Convention theory

[alexxkay]

Fascinating discussion going on over here about convention structure in general, and Readercon in specific. Lots of talk about what various types of panel structures either encourage or discourage. I asked a question asking for more data that started a sub-thread.

"discouraging small or individual book conversations among people who are not panelists"

I am not aware of any convention that has mechanisms in place to encourage such conversations, nor do I have any clear notion what such mechanisms might be. I'd be interested in having this ignorance corrected, if you know of any examples.

A bunch of examples were provided, though none of them seemed close enough for me to easily check them out.

The more I think about this, though, the more I realize that my problems with various panels don't *seem* (to me) to have anything to do with structure.

When I go to a panel, I want to hear interesting, non-annoying people talk. "Interesting" can include any of the following: Informative, Witty, Insightful. Conversely, "Annoying" includes things like: Pompous, Sexist, Self-absorbed. Qualities like Rambling and Off-Topic can be positive or negative, depending on what other qualities they are paired with.

The problem, then, is to give the Interesting people lots of time to speak, while squelching the Annoying ones. Unfortunately, 'being on a panel' is only weakly correlated with this divide. Someone on a panel is *slightly* more likely to be interesting, whereas an audience member is *slightly* more likely to be annoying -- but there have been plenty of times when an audience member proved more interesting than a panelist. Indeed, it was the feeling that *I* was more interesting than some panelists that prompted me to start being a panelist at Arisia.

The one significant thing on the panelists' side (to me, as a consumer) is that I can (eventually) have some advance knowledge of what they are likely to be like. I know that any panel with at least two of Greer Gilman, Faye Ringel, and Sonya Taafe (sp?), is going to be entertaining. I have identified a few people who (naming no names) will reliably piss me off if I attend a panel they are on. Audience members, on the other hand, are catch-as-catch-can.

Is there any structural way to promote Interest, and reduce Annoyance? I can't think of one off hand. Strong moderation is one approach, but that can fail drastically when the moderator himself turns out to be Annoying. Further discussion welcomed.

Comments

[londo.livejournal.com]

Can this question be viewed as "how do we get a better signal to noise ratio?"

Because, y'know... that's the hard stuff.

[dariusk.livejournal.com]

As a guy who goes to about 15 conventions/conferences a year, that's a very interesting question. What did you think of the signal:noise of GameLoop? My general sense is that the unConference model certainly allows for better SNR, but we also sort of curated the attendees themselves for GameLoop.

[sovay]

I know that any panel with at least two of Greer Gilman, Faye Ringel, and Sonya Taafe (sp?), is going to be entertaining.

Taaffe. I am honored to be counted among the interesting. Thank you!

[ericmvan.livejournal.com]

The most challenging / frustrating facet for a Program Chair is the people who are sometimes Interesting (even fascinating) and sometimes Annoying (or at least Boring). You are always tossing the dice and / or guessing at which twin shows up. And it has to frustrate the audience members who go to see a panel in part because Person X has been terrific in the past, but on this topic they're either blowhardly or disengaged and unhelpful.

So the problem is even more complicated that simply putting the often Annoying people where they might actually not be Annoying (find the right topic and make sure the moderator is strong). Those folks are usually easier to read, e.g., the problem with some Annoyers is self-promotion / absorption, so you look for panels that don't relate to their own work but instead to one of their outside interests. The bipolar types can just be plain inexplicable, but it boils down to a lack of their own self-knowledge (in the Arisia / Readercon program model where folks sign up for the panels that interest them). They say "I'd kill to be on this panel" and sometimes it means they've got a wealth of insight to impart and sometimes, like John Stewart often admits, they've got nothing.