13 Jan, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Anyways, Texas would make the most sense, why the aversion?
Why would it make the most sense and where is all the aversion?
Anyhow the optimization here should be done on who's actually serious about going in the first place, and where people are willing to go; or in other words, for each city, how many people are willing to go there, with their preference. Surely an algorithm for preference matching could be devised for this. :wink:
13 Jan, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I live in Texas, so there's my vote!
Hey, why not San Diego CA for Comic Con 2010??? Seriously, I mean, were all nerds that love computers, mudding, sci-fi, comics. it just makes sense. This way, people who are spending money to go there will benefit from the convention, plus the mudmeet. there are a billion things to do there, plus you would have an added incentive.
Hey, why not San Diego CA for Comic Con 2010??? Seriously, I mean, were all nerds that love computers, mudding, sci-fi, comics. it just makes sense. This way, people who are spending money to go there will benefit from the convention, plus the mudmeet. there are a billion things to do there, plus you would have an added incentive.
When would the MUDMeet take place if everyone will be there for Comic Con?!? lol
14 Jan, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
TBH, and this is just me, but the presence of ComicCon makes relatively little difference to me. It might even be distracting, and we'd have to be around for longer to be able to do both that and the meet.
#1. Texas #2. New York #3. California #4. Georgia #5. Illinois
All of these locations are pretty much ok with me, not necessarily in the order you gave, but assuming we're in a big city. :wink: (I think my #1 preference should be obvious enough! :tongue:) I have a rather strong preference for being in a place where we don't need to drive around to do anything. Driving is a PITA and will add to expenses, not to mention being somewhat unsafe considering likely activities!
i would go to an aussie meetup if the MB aussies were keen
This.
14 Jan, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
You could pick Detroit. Rather than a hotel, just buy a foreclosure house and either sell it in 10 years, or use it as a tax write-off. Plus, for things to do you can always go urban-spelunking into closed factories and schools. :)
You could pick Detroit. Rather than a hotel, just buy a foreclosure house and either sell it in 10 years, or use it as a tax write-off. Plus, for things to do you can always go urban-spelunking into closed factories and schools. :)
You could pick Detroit. Rather than a hotel, just buy a foreclosure house and either sell it in 10 years, or use it as a tax write-off. Plus, for things to do you can always go urban-spelunking into closed factories and schools. :)
I think quite a few of us are in Texas, although Texas is a very large place. Just because it's in Texas doesn't mean I'll attend likely. For example, I'd attend Dallas/FW. I won't attend Austin. :)
Why would it make the most sense and where is all the aversion?
Anyhow the optimization here should be done on who's actually serious about going in the first place, and where people are willing to go; or in other words, for each city, how many people are willing to go there, with their preference. Surely an algorithm for preference matching could be devised for this. :wink: