Diana Hughes

I agree, it felt like the forum accomplished little. Not having Peter Baxter there was detrimental, because he effectively became demonized and we still don't have any straight answer from the guy as to why he did what he did. Perhaps the lack of a straight, satisfactory answer is the most damning, but it also seems that we're looking for things to point to and say we're second class citizens and argue against it.

That said, I thought the speakers were good people in general, and though there were disagreements I didn't feel disgusted or completely opposed to any of them. We did fail to get to the root of a problem, let alone discuss it, in which case I agree with you that the forum largely was unsuccessful.

In these situations, I feel like the panel can only start the conversation by expressing their various viewpoints. After that point, it is really up to the audience to ask questions that will steer the conversation in a way that will make it interesting for them.

Those are my feelings as an audience member at the Wed night seminars, but I definitely felt them as a member of the panel. The environment was conducive to an open discussion, but very, VERY few people in the audience of 50 some spoke up or asked questions. All those people on the panel I had spoken with before. I was excited about being there because I was interested in hearing what people who had NOT been talking about this for the last month thought about these subjects. So many people showed up, but why? It's somewhat frustrating to see people commenting now "oh, i wish we had talked about this," because you(not specifically you) were there - why didn't you bring it up?

Kellee, to be honest, I completely agree with you. As a panelist, it's damn near impossible to know what people want to hear about unless they ask. I just thought that the conversation seemed to be moving at a pretty good clip, and so we must be discussing what people wanted to talk about. My frustration wasn't so much with the topics at hand, but more the fact that we seemed to be talking in circles. And I by no means am singling out panelists here...everyone who was there, whether they spoke up or not, was a participant, and we ALL wandered around in circles.

During the actual discussion, I couldn't seem to articulate what I wanted to hear about. Writing about it later in my blog is my way of extending the discussion, I guess, now that everyone has had a chance to think on it. I do apologize if it came off as a critique of the panelists. I know you guys probably could have been doing better things with your Valentine's Day than talking to us, and I did enjoy that you all came and participated.

I have to respectfully disagree that the environment was conducive to a really "open" discussion. We had five speakers, and the first half of the seminar was dedicated to the speakers and the background of the situation. The second half was opened up a bit, but it was still dominated by the speakers, which makes sense because that's what the speakers are there for. But when you have five speakers, and each question is tackled by multiple speakers, there is very little time for questions from the audience. However, I do agree that we can't just sit back and argue that the panelists didn't bring up the points that the audience felt were important, because we need to bring those things up. This isn't a condemnation of the panelists, but more a critique of the setup of the seminar itself, including time limitations and the lack of, say, a moderator or something.

However, I agree with Diana. I was actually really happy that the backchannel was there because it allowed a lot of us to voice things that we were feeling while other people were talking. I was talking to Scott afterward and he said that it was one of the best examples of the virtues of the backchannel. The conversation was moving at a very fast clip, and it wasn't as though there were really any silences where we could bring up new questions. It wasn't as though there was a lot of silence or open questions to the audience about where to go next. It generally kept going in circles around the same points that many people agreed with -- the game shouldn't have been pulled after being selected, the reasons given for its removal weren't adequate, etc.

Of course, it wasn't all a waste, and there were some great points that were brought up. I also really appreciate all the panelists and everyone who showed up for their time and effort in the seminar.

I've gone on record before and I'll say it again.

I hate the backchannel.

I think it's rude, distracting, and a detriment to serious discussion.

It was an interesting experiment, but I think it's either a failure or else a successful impediment.

That seminar was prime example of it. I have to totally take Kellee's side on this. I saw a lot of bellyaching and sniping going on in the backchannel but no one had the moxie to say anything out loud until Julian and Tracy took the time to single out stuff that was going on in there and bring it into the open forum. We use the backchannel as the place to say things instead of in the general conversation. In an open forum like last week, it's time to take some responsibility and ownership for your opinions and speak them to the room.

It would be nice to speak up, yes -- if someone was listening. Julian tried to steer to what was important, but there was so much pussyfooting going on that we were going nowhere fast.

I think the backchannel tends to reflect the boredom, agitation and other 'atmospheric' factors that emerge during the seminar. Perhaps next time, instead of bitching online, we should all just walk out in protest.

