Viewing all threads tagged #camvention2015.
This tag could refer to:
Camvention 2015
I had a great time at Camvention yesterday. Despite missing the turning, then being given some wrong directions by someone in town I managed to find the new venue pretty early, & what a lovely venue it is. I'm liking all these new modern purpose built facilities that are finally popping up around this country. Yay for water coolers.
Having a basic timetable printed on the back of the convention pass is a great idea!
Despite not feeling very juggly first thing I quickly ended up doing some feeding with Nicola & Michael. I also did some passing with Kiwi Jo, although I'm not sure she really is a Kiwi anymore because she does seem to spend a lot of time in this country. I was very amused by her request to, "Try some germs stuff".
Me: "Germs? I have no idea what that is sorry."
Jo "You know. Germs. I've seen you do it before."
Me: "Nope, never heard of it."
Jo: "Course you do. You must have heard of germs 3 count!"
Lots of people in the hall seemed to be doing long runs of 9(?) club ultimates which was looking good. I had a go on Isabelle's unicycle joined to a set of handlebars which I mistakenly thought would be relatively easy, but apparently it is very different to ride than a standard unicycle. I spent everyone of my attempts fighting to keep the front wheel on the ground. Isabelle & brother Matt showed great proficiency managing to both ride the thing at the same time.
Jon Peat was in charge of this year's combat tournament which drew 20 players. I managed to get through qualifying with 15 wins & 4 losses. I lost to Brook Roberts, Jon Peat, Dan Wood & Ashley Harris, but I was pleased to get points against all of them which is better than usual. The final point in my qualifying match against Dan Wood was interesting. The first 4 points involved a lot of stalking, tactical blocking & picking out targets. I was just getting used to Dan's subtle & precise style, when suddenly on the last point the world faded to black, apocalyptic octobass music started playing leaving a demonic Dan sprinting towards me, he's not looking at my clubs he's staring right into my soul with burning red eyes, I back pedaled as fast as I could trying to avoid a barrage of vicious strikes slashing at the very core of my being but ultimately I had nowhere to go. The world returned & I was left thinking, what the hell was that? I then managed to get through the quarter final beating Ashley 5-2 before getting steam rollered by Brook 5-0 in the semi. I was still too traumatised to offer any opposition to Dan in the 3rd place play off, but I was still very pleased with my performance. Even if the only thing anyone will remember is me crashing into a bench & falling arse over tit. Brook & Jon took things to the wire in a hard fought final which Brook won 5-4.
Before the show I got pulled into a game by Sadie & Sam & half a dozen others that they simply called chuck club which no one was particularly clear on the rules for but to me it seemed to be a load of people standing in a circle playing volleyclub without a net. It was very silly & a lot of fun, & like volleyclub is a good way to get non-passers used to dealing with bad passes!
The convenience of having the show on site coupled with comfy tiered seating was a definite win over previous years for me. Ashley & Michael opened with some glitzy Las Vegas style passing with 6 to 9 clubs. Despite the unnecessary glow it was a good routine but it does need a lot of tightening up, I don't think I would really change anything, they just need to be faster, smoother & snappier in between the juggling. I very much enjoyed Nik Robson-King's 8-rings again. Mime artist Dan Cossette who really impressed me last year with an excellent routine full of character work & variety returned with another piece called The Cave which in terms of mime I'm sure was very good but to me it seemed to be 90% feeling his way around a wall which did not interest me. The contact staff routine by the stage hand who we never did find out the name of was good but a little too close to Treuan's act that I saw in the Open Stage at BJC 2013 for my liking. Jon Peat did another superb Jon Peat routine (which began with possibly the greatest bit of stage hand work I've ever seen). I could only follow about half of it. It was awesome. Pascal performed a simple but very charming 3 ball routine then later closed the show with a fantastic high energy cyr wheel routine.
How could anyone feel awkward about having a candle lit dinner with Jon?
#Camvention2015 #conventionreview
Oh & I think gezellig will be a great addition to the English language. James' Numberphile channel really is quite good too.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
GEZELLIG! See you at the EJC :D
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
I had a surprisingly good time at Camvention, where I got to do much more juggling and taking part than expected. Running the show actually meant that I didn't really have to do much until 5.
