Jump to content

DeanoL

Members
  • Content Count

    2,646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

DeanoL last won the day on July 7 2014

DeanoL had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

415 Excellent

About DeanoL

  • Rank
    staying out for the summer

Recent Profile Visitors

3,537 profile views
  1. What's the nature of the problem though? That it costs festivals money to clean it up? Or is it more around meeting council recycling targets?
  2. Is the festival 10-20% assholes then? Where are they all during the weekend then? Oh yeah Beat Hotel. Nevermind.
  3. I think you would be surprised. Most people don't break the rules. How often do you see people barging in the line for a food stall or bar at Glasto? These same inconsiderate people follow these rules, but not the ones about taking their stuff back. There's a few reasons for that: 1) It's not phrased as a rule, but more a request - please take your stuff home with you. Not "you're not allowed to leave it behind". 2) There's no fear of any comeuppance - no-one is going to challenge you on leaving your tent behind. It's zero risk, not even the risk of some social awkwardness or being made to feel bad by a steward. 3) Hungover and exhausted on a Monday morning, complying with the rule just feels more effort than it's worth. You adopt the system I suggest, you implicitly make it a stronger rule: you can now pay to leave a tent behind - ergo it follows you can't do it for free. You can then say as much: you either buy a recycling tag, or you take it back. You can't leave your tent behind otherwise. It still can't be enforced, but it's likely it wouldn't need to be. Just the existence of it, and the presence of campsite stewards looking like they might challenge people "you want to buy a recycle tag for that tent mate?" changes the dynamic. Sure, people can, and will, just go "nah it's not mine" - but far, far fewer people will do that. By creating a system that has two valid options, you make it far less likely for people to take the third "rule-breaking" option. You could achieve some of the same impact by simply rephrasing "please take your stuff home" as "you have to take your stuff home" but by codifying it into a system you get better results. The other points made about tents that are basically bought as one-use tents and don't actually have any resale value as are designed to barely survive a festival are certainly still an issue.
  4. On further thinking, here's what I'd do: From Sunday, have each campsite steward place and merchandise stall sell sticky "recycle my tent" badges for say £10. £20 max. On the back of these badges is a list of rules: 1) Please ensure the tent is left fully set up (so it can be checked for damage) 2) Please ensure the tent is empty, with no litter left in the tent - put it in the black bags provided. 3) Please do not leave any other camping equipment in or by the tent: either take it home with you or to the campsite rubbish dump. 4) Please affix this sticker to the door of your tent This does a bunch of things. Firstly it pays for the labour cost of actually packing away and donating that tent to charity. Secondly it provides a legit option for those who were going to leave stuff behind anyway - this has the impact of making abandoning your tent without doing this feel "more wrong" - because you've got 20 excuses for leaving your tent behind and none for not at least buying a sticker for the price of two pints and doing it the proper way. This sort of psychology actually works. It also reinforces the "sure you can leave the tent but then take the rest of your shit home" message. Lastly if people think their tent might actually be reused, and they're paying a small fee to donate it to something worthy, they're less likely to ruin it over the weekend - they know from day one they're going to leave it behind, but they also know it's not going straight in the bin, so it'd be nice not to trash it.
  5. 100% pre-pitched is a solution to what? The waste of people leaving stuff behind? 100% pre-pitched means paying people to set up the tents and check the tents before the festival. Then guide people to their tents and deal with issues during the festival (because a leaky or damaged tent is now the problem of the festival, not the tent owner). Then they have to pay to clean them, take them down, and store them for 11 months until next year. Would it work? Sure. But it's not cheap. And if you're spending all that money, you can instead spend it on paying the same people to just clean, dismantle and sell the tents left behind at the end of the festival. It's a slightly more fiddly job - because the tents won't be arranged in neat lines and you'll need different methods for packing away each brand of tent. But you'll be dealing with 5% of the number of tents and because you're reselling them at the end and didn't pay for them in the first place, you might even make a profit. There's an issue that, if you say you're doing this, lots more people will leave their tents behind. But it's not going to be anywhere near 100%. Which the number you have to clean and strike and store with a fully pre-pitched system. The other argument is that you know who owns each pitch, so people are responsible for the state of the tent if it's damaged, covered in crap, whatever. But then "oh it was fine when I left it on Monday, someone must have done that after". And you can't hotel check out 130,000 people with a tent inspection on a Monday morning either. So that's not enforceable. The festival is in a difficult position but are also part of the problem. They don't pay the extra money (ie. charge us the extra money) to have leftover tents recycled and donated to charity or resold. It's not that costly. It's far cheaper than running a 100% pre-pitched system! But they stick them in landfill. But then, they sort of have to do that, because if they don't, people think it's fine to leave their shit behind. Their best option would be to quietly start recycling abandoned tents, while maintaining that they actually go to landfill. Maybe they already are.
  6. It doesn't really solve anything? What you're doing is paying people to clean, dismantle and pack away everyone's tents. So why does it matter if they are pre-errected or you're doing to someone's existing tent? Except you're then doing that for 100% of people, instead of just the 10-20% that leave their stuff. You can ensure the tents are re-used, but actually the festival could do that if they paid people enough. Get them to assess, clean, fix all the leftover tents. Then they could be re-sold or donated to charity. (Charities do want good tents, they just don't want to have to sort thousands of them manually). Same cost per tent as what you're doing with pre-errected ones.
  7. Was going to suggest this. The festival has steered away from comedy acts on the main stages before (except for <your favourite band>). Said as much some years ago following attempts to get Bill Bailey on, who hasn't played the festival for years as he's a safety risk in the Cabaret tent but not allowed on the outdoor stages, despite being part of the furniture for a decade or so.
  8. I guess with older builds and larger houses it might be the case. But these are people with modern houses and combi boilers!
  9. I learned a few weeks ago that lots of people don't even drink the water out of their own bathroom taps, and only ever pour themselves a glass of water from the kitchen tap! So I can certainly believe people were avoiding filling up at the glastonbury taps.
  10. Same as Carter, pissed off the Eavis’ back in the day.
  11. Interesting thought experiment: were the festival interested in booking as many acts that had previously headlined to play this year, who would be feasible? Obviously acts that straight up aren't as popular as they were back then, so wouldn't need a headline spot anymore: Likely: Stereophonics, Travis, Skunk Anansie, Manics, Shakespear's Sister Others: Gorillaz, Basement Jaxx, Moby Not going to happen: Levellers, Carter,
  12. DeanoL

