Arisia 2008 Stair Club Reminder

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

disclaimer: I am not one of the organizers. Nothing in this post, nor in any of the threads contained herein is official, unless otherwise noted by someone who IS an oganizer. Everything I say here is merely a suggestion in order to reduce congestion in the elevators, and make the world a better place for people for whom the stairs are not a viable option.

Shortly after the end of the con last year, there was discussion of a "StairMaster Club" being organized by able-bodied individuals to allow those for whom the stairs are not an option to take the elevators with greater ease. StairMaster is a copyrighted word, so I will only be using the term "Stair Club".

The original announcement requested that people get in shape over the course of the year, so that for this upcoming Arisia, only those who are inconsiderate and those who are unable to take the stairs will be using the elevators. If you missed the previous announcement, there is still time! Get in shape now, so that everyone can enjoy the con as much as possible!



Once again, as we were reminded when this was originally posted, do NOT make discouraging remarks, comments, looks, or jokes to people who are taking the elevator, even if they appear to be able-bodied. First of all, the number of invisible things that can keep a person from taking a flight of stairs is astronomical, so do not assume. Secondly, the goal of this group is to make the con MORE fun for everyone, not less.

Comments

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

When there are limited resources, and you have a choice to use the unlimited option but some people don't? Yes, I do call it inconsiderate. If you are not in any physical condition to take the stairs, then take the elevator. If you have the ability to take the stairs, though, you should. I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but I'm not singling anyone out. The people whom I am calling inconsiderate are the majority. The majority of people do not consider the needs of others. That, by etymology, is inconsiderate.

Not singling anyone out here. Just trying to make room for people less lucky than you or I.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

As someone else said: even the most fit person gets tired

By your point of view (unable or disable, whichever version of your post you want to go by) those who have gotten to tired to use the stairs, aren't unable, merely inconsiderate for not having spent the time to get mountain climber endurance.

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

No, after a few climbs, you will be unable. I understand this, and would be confused and surprised if anyone else didn't. It's the people who never use the stairs but have the ability that I'm complaining about.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

would be confused and surprised if anyone else didn't

Because your original posting seems to be an attempt to shame people into getting into such great shape that they wouldn't BECOME unable due to over-exertion.

[thepinnacle.livejournal.com]

Not so. Everyone's needs are addressed (considered) by waiting your turn. Likewise, that same behavior addresses the scarcity of the resource. No one is saying that the differently abled have to go to the back of the line. They deserve no more, or less, consideration than any other person.

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

I'm going to tell you an allegory, and then proceed to ignore you afterwards, because you and I are in disagreement, and I have already lost my temper once today. I will, after this allegory, discontinue my participation in what will otherwise degenerate into a flame war.

Two children are born in the same hospital. Because they are babies, they are equal, and the world is a blank slate on which they can write. Over the course of their lives, however, differences begin to appear.

One is the son of a lawyer and an engineer. The other is unsure who his father is, and is the son of a very unlucky woman who works at the local supermarket.
The first boy is given help with his homework every night, while the second loses sleep worrying whether they'll be evicted again.
The first takes an SAT prep course while the second takes on more hours at his after school job to help pay the rent.
The first participates in numerous extra-curricular activities, while a babysitter watches his brothers and sisters. The second child watches his brothers and sisters.
When the first boy gets a C+, there is substantial pressure on the teacher who gave it to him from the boy's parents, as well as from other teachers, to bump it up to a B-. The second boy gets a C+ and there's nothing he can do about it, because he's alone.

When they apply for college, the first is the obvious choice, because he has higher grades, higher SAT scores, more extracurricular activities, and better letters of reference. Is it unfair to give the second boy special treatment? I say it's quite fair. I understand that you do not.

I am done with this conversation.

[dda.livejournal.com]

I am done with this conversation.

This entire conversation is a lesson and I, for one, fear you've missed it.

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

What lesson did I miss?

[dda.livejournal.com]

This is my opinion only, of course, but you started with a good idea (people training so as to more easily take the stairs) but due to your wording, got an unintended consequence. For a propagandist, the wording is everything and rather than change the wording, you pushed back and upset some of the people you wanted to inform/enlist. It is usually a bad idea to drag in morality and ethical judgments into things like this, even if they are the spur for the original idea.

I don't agree with your allegory nor do I think it applies to something like elevator use at a con. Good deeds and giving someone a helping hand should never be requirements but that was certainly the impression a number of us got.

I would suggest finding a way to motivate the people who disagree with your version of morality; one way might be to have signs pointing to the stairs and saying that taking the stairs might be faster than taking the elevator. Or say, "Don't have time to use the health club here? Use the free stair training program! -->" Neither of these imply anything about the ethics, morality or consideration level of the reader.

My two cents. Note that while I'm involved with the con this year, I am definitely not speaking for it here.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

You've apparently never worked in the admissions department of a good college. The first may be the "obvious choice" to you; a good admissions department looks harder.

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

No, I have not, but that's the point I was trying to make. Many people think that the "good" admissions department is wrong to do so. I think you are right to point out that it is a quality of a good admissions department to do so.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

The experience of a good college is that someone with all the advantages and (say) 1400 SATs tends to do less well than someone with no advantages and 1300 SATs. Basing admission decisions of prior experience is the correct way.

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

Oh, I totally agree. In the same way, someone who gets to the elevator first didn't necessarily leave where they were previously (in the direction of the elevator) first. The kid with the lower scores overcame more than the guy who doesn't need a cane to walk. Do you see the correlation between the two now?

[sethb.livejournal.com]

Nope. It's a convention. Why does it matter which of them was in the program room next to the elevators, and which of them wandered over from the far end of the floor?

And the college admission issue isn't what they overcame; it's how likely they are to succeed in college. I see no reason to believe that either of the people will do better or worse than the other in the Art Show (or wherever they're traveling to).

There are two people waiting for an elevator. It arrives with room to carry one of them. Which one? If the decision is based on something independent of the person (e.g. whoever arrived first), that's equal treatment. If it's based on the person (e.g. the shorter one goes first) that isn't equal treatment.

[chainkill.livejournal.com]

Alright, this is a point on which we disagree. You accept a different set of premises than I do. At this point, arguing would be pointless because I see where you're coming from. If you would like further clarification on where I am coming from, I would be happy to provide it, but I know that I will never convince you, and you will never convince me either.

Have a good one!