As a result I did some passing with Pascal, Lewis, James, Michael and (Mark/Cameron/Ben). Highlights being 6789a and 89a feeling increasingly comfortable, teaching Michael (of Michael and Ashley, the club passing pair in the show) lots of things that weren't two count. Remarkably, he wasn't sure if he'd ever done 6 club 1 count before! Unsurprisingly, since I stuck to short period/moderately standard stuff he was a very fast learner, including not a bad run of 9 club 1 count. Really glad that him and Ashley were so keen and interested about 4 handed siteswap patterns etc (although I hope that doesn't stop them doing good shows! not sure period 15 siteswaps work great for audiences...).
Also did a cool shooting star pattern, except with 13 clubs - basically 8-count, passing straight triples, and on the selves you move to the gap (like in the normal shooting star). Good fun, and felt runnable - a very active pattern!
Very much enjoyed the combat and glad I entered - it's the first combat tournament I've entered since BJC, due to missing EJC and starting to feel like entering was a bit of something I 'should do' rather doing it because I was excited about it. Turns out my lack of practice in tournaments didn't really matter - was very on form, and although I felt a bit bad about, was also in a bit of a ruthless, lets try not to drop any points mode. Only dropped 3 in the 19 qualifiying matches (!), including one to Phil and two to Orinoco, and none in the quarter or semi. Didn't manage to repeat the trick in the final where Jon evidently remembered how to play and had a fun, challenging, even and good to watch match - which I won 5-4 in the end, although at 4-4 he didn't claim a point which was pretty close, so it was as close as can be.
Some people seem to think that I may have put Jon in a headlock during one of the points. This sounds highly exaggerated and I encourage everyone not to watch the video footage since I'm sure it's not interesting.
The show went very smoothly and I was very happy with how it went - far better than I would have imagined two weeks before when I was panicking a bit about not yet having a finalised line-up...
I'm glad the stage hand work was appreciated - especially given we actually practised in the tech run :P
My convention review for Camvention 2015!
Me and Jenni travelled down with a Lewis and Dan. We managed to find the venue with a last minute sat nav intervention with Lewis's phone.
The venue was superb! Nice and new and full of water coolers. A vast hall, café on site and another a short (and pleasant) walk away. Very high ceilings, light and airy, clean floor and comfy show seating in the same venue. 10 stars all around for the venue.
There was a good spread of workshops planned for the day, though I never managed to make it up to see the studios (although I heard they were lovely).
Having missed the EJC this year I haven’t been to a convention for a little while so it was good to catch up with a few people. Did some passing with Ed before playing scrambled B with Ed, Becky and Michael in a warm up for Michael’s workshop later that morning. I (re)learnt the pattern and helped to demonstrate it. I was then given a group to look after and I was woeful. I felt very bad for my group as I wasn’t familiar enough with the pattern to help teach it very well. I ended up collaring the other demonstrators to help my group and they did make progress in the end. Awkward!
Got some nice food from the hot food serving place which was affordable and pleasant, with comfy armchairs.
The combat tournament ran very smoothly, although we did overrun by 30mins. Thank you to the organisers for taking it in good part and allowing the tournament to take place.
I had some upsets during qualifications, including being steamrollered by Brook and Jack but overall was pretty happy. Someone gave me a black eye (might have been Brook when he got me in that headlock ;-)). Anyway, I got lucky and scraped through to the final before having the hard fought match with Brook which ended with my demise. Fair game.
It is great to see so many people taking part and the level improving all the time.
The games were taking place at this point so we headed over in time for 5ball endurance, 5 club endurance (win) and 7 ball endurance.
I then headed straight to the show area and ate some food before doing my tech run. The teching for the show was really smooth and well organised again, for me the lighting was very inoffensive which is always good.
The show was excellent! I enjoyed all the acts during the tech run and saw only a couple during the actual show (I was hiding round the back keeping warm and tweaking some tricks). Thank you for everyone who has given me positive feedback from my routine. I always only remember the errors so it was great to hear people enjoyed it. Thank you!
Oh … And thank you Mark for enlightening the general juggling population about some of our more embarrassing moments…
I then ate my own body weight of pizza with the other acts before rounding up Lewis and Dan for the long journey home.
Thank you to the Camvention organising team for putting on another fantastic event. I look forward to seeing you next year, hopefully in the same venue!
Cheers,
Jon
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
I swear I never seem to injure anyone else! Evidently there is something in our combination of styles that doesn't seem to work out too well...
