I've got to say though, even heavy drinking has never stopped me from having technical conversations with people, even in crowded bars...

I have tried to have technical conversations at parties and in bars with people I know to be interested in and knowledgeable in the topic. It's basically impossible.

Firstly, the loud music and other conversation makes it very hard to hear what they're saying, and the things said therefore tend to be simplified into what can be said simply in short words.

Secondly, they are often drunk and/or more interested in talking about beer or something than the topic they presumably are at the conference to advance. This is, of course, understandable; they're not expecting to have anything whatsoever to do with the conference topic at the party, since nobody else is, either.

Thirdly, there are no whiteboards to use as discussion aids. It's also quite dark, and it's often cramped so you can't easily show somebody something by moving around. Basically, bars and party rooms are not exactly conducive to productive discussions. (In the past there would also be no internet and, further back, no computers, but that has thankfully become a non-issue these days.)

You are saying that conferences should not be like parties, because conferences are not like parties. You are just using your restricted definition of conference (not like a party) to support what you think a conference should be (not like a party). My take on it is that some conferences empirically do have many similarities to parties. This doesn't make them 'not conferences', so saying "their job is to organize a conference, not a party" is setting up a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist.

If that isn't your sort of conference, then no problem, not everything is for everybody. Personally I prefer more intimate technical conversations over a beer, a bar napkin, and a cellphone than sterile professional presentations in front of a whiteboard. Obviously you do not, and that is perfectly fine as well. There is room in this world for both; there is no reason to discourage one or the other from existing.

Not quite.

What I am saying is that conferences and parties have different goals. The goal of a conference is to advance the field. The goal of a party is to have fun. The goal of a conference is not advanced by organizing a party, nor is the goal of a party advanced by organizing a conference.

A conference can (and perhaps should) have many elements of a party in it — evening social activities, perhaps even in a bar where alcolhol (gasp!) is consumed. All of this may be perfectly fine. But, these activities should be organized with the goal of the conference in mind.

However, what many conference organizers seem to do is fill the days with talks, (while minimizing the time between talks to fit as many as possible), and then on the evenings they try to organize the best party they can think of. The best party, mind you, not the best socializing activity, which might have advanced the networking in the field, but the best party, whatever the tastes of the organizers and/or the prospective attendees.

This makes the conference a series of undiscussed talks in the daytime, followed by a series of usually pounding party keggers at night. The talks can be watched at home if they are filmed, and the parties can be had locally, too. There is no reason to attend these kinds of conferences. Unless, of course, you are already connected and go to any number of conferences a year and meet all the same people — your party buddies.

That is nothing more than your personal take on what a conference should be. The reality is that many conferences aren't like that. It is no skin off your back if other people have a different idea if what a conference should be, and implement their vision of a conference.

Nobody is saying you have to go enjoy a party-like conference, and all I am saying is that you in turn should not tell other people that they shouldn't.

However, I have run out of ideas on how to explain myself in yet other ways.

EDIT: I think now that we are having a word definition debate here. When you say that “many conferences aren't like that“, then I would call those themed parties, not conferences.

Well I'm saying that I think that is too imposing.

It would be like me saying that bowling alleys should be careful not to place too much emphasis on drinking, because the purpose of a bowling alley is to compete with others at rolling a ball at things. Who am I to say that others shouldn't think that the purpose of bowling is to drink with friends while occasionally rolling a ball around? I shouldn't impose my idea of the purpose of bowling on other people.

I hope it is clear what I mean.

Since having a party-like atmosphere will make people come to the conference, by all means conferences should have them. But one should keep in mind that the party-like atmosphere does not obscure or negate the purpose of the conference in the first place.

So long as you realize that this sentence is just a statement your own personal opinion, not some sort of universal truth about conferences, then I don't think we have any issue. The goal, or purpose, of a conference is something for organizers and participants to decide for themselves.

(The answer to "You think maybe I should write a long-winded self-aggrandizing blog post about this culture of exclusion?" is "No you should not jlgreco, because that would make you (even more of) an insufferable cock.")

And your conclusion from this is that conference organizers should give people less of what they want?

Perhaps you are as serious and focused as you are advocating here, but I think you might find that a lot of people want a bit more than just sitting in an auditorium "talking usefully about the actual conference topic" to make the trip fun. If a conference devolves into pure binge drinking and partying, then yes, I can understand your concern. But some amount of partying is a legitimate draw for people and it fills seats. That's just the way it goes.

Therefore, even giving paying customers what they not only ask for, but actually do want, might still not be a good idea.

Presumably, their competitors either adapted or died. Even if the winds of change are blowing in bad way for society, trying to stand against them may be bad for business.

Perhaps take the tactic of the yuppie organic good section?

Wait a few years, then start a conference dedicated to real work and actually getting things done.