context, but they get kind of old. With apologies to Philip Glass, repetitive art only goes so far. If ALL of the best things from the last 4 years where there this year, somehow I would be disappointed and sad. I want to see something new. After all, how sad would it be if the Man were the same each year? Burning Man is ephemera; it should be there, and then gone, to allow discovery of something new next year.

[Prometheus]

I put the placed camps list into a spreadsheet and counted 658 placed camps. 130 rejected camps means that about 1/6 of the total camp submissions were rejected. That's pretty steep.

Those are the stats for the NUMBER of camps. It would be nice to know the AREA of the camps that were placed, and the AREA of the camps that were not. I suspect that by area, the percentage that were not placed is greater.

[curiousgnate]

I camp with an unofficial camp and this will be our third year. We do have people who will be in early because they volunteer to help out the city each year. some for weeks before the event. We never have been placed, and have never had a problem setting up camp in about the same area each year. My advise to those who didn't get placed would be to get people in as close to midnight as possible, and find a space where your camp will fit. stake it out and build your camp. Leave directions as soon as you have decided where it will be( center camp or info booth ) It is not super hard to find good space sunday night. you just might be out farther then you might have liked.

[Igneouss]

Very interesting problem being discussed here. Based on my experience with a smaller event I can make some informed guesses along with some speculation.

But the overall issues is probably the most true: BRC is smaller this year.

Other issues like early admission are probably secondary factors.

The issue 'number of campers as it relates to serving the masses' is probably a crucial one. Although I would describe it differently. I would guess that the Org is sensitive to people creating a theme camp as a way to camp with friends on choice real estate. Any app that has clues hinting at that would be rejected. Duh.

Other obvious things matter like history of good effort, lack of injury, safety, law enforcemnt, moop, etc you get the drift...

Another obvious problem is perceived demand for the service(s) offered. BRC does not need more chill space, DJs, Sound systems, bars. The opposite negative is the uber specialized camp - like left handed vegan burgers cooked under a full moon kind of thing - not gonna get an Esplanade addy. Duh. Too many of something or a small customer base and you are screwed.

I am certain that the Org puts a lot of thought into what camps get placed in terms those camps being the 'face of BM'. Particularly true of Esplanade real estate. Gotta be different, funky, whimsical, playful, etc. Again, any new app that has a chill space, bar, dancefloor, etc is gonna land on the trash pile. Labor use has got to be rational and demonstrate dedication. If you don't want to spend a large fraction of your time working you should not be in the theme camp business.

To reinforce many earlier coments: the one camp I am familiar with works very hard. Members probably average 30 to 50% of their time working. Some members work more than that. Many many non members come in and have fun. Probably 10 to 20 times the number of camp members. It has a history of living up to expectations.

I would guess that in general terms any app that looks like less than 20% of available labor-hours are used toward services for non camp members would be suspected as a 'them camp as an excuse to move our party to front'. But my labor utilization number is a guess, maybe it's higher...

I gotta give kudos to the folks that do the placement job. It is a classic 'tough job'. No way can you make everyone happy. Clearly, they make decisions that are not popular with everyone, but it is probably impossible for them to do otherwise. I would suggest that the 'feel' of BM is the result first and foremost of the placement team. The fact that BM keeps attracting huge numbers of people is the proof that they are doing very well indeed.

[curiousgnate]

very well put!