One comment I do have about the way the fight night was run, is that having the qualifications run such that you play a match, and then just self pair looking for the next person you haven't played was much better than what I've previously been part of (don't know if other recent tournaments have done this, or if this was the first).
a) Got games much faster, since didn't have to wait for the slowest pair each time
b) Could just take a quick break mid qualifying - either for water, rest, or helpfully for me, to go and deal with show stuff mid tournament
c) More space, since people were matching up and writing scores down whilst others were playing
d) All the wait time was at the end. Despite my breaks I still managed to be first to finish. However, rather than getting 18 short breaks, it meant at the end I just had one long break where again, I could actually go and eat something/do something helpful...
Are there any reasons not to always run it like this?
I agree with all Brook's points, the format was a definite improvement. & well done Jon for bringing a big bag of pens which made the handful I managed to collect in my house look pitiful!
One minor tweak that I think would improve things further (if space allows) is setting out everyone's score sheets in a line in numerical order (sheets could also be prenumbered). This would've helped with finding the opponents you needed to play, as you can just find their sheet & see who marks their score on it.
& because I'm going to stop being lazy & expect someone else to do it here's a pdf scoresheet using Jon's format for 30 players all prenumbered & with the self row blanked out:
https://jugglingedge.com/pdf/FightNightScoreSheet.pdf
Might be worth including this or something similar under the 'rules & resources' section on the FNC website Luke?
How exactly did EJC 2015 cope with 70 players in qualifying? 2+ groups?
oh, & original sheet if anyone wants to tweak:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xl2LkEfyVGT5gmAcQgGjZZOz3KXDpDscRkR4vP8orX0/
I much prefer this method of qualifications for all of the points you have mentionned which is why I did it this way. There often is a long wait at the end with several people all waiting to play one final person, but that can provide extra time for organising the seedings and having them ready.
I don't really like the seperate groups method of qualifications as you can end up with a weak group and a stronger group. I think it much fairer for everyone to play everyone else.
Your qualification sheets are great Orin, I will use them at Durham next weekend. I will also get everyone arranged in a line as you suggest as that will make it easier to find your next opponent.
When you get more than 20 odd players it would perhaps make more sense to do seperate groups etc, but less than 20 I would always prefer to run qualifications this way.
Thank you for the feedback and I await Luke's comments!
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
I was a bit worried it would be slow with 20 people, but it didn't feel that way to me.
For separate groups, although that is a problem, one benefit of the ranking system is that you can mitigate this quite a bit, by splitting people up, which I think is usually done. Does this not work well enough for you? It's never super accurate, but reduces the problem a lot, and any tournament that big normally has a knockout of more than 8 people, meaning it's pretty likely the 8 best get through.
I will be at Durham so look forward to it :)
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
Also, I presume you are submitting the results? Are you using his new online form thing? Looks quite handy.
We did the groups thing for the Netherlands Convention this year.
The groups in the Netherlands were miss matched. One 'side/line' of our group got completely pounded by the other side of the line of our group. For me personally this was super depressing and probably affected my performance in some matches which I perhaps should have won.
I also think you get problems when you try and work out the seedings from two seperate groups. If everyone has played everyone then it is black and white who goes in which position. With the groups I think some of it falls to the organiser to judge who should go through to the next stage, especially if the groups are slightly miss matched due to previously unknown (but possibly) kick ass combat players.
I would always prefer for everyone to play everyone. I understand that the other method does work fine for larger groups, but it is not something which I (personally) would like to try and organise and try to make fair because I fear I might be unsuccessful. And as the organiser of the event, I want it to be super obviously black and white fair, especially as I am taking part!
I didn't notice the online submission form so I sent it to Luke as a spreadsheet. I plan to use it for Durham, but can't yet work out how to fill it in :-/
Of the many many ideas that I've not made much headway on is an opponent ranking service base on the ELO system used in chess. I think it would be good for people who can't get to/feel too intimidated to enter tournaments & would be useful in this situation for setting up qualification groups.
The next combat competition will be done using the swiss-system (apropos chess), with optional top 4/top 8 fighting for redistribution* of their points if the event demands a "finals" for entertainment purposes.
*I'm thoroughly convinced that a system where the swiss-system is just used for qualification - and the points are allocated based on knockout only (for those who qualified) is broken.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
A swiss system for qualification has been tried twice now, and while it might be good to use as the entire tournament (though I'm not convinced), it doesn't work well for qualifying into a main draw.