    Fake Poster....

    I'm somewhat curious how they refused you entry without assuming your gender? Seems a bit of a PC minefield...
  13. Got to complicated for you did it? Don't worry, I still love you. I'm sure other people do too.
  14. That's not how odds work. There's a limited pool of tickets. If other peoples odds improve, yours decrease. I don't know how else to explain that? I'm saying that your system would change the distribution of tickets. You're denying that. You literally said: But there is. And you're even admitting now that you want to make it "fairer" when before it was just about eliminating the technical problems. People who don't have all their group trying would have better odds under your system. I think that's a bad thing. You refuse to engage on whether you thing it's a good or bad thing or not. Which is fine. But you have to acknowledge that your proposed system does make that change. That might not be intentional, just a side effect. But side effects matter. Indeed, I proposed how to modify your system to keep the same distribution as before and you weren't interested either. So it does feel like it's an intentional change. Which again, is fine. What's frustrating is you won't just acknowledge that! I'm not straw-manning you. I'm just working through the consequences of your system. It's like if someone goes "wouldn't traffic lights look nicer if they were red and blue rather than red and green" and I went "yeah maybe, but loads of people have red/blue colour blindness so it'd be really confusing for them and probably cause more accidents". And their reply is "well now you're strawmanning me. I just said it would look nicer! Accidents are irrelevant!"
×
×
  • Create New...