On Moderation
Jun. 8th, 2005 06:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coalescentThere's been a bit of discussion recently about the role of the moderator in the sort of panel discussions you get at sf conventions. John Scalzi started things off by suggesting ways to deal with the audience members who offer 'not a question, more of a comment'. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wild_irises responded, pointing out that panellists could ramble just as much as audience members and that it's dangerous to assume the panellists know more than the audience; nihilistic_kid got in on things by pointing out the damage a too-interested moderator can do (mostly via matociquala).
Lots of good points are made. It's something I've been vaguely thinking about over the past couple of months, because come Worldcon I'm due to moderate four separate program items (and contribute to a fifth; there's nothing like jumping in at the deep end), and because one of the recurring discussions among con-going third row-ers has been about the importance of good moderation. The four items, mind, are actually fairly different, so different strategies are likely to be called for.
There's 'The Alge-Bread-Ist', in which learned third row members will engage in deep philosophical enquiry to determine the true nature of a sandwich. I'm not too worried about this one, because I know all the participants well, and we've talked about the topic before (although I suspect the only reason I'm the moderator is that I'm the one that emailed in the final proposal, so if anyone else wants to take up the reins they'd be more than welcome). Plus, any panel that involves making snacks has to be good.
There's the book group discussion of Margo Lanagan's collection Black Juice. This is going to take some preparation, but it shouldn't be too bad; it's not an audience/panel situation, it should be a relatively small group, and again, I imagine I'll know some of the people there. And talking about books (and getting other people to talk about them) is something I know I can do.
For 'Not The Hugo Awards' I'm a little more daunted, but that's mostly because it's likely to be a somewhat more prominent item than either of the previous two. In terms of moderation, though, the audience doesn't really come into it on this one; the panel has a specific format, one I've seen done several times, been part of twice, and moderated a version of once, so I have a fairly good idea of how to handle it.
Lastly, there's 'The magazines are dead; long live the magazines', which is arguably my only traditional panel in the sense that the posts linked at the top are talking about (and, as it happens, the one I'm most looking forward to; if the people we've asked to be on it agree, it should be good stuff. The title doesn't quite reflect what I envisage it being about but hey, that's always part of the fun). Four people talking about the topic, with me trying to guide the discussion and the likelihood of lots of interested people wanting to add their two cents from the audience. For this, I need to decide on my approach.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards Scalzi's way. I go to panels to hear panellists who (I generously assume) are (a) informed and (b) prepared. If there are other people in the room who are also knowledgeable on the topic, great--they can continue the conversation in the bar afterwards. But with possible rare exceptions, I don't think they should be given equal weight to the panellists, if only because one of the points of panels is to have focus, and you can't have that if twenty-five or more people want to make their views known. Actually, I think Scalzi summed it up pretty well in a second post on the issue:
wild_irises responded, pointing out that panellists could ramble just as much as audience members and that it's dangerous to assume the panellists know more than the audience; nihilistic_kid got in on things by pointing out the damage a too-interested moderator can do (mostly via matociquala).Lots of good points are made. It's something I've been vaguely thinking about over the past couple of months, because come Worldcon I'm due to moderate four separate program items (and contribute to a fifth; there's nothing like jumping in at the deep end), and because one of the recurring discussions among con-going third row-ers has been about the importance of good moderation. The four items, mind, are actually fairly different, so different strategies are likely to be called for.
There's 'The Alge-Bread-Ist', in which learned third row members will engage in deep philosophical enquiry to determine the true nature of a sandwich. I'm not too worried about this one, because I know all the participants well, and we've talked about the topic before (although I suspect the only reason I'm the moderator is that I'm the one that emailed in the final proposal, so if anyone else wants to take up the reins they'd be more than welcome). Plus, any panel that involves making snacks has to be good.
There's the book group discussion of Margo Lanagan's collection Black Juice. This is going to take some preparation, but it shouldn't be too bad; it's not an audience/panel situation, it should be a relatively small group, and again, I imagine I'll know some of the people there. And talking about books (and getting other people to talk about them) is something I know I can do.
For 'Not The Hugo Awards' I'm a little more daunted, but that's mostly because it's likely to be a somewhat more prominent item than either of the previous two. In terms of moderation, though, the audience doesn't really come into it on this one; the panel has a specific format, one I've seen done several times, been part of twice, and moderated a version of once, so I have a fairly good idea of how to handle it.
Lastly, there's 'The magazines are dead; long live the magazines', which is arguably my only traditional panel in the sense that the posts linked at the top are talking about (and, as it happens, the one I'm most looking forward to; if the people we've asked to be on it agree, it should be good stuff. The title doesn't quite reflect what I envisage it being about but hey, that's always part of the fun). Four people talking about the topic, with me trying to guide the discussion and the likelihood of lots of interested people wanting to add their two cents from the audience. For this, I need to decide on my approach.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards Scalzi's way. I go to panels to hear panellists who (I generously assume) are (a) informed and (b) prepared. If there are other people in the room who are also knowledgeable on the topic, great--they can continue the conversation in the bar afterwards. But with possible rare exceptions, I don't think they should be given equal weight to the panellists, if only because one of the points of panels is to have focus, and you can't have that if twenty-five or more people want to make their views known. Actually, I think Scalzi summed it up pretty well in a second post on the issue:
Another idea floated in comments is that at a panel, the audience and the panel are equals. Well, no. Generally speaking the panelists are actively chosen by the con to be on a panel based on their interest/expertise on the topic; the audience self-selects -- some of them may also be experts on the subject, some of them may have a passing interest, some of them may be there because they think one of the panelists is cute, some of them may be there because the room the panel is taking place in has a clear signal for the hotel wireless and they want to do a blog entry. In general, it's reasonably expected that the panel will take up the bulk of the panel time tossing about ideas like seals with a beach ball, which will on occasion be thrown out into the audience with the hope the audience will bounce the ball back with an interesting new spin. In terms of the discourse of the panel, the panelists are primary participants, and the audience secondary.I think most of the time, this is true; if you want to explain to me the error of my ways, now's the time. Whether I can steer a conversation in this way in practice is something I guess we're going to find out in August.