In an everyone-vs-everyone system, the distribution of wins/losses is generally a nice line. There are a few people with 1 win and 14 losses, all the way up to 15 wins and no losses.
With a swiss system, there is only one person at either end, and huge bunching of people in the middle. If you have 16 people in the qualifications, and want 8 in the knockout, there is almost nothing between players 7 to 10. The have all won the same number of matches, and then because the matchups are different, it can come down to if you won or lost your first match if you are at 7 rather than 10, in the knockout or out the knockout.
This is what happened at Hamburg last year, and I wasn't very satisfied. It worked better when we tried it again at Tropical Islands this year, but that was because we played more qualification matches compared to the number of people in the tournament. In the end, everyone playing everyone is the fairest way to do it, but if that can't happen, reducing the number of matches using a swiss system isn't helpful at all. Experimenting is good though, so if you can make it work, go for it!
Personally I have no problem with how qualification groups are set out. If I was in a position to win a tournament I would need to beat my opponents at some point so it would make little difference to me whether I do that in qualification or in the knockout stage. Having all the 'right' players progress to the finals is only really important for the big national & continental conventions where there is a big audience watching the spectacle.
I'll always prefer round robin qualification. Not just because it is the fairest system, but from a social point of view. I want to have a chance to meet & play everyone. However, I appreciate that time constraints & the need to present a high quality final are more important.
I agree entirely that the swiss system isn't aappropriate as a qualifying system for a main event. Ideally it should be the entire event.
In the interest of creating entertainment, where people want to watch a "finals", I would create a hybrid -- in which the swiss system is used as the tournament, points are then allocated based on finishing positions, and then the top4/8 go through to the knockout phase, seeded by place, where some proportion of the already awarded points can be "reallocated", the details of which need to be worked out, but suffice to say that it's important that place 8 can't drop enough points to go below place 9 -- I think that a modified Elo system might work for the points in the knockout phase. If the event is particularly prestigious, or comes with a swanky enough trophy, then the points don't need to be changed in the knockout, so long as people are motivated to try and are sufficiently rewarded by a good performance.
The important factor fir the hybrid method is to be able to allocate the points directly for the event, and not just report the positions.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I love this line:
"the details of which need to be worked out"
You know that "the details" are the only thing that matters, right? That's where all the hard work is. It's the details that take sports leagues and tours decades to get right, and are constantly refining to make better. Without firm details, you have literally nothing.
Tiny, tiny details can make the difference in who wants to take part in tournaments, and who is rewarded for doing so. By changing a little mechanism here and there, whole systems can implode.
For example, to make a Elo/swiss system work as a way to take players rating or ranking, someone will have to enter every score of every match of every qualification session ever. That is not a small job! If you are expecting me to do it, you have to understand that you want me to do between 15 to 20 times more data entry per tournament. If you expect the tournament organizers to enter that data, are they going to sign themselves up for so much work? Probably not! Organizing a tournament has to be as simple as possible, and it's already on the edge of being too complicated.
Also there must NEVER be an incentive for a player to not take part in a tournament. And never an incentive to do badly at a match. At every point you have to design the system that when trolls and idiots do their best to fuck other people over and only care about their own best interest, it benefits the system overall.
Again, I'm not saying don't experiment, as I always want to find new ideas and ways to make the FNC tournaments and rankings work better. Just know that the details is where everything interesting happens, they aren't just an afterthought.
Yes, I am completely guilty of saying "the details of which need to be worked out", and then going on to propose the exact details of it, and of two alternative systems -- which could be freely chosen from depending on the will of the organizer.
I guess the appropriate line would have been, "the exact details of which need
to be checked and tested", or "the exact details of which need to be neatly formulated and typesetted".
As for the incentive to not take part or to try to lose a match -- I understand that you're in part talking about the problem with alternate systems in general, but I'm rather of the opinion that my suggestion betters the current system.
And as for the extra work involved in bookkeeping -- I'm not sure if you're just using it as an example, and I know that's a reason against using an Elo system as a replacement for the tournament/ranking structure, but (depending on how your backend system works), it shouldn't be a showstopper for an alternative tournament structure (as I said, the only problem with my proposed system is if the tournament organizer doesn't have the right to allocate the points instead of the positions).
