The Scalzi Rule, Or, I Didn't Know I Was Auditioning for Jeopardy

[pantryslut]

n.b.: This is a very science-fiction-fandom-specific sort of discussion, which I realize is rather rare in my journal. Many of my friends are likely to be either perplexed or bored (or both) by what follows. Feel free to skip this! It's a little esoteric. Nonetheless, it's the kind of thing I will sometimes find myself discussing -- usually on administrative mailing lists for cons that I am volunteering for, not here. Well, the twins have kept me from volunteering this year for my usual cons. I am 'at large' these days, and so this is an at-large sort of post.

John Scalzi actually has a knack for making up all sorts of rules, thumbwise and otherwise. The one I'm referring to here is the one that has been formulated as such:

"It has been suggested in some quarters that the audience at a panel should not make statements, but only ask questions."

(btw, if someone could find me a link to Scalzi's own suggestion/discussion, I will add it here. I know 'The Scalzi Rule' only by hearsay, myself. Please keep this in mind as you read the following. ETA: wild_irises found me the link to Scalzi's original post. It's here.)

This rule, it occurred to me this afternoon, is an attempt to regulate content by mandating form. As such, it's a bad (if mostly harmless) idea. It is better to moderate content with content guidelines. There is a conceptual category mistake going on here, in other words.

Nothing in the rule *prevents* someone from standing up and making a statement (of any sort) instead of asking a question. It does provide a mechanism for ignoring and/or banning them, but a good moderator doesn't need one; they already have the authority to ignore and/or ban anyone they like, for whatever reason they like. If someone says something offensive, the moderator should step in. If they say something long-winded, the moderator should cut them off. If they manage to phrase their long-winded, offensive content in the form of a question, they should not get a free pass just because they followed the rules. If they say something cogent, thoughtful, to the point, but not in the form of a question, perhaps they shouldn't be ignored just because.

An a panel-to-panel level, I consider the Scalzi Rule the equivalent of making audience members wear silly hats before they speak. If a moderator wants to set this rule for their individual panel, they may. Why they would want to, I have no idea. But they are nonetheless permitted to institute whatever arbitrary rule they can get their audience to accept in organizing their panel.

In other words, I think it's flawed and likely ineffectual, but it's also harmless. If it suits a particular moderator's style, or a particular panel's format, then so be it. Go for it. I will buy the silly hats, even (if I am on the programming committee and you request 'em, that is).

I *do* consider it pernicious, however, as a con-wide policy.

I am of the "let a thousand flowers bloom" school of con programming. That is, I think moderators should be given a great deal of leeway to organize their program items any way they please (e.g. not just as 'panels' in the first place...); and I hope that they will take this leeway and try out many, many different approaches to encouraging and regulating discussion.

I guess if someone wanted to form ScalziRuleCon, in which anything goes as long as it's a question, they're welcome to do so. But do we really need to homogenize programming at cons to *this* fine-toothed extent? By finding another case where we favor a rule over the actual art of moderating -- that is, paying attention to the flow of discussion as it develops between audience and programming participants, a flow that will be unique to each occasion? Perhaps a better title would be OneSizeFitsAllCon.

Comments

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

As a non-fan, non-congoer, this has been my basic reaction to this subject every time I've seen it come up. I'm not opposed to a questions-only panel, but I may or may not skip it. A questions-only con wouldn't interest me at all.

[dnereverri.livejournal.com]

I think the hidden assumption here is that most people go to a panel to hear what the panelists think, not what the audience thinks. So, audience members asking questions is trying to draw out panelists' thoughts on a particular topic, and hence OK; audience members making a statement undermines the panel for most other members of the audience.

I don't know how accurate that assumption is, but I can see where they're coming from. (Of course, when I go to cons, I rarely attend panels at all, but that's me.)

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

I think you are exactly correct about the hidden assumption. The cons I attend and volunteer for, that assumption is quite incorrect; but for others, maybe not so much.

[redbird]

I tend to take a middle position, which is along the lines of "The panel is going to talk for a while, and then we'll take questions and comments. Put your hands down until then, they'll just get tired."

That assumes not that the panelists are inherently authorities on anything, but that they are more likely to have prepared to talk about the topic in question. (In an ideal world, also less likely to go off in a random direction to pursue a different agenda, but that's an ideal, and my first panel moderating experience came from not letting one panelist do so, talking over everyone else including the other panelists.)

If the panelists _are_ authorities on the subject, the style would be somewhat different, but I'm probably not moderating that.

