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

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.