In summary, if I were wanting to arange a tournament, then, even if it were slightly more work for me to organize, I would want to do it with some alternative system such as the one I proposed if I had the right to allocate the points (within the limitations of the total points, and maximum points for the winner), and I would want to deliver a list of {players, points}, as well as the following pieces of information: {winner, 2nd place, third position}.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Yes, the extra bookkeeping for and Elo ranking system is just an example. An Elo ranking is what people ask about over and over again, and I just can't see a way to make it work without it taking loads more work than I'm willing to do!
As for letting the tournament organizer apportion rankings points for everyone who takes part in the tournament, that could be implemented without too much trouble. But without seeing the details, the exact formulas involved, and having them tested at a few dozen events at the very least, I wouldn't want to mix it in with the current system.
If you could find an equivalent tournament system with another sport, that would be the best way to show what you mean, and see what issues come up with it, and what mistakes they've made in the past and have now fixed... all that kind of thing.
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
It has been mooted before having "challenger" events that excluded people who had a high ranking/were strong/whatever. And Luke has a 125 point category in his system for which your event doesn't really have to conform to much and you still get points (but only one 125 point event will count towards your ranking). Possibly this would be an option at a bigger event?
I've wondered about just running a little tournament at our club and making it count as one of these.
This wouldn't take away from ELO ratings though. If Luke included qualifying data online (and people submitted it) you'd have a very large base of head to head matches.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I'll put better instructions at the top for you and others. The Gydnia tournament used it, and it worked great. The idea is to tick all the names of people who took part, and put in how many unregistered players too part, then hit "update form". Then enter all the information, hit update again, then copy and paste the link into and email and send it to me.
Hitting update doesn't submit the data to the database, as I don't feel comfortable allowing anyone access to that kind of thing! It does, however, allow you to send the link to someone else for them to check the results, then send the new link back, or on to someone else.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
For smaller tournaments, where everyone plays everyone, letting people play whoever is available works well. It's true that at the end you're always waiting for one or two people to finish their matches, and as far as I can tell it doesn't actually save much time. Maybe a few minutes over an hour.
It's also much more handy to do this when most people have taken part in a Fight Night qualifications before, and knows what's going on. With lots of new people, it can take a while for everyone to get started without completely fucking up their papers.
When playing in two groups, where everyone only plays half the other people, keeping people in lines is way easier, even if one person has to take charge a bit more. As long as the groups are roughly equal it remains fair enough, and can cut the time of the qualifications down by a lot of time.
To save time at small tournaments, I think playing two round of 8 matches at the same time is the better than cutting down on the number of qualification matches.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
After the groups at the NJF were clearly unfair, I made a tool on the FNC website that could calculate much fairer qualification groups. I had this ready for the EJC, as it worked like a charm, and everyone was amazed (including me) at how smoothly the qualification ran.
See here for an example: http://fightnightcombat.com/tournament-EJC-2015-Bruneck-qualification-guide.html
It ranks all players, based on a number of factors. First it puts all top 25 players in order. Then it adds anyone who has been in the top 10 since 2013. Then it adds in anyone who was in the top 4 before 2013. Then it adds everyone else currently ranked, in order. Then it adds everyone else randomly.
Next, with two groups, it puts every other player into one or other of the groups randomly. It just runs down the list, picking A or B for odd numbered players, then putting the following even numbered player into the opposite group. With four groups, it does something similar.
It repopulates the groups on refresh, so if even if the groups look a bit lopsided with the first try, keep hitting refresh until it looks good. Or keep hitting refresh until you are in a group that doesn't have to play Jochen.
At the EJC we split into 4 groups, and each group played everyone within that group. Then we took the top four players from each group. It was as fair as I could make it! There weren't any complaints.
The good thing with that system is that due to being able to get rankings points for qualifications, those who did well but didn't qualify could still get about 90 points, just from qualification. The wasn't a huge benefit from reaching the knockout and losing in the round of 16, or not in terms of points.
I like that score sheet. I'm going to steal it, because I'm going to write up the eternally empty round robin qualification guide next month: http://fightnightcombat.com/running-rr-qualification.html
(Just added 5 spare unnumbered score sheets to the file, because someone will spill a drink over their sheet at somepoint)
I greatly enjoyed Camvention too. A terrific venue, as others have already said. Masses of space so plenty of room for everyone, but a good attendance so the hall hummed. Inspiring as always to see so many fantastic jugglers doing their things. And good to catch up with old friends.
