Mac, Thanks for your great response. I'm afraid that most of those replying on this list have missed the point entirely. This is not about callers who "dislike mixers." It's about empowering regular dancers to partner with newcomers.
At open, public contra dances, I put considerable energy into integrating the hall during the first half of the evening. My unspoken contract with the regulars is that I will make it fun and easy to partner with first-timers. This, consequently, often makes regulars partnered together feel "left out" of the fun. I also make it clear that all of the first-timers should be partnered with regular dancers. (I do this without words by "leading through assumption." This saves much time and many words while making it crystal clear that the regulars have a vital role to play in partnering with, and helping to integrate, all of the newcomers into the hall.) Using this approach, it would be a violation of my contract with the regulars if I were to "spring" an unannounced mixer on them after they have put out the effort to partner with a first-timer. This would send mixed signals and I would risk losing the support of some of the most helpful and cooperative regular dancers. The point is to empower the regulars with information so that they can help you to integrate the first-timers. - Greg McKenzie On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Richard Mckeever <mac...@ymail.com> wrote: > Greg - > > I think you have hit on an important point. My experience has been that > much of the objection to a mixer is you ask someone to dance and the don't > get to keep them as a partner. Announcing the mixer in advance (the dance > after this one will be a mixer) would address this and, perhaps, make it > more acceptable. This would then slot the mixer around the 2nd or 3rd > dance of the evening - which I think is fine. I don't want to start the > evening with a mixer when we have so many experienced dancers eager to help > the new ones during the first dance. > > Mac McKeever > > > > ________________________________ > From: Greg McKenzie <greken...@gmail.com> > To: Brian Hamshar <bhams...@yahoo.com>; Caller's discussion list < > call...@sharedweight.net> > Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 2:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Callers] Request about requests > > There are two points I'd like to make here: > > 1. A lot of callers will get "rubbed the wrong way" if you give them any > guidelines or requirements whatsoever. Callers getting "rubbed the wrong > way" is probably the only way to make sure that they are paying attention. > Look at the issue of squares at open, public, contra dances. I have had > one caller who bristled when I informed him that our Board has an on-time > start policy. It's good for callers to get "rubbed the wrong way." It > builds character. > > 2. A policy of one mixer is not going to drive people to arrive late. The > point is to make the first dances lively and fun with little or no > walk-through. That can work with mixers or without. It is up to the > caller to make it fun. If folks are arriving late it's probably because > the callers are not starting on time. That would be the best policy to > address that problem--with or without a mixer. > > As some of you know I don't see the point of using mixers at open public > contra dances. The way I do it most of the evening is structured as a > "mixer," even though it's all contras. I would call a mixer if that's how > they want to do it, but I would be sure to announce it in advance to alert > the regulars. I would also try to keep it short, lively, and lots of fun. > I don't think it would cramp my style much. > > Just a thought, > > - Greg McKenzie > > *********** > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Brian Hamshar <bhams...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Reportedly it was the feeling of the board that mixers are the best way > to > > integrate beginners and thereby improve retention. Thus they feel it's a > > good enough tool for potentially increasing attendance over time that > they > > felt they should codify it. I've never heard of a requirement like this > > being enacted, although I understand that certain New England communities > > tend to have one or more mixers at every dance. I'm afraid it'll rub a > lot > > of callers the wrong way. I'm rather certain it'll exacerbate the ongoing > > problem here of experienced dancers showing up a half hour or more after > > the dance begins (they're not popular with the regular dancers). What do > > others think? > > > > Brian Hamshar > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Michael Fuerst <mjerryfue...@yahoo.com> > > To: Caller's discussion list <call...@sharedweight.net> > > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:16 PM > > Subject: Re: [Callers] Request about requests > > > > "... > > new policy requiring callers to program a mixer " What was the > > reasoning for this ? > > > > Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 > 217-239-5844 > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > call...@sharedweight.net > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > _______________________________________________ > > Callers mailing list > > call...@sharedweight.net > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > call...@sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > call...@sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers >
