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."
no subject
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."