I really enjoyed the Scrambled B workshop. It was great to get to try, and begin to understand, one of these intriguing but extraordinarily complicated looking manipulator patterns. I was lucky to be paired with three more than competent passers, who I suspect were carrying my less accomplished attempts – thank you for that! Jon, far from being ‘woeful’ in assisting our group during that workshop, you were extremely helpful – thank you (and the other workshop leaders) too.
Two things that were extremely helpful from the workshop format were firstly the ‘wind back in time’ approach, where each group worked on a few beats of the pattern until they had some success, then started at a point a few beats *before* that, so as to lead into a familiar section. And secondly the instruction to ‘follow a certain juggler’ from the four demonstrating. I was assigned to follow Jon so, Jon, with that being the closest I’m ever likely to get to ‘juggling like Jon Peat’, plus your organising the combat *and* performing that fiendishly inventive and accomplished spot in the show, I would make you my review ‘crush’ had Mark not arguably overdone that bit already as show compere, as you alluded to. I’ll just have to go for all the graceful hula-hoopers as usual…
Jed and Ben, from our Norwich club were at Camvention too and were also at the Scrambled B workshop – we, plus Matt, had fun trying to build on what we learnt yesterday evening. If anyone can point me to a video of the variation taught in the workshop, please do. We are getting there, but not yet sure about everything.
I also got my Diabolo out for the first time in years, and enjoyed attending a workshop. I really must practice Diabolo this time (as opposed to my usual balls and clubs) rather than leave it aside until a convention months or years later as usual. And I enjoyed a couple of games of Battle Sheep, courtesy of Lazy Juggler – taking a copy home for the family.
The show was excellent – 8 very varied acts, all highly accomplished in their own ways, and very ably compered by Mark Watson. I had brought along a friend’s son, Seb, who I taught to juggle clubs recently. He was well impressed by Ashley and Michael (from who’s club-passing act I enjoyed the popcorns particularly). The high points for me were Pascal’s Cyr wheel and Nik’s mesmerising ‘8-ring’ isolations. But there were no lows in a consistently good show, and indeed a consistently good convention – thank you Camvention organisers.
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
https://youtu.be/g-gUBvB0h4U and http://juggling.tv/6735 are videos of Unscrambled B (note it is canonically referred to as Unscrambled B. Main reason being that everyone just walks round in a circle with no overlapping, so it is less scrambled than the others).
"How to Steal from your Friends", Aidan's intro book to scrambled patterns, is available at https://www.juggle.me.uk/passing/ and describes Unscrambled B, although it is rather outdated now in terms of being not very comprehensive nor using modern notation.
I believe the Aidan notation for the pattern is:
A: B S | C S | B S -> B
B: A S | S S | A S -> C
C: S S | A S | S S -> A
M: IAB | CBB | SBA -> M
Notation for other manipulator patterns (although only showing the 'to' subscript, not the 'from' superscript, links to videos and a basic explanation can be found at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15kr9XVS-4IpBz3uIiJUYfLH_SJfE93YLFFAtncPIgIo/edit?usp=sharing (note this is a copy that probably won't get updated).
There is yet to be a good document/book explaining Aidan notation - I would like to change that/get something out, but probably no time soon.
Many thanks Brook, that's just what I was looking for. It will take a bit of study! At the moment, the videos and Aiden's description of the substitution on Unscrambled B look simpler than it felt to me at the time - specifically I think the manipulator and the other person involved were exchanging extra clubs each time. But that might just be how it felt to my scrambled brain at the time.
KStruthers - #
Camvention is this weekend.
Hello all,
Just a reminder that Camvention is this weekend. It's at the university sports center in Cambridge on Saturday 26th September.
We've got 3 lines of workshops, traders, board games, combat tournament, games, and a whole show to watch so please do come along if you are within travelling distance.
Tickets are £10 on the door.
More information is on our website: www.camvention.org
See you there,
Katie
Yay! Looking forward to it! I've really enjoyed the last 2 events.
#Camvention2015
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
Yay, Camvention :)
We do indeed have 'a whole show' featuring everything from acro staff to acro balance, club passing to cyr wheeling, including international performers :)
And hoop games for hoopers.
And acro mats/acro area of acro peoples.
And rather more show seats that we can fill, so everyone should come :)
See everyone on Saturday!
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post