On yet another hand, I have once interrupted a panelist to say "if you have that much respect for $other_panelist, don't interrupt her after you've made a ten-minute speech and she's two sentences into a response." I was in the audience at the time.

I sometimes think one of my significant moderator skills is being a fast-talking New Yorker. (It is not an advantage as a panelist, if the panel is otherwise going well.)

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

Here's the link.

I don't usually think you're a nicer person than I am (I think we're about equal) but in this case you're a nicer person than I am.

I actually think the rule is genuinely pernicious, except in certain specific contexts, and can explain why if anyone is interested.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

I am, of course, interested.

As I said, I do think it is pernicious as a philosophy of moderation, i.e. as a 'rule'. I am really quite unequivocal on that point, and I deliberately held back some of my stronger feelings on that particular subject here.

I can see its usefulness as an occasional tool in the moderating toolbox, though. But even so, any attempt to moderate content by controlling form seems to me to be sloppy thinking at best, and that should never be encouraged.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

P.S. I am more than a little amused to see that the original discussion also references Jeopardy. And here I thought I was letting my snark rein slip a little too much.

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

I noticed that, and thought you might be amused.

While I like your point about content and form (a lot), I get stuck on another point. When I was in college, we made a lot of Jonathan Swift jokes about "faculty are descended from the gods and students from the apes." The Scalzi (or naqmoac) rule feels to me like "panelists are descended from the gods and audience from the apes."

In a panel of experts discussing their subject (such as the conformation of Indian and African elephants or the languages one might learn riding with Pancho Villa), there's a lot to be said for respecting expertise and asking questions. But Scalzi isn't making that distinction.

You and I both know that panelists are not always chosen either for their expertise or for the desire of the audience to hang on their every word, and that audience members are generally not idiots who will derail the panel if they offer comments. My fundamental objection is based on class assumptions, or at the very least on reinforcing hierarchical structures: I choose my conventions specifically for an interested and interesting membership, and I want the chance for all voices to be heard. There are lots of ways to silence an audience member (or for that matter a panelist) who wants to hijack a panel, without making a rule that says "this group of people is more important and more worthy than that group of people."

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

Exactly as dnereverri points out above, too. I have more complicated feelings about this particular point. I guess it could be best summed up as, "if you want to have a hierarchy, you can; please do so consciously, however. P.S. sounds dull."

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

yes yes yes.

this is why, if i am in charge of such things, i will put anyone on a panel about anything, all other things being equal. (all other things are not equal; you may in fact think you have new and interesting things to say about weasel migration patterns and i might think that we have heard the things you have to say about weasel migration patterns for the last three years and maybe i'll put this other person who thinks they have something interesting to say about them on the panel instead. but, you know. as a general rule, if a person would like to be on a panel, a person should get to be on a panel.)

[pennski.livejournal.com]

I think it's a silly rule.

I think it would be good if audience members could clarify up-front what their contribution would be (e.g. "I have a question/ I have an appropriate experience I would like to share/ I have a relevant viewpoint I'd like to put before you/ I have brought cookies for everyone") but to keep it brief!

I've been on panels that would have died without an engaged and contributing audience. I've been to panels where I've wished the audience would shut up so I could hear more from X.

Let a thousand flowers bloom!

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

When I first heard about this rule, I wondered what problem it was supposedly solving. The most plausible I could come up with was an audience member unfairly dominating the proceedings or not letting anyone else get a word in. Good moderation/good moderators are the best way to handle that kind of situation, not Scalzi's rule. And, what wild_irises said about class distinctions within the panel framework.

[lcohen]

i think that there probably are panels where i'd really rather hear the panelists talk. i think that most of them wouldn't be science fiction panels and few of the science fiction panels would be wiscon panels. i've been on a panel where everyone in the audience was likely to have had a pertinent experience but the moderator didn't want the panel to be a sharing of personal experiences panel, she wanted it to be about how our personal experiences interact with the topic at hand. she announced that up front--that it would be mostly panelists talking until the last fifteen minutes or so. one person left--sounds like a good outcome to me--the person who didn't want the panel she was proposing to run didn't stay. conversely, i moderated a panel where the audience was likely to have pertinent experiences and i wanted those to be part of the discussion--glad scalzi didn't show up for that one. i've never met the man and i guess i'm a bit surprised to read in his entry that debbie linked to that he was at wiscon because it strikes me as the sort of environment that would constantly be at odds with what he says he prefers. meanwhile, if i heard that that was how a con was being run, i'd avoid it like the plague--as it is, i avoid cons that seem like they're going to be all about how the stars sit and talk while the worshipful masses adore them.