I rarely find myself in support of backchannel, but for people like me who walk a fine line between obnoxious and offensive, it helps dampen the potential for real-time chaos.

Backchannel or no backchannel, I didn't walk out of seminar enlightened. I think that we were all afraid to say what we wanted because of the potential for a quick descent into something ugly. We all saw where that went on the blog when the slamdance withdrawal was announced. At least with the backchannel you have some record of what people wanted to say even if they didn't say it.

"I saw a lot of bellyaching and sniping going on in the backchannel but no one had the moxie to say anything out loud until Julian and Tracy took the time to single out stuff that was going on in there and bring it into the open forum."

Isn't this sort of cool? I mean, without the backchannel maybe none of this stuff would have come up. Certainly the backchannel is like some weird zone that is typically not safe to be brought into the physical world... and so yeah, maybe stuff festers in there a bit and when it comes out, it comes out awkwardly, and without the confidence or candor one might hope for. But I like that it created some tension in the room, and I think that it was provocative (if not to the panelists, at least to the audience).

I mean, I'm usually right there with you about the backchannel. Usually it sucks. But I think in this instance it was successful in opening up some other lines of discussion.

Oh, and sorry about quoting you, Jesse. I hate when people do that, but I'm not smart enough to figure out a better way.

Marientina, exactly what did you want to say and why not say it? That was the whole purpose of the event -- as was clearly spelled out in the invitation. My impression was that a lot of people were so busy typing their usual quips in the backchannel that they forgot they actually needed to speak up to be heard.

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who were "pussyfooting" were the ones who didn't have enough guts to speak at all. As I said to Julian later, I'd prefer to see a seminar where things got so "ugly" we had to break up a fist fight, rather than a bunch of spitballs posted silently in the backchannel.

What is up with politeness? Who said we had to avoid chaos in seminar? Come on, people, don't blame others for the fact that you'd prefer to hide behind a keyboard.

Also, you mentioned that "we all" knew what happened bc it was on the blog, but you aren't considering that more than half the room was newcomers who don't follow the blog. In fact, it was clear from their comments that a lot of our own faculty didn't actually know what happened either. So, I think you're incorrect in that assumption.

Tracy, in regards to your comment about politeness and avoiding chaos, for me, I still consider seminar a class. With the exception of the Slamdance forum, the format is almost always a pretty typical lecture setup. To me at least, that means that the invited guests are there to share their thoughts, and we are there to learn from them. I know this wasn't the intention with the Slamdance forum, but it's hard to get out of that mode of thought, especially since the first half of the session or so was given over to each panelist filling in their part of the incident's timeline. And I would also point out that at least as many people were in back channel as were not, and yet even the ones who weren't didn't speak up. To me, that suggests that back channel wasn't the only problem.

Yes, you are very right. I do hide behind my keyboard sometimes because it is easier to scream when you're typing. I am not going to apologize for that. And yes, you put your behind on the line and put yourself out there and I did not. It is much easier for me to say what I say now, but the seminar commentary was in no way directed towards you, Tracy. You are not responsible for what people said or did not say.

For those of us who are games outsiders and most of the time we don't feel that anyone will care to listen to what we have to say, the backchannel is the only way to stay on the record. We're there, but we're playing second fiddle.

I had a bad dream the previous night that we would have some serious chaos during the seminar and I did not want to volunteer being outspoken. Maybe that sounds stupid to you, but I did not want things to descend into chaos. Apparently, we were nowhere near that point and I can't say that I regret that part. I was genuinely afraid that a malevolent outsider may come to seminar and cause trouble. And guess what? I may be paranoid, but chances are I would be the one having to deal with the mess of cleaning up the spitballs, bandaging the students and calling the cops. It is a learned reflex and I cannot help myself.

The things that I wanted to say I did actually. I think we were right to withdraw from the festival. And I think the festival was wrong to withdraw the game for a billion reasons. Peter Baxter was not there to tell us why he did it, but chances are that he has his own daemons, legal, moral and ethical that he had to answer to. We know those lines blur, so when Peggy brought up the ultimate problem (a game about abortion), the conversation still remained pretty sanitary. I believe that it is because we all have our own set of laws, morals and ethics under which we operate and the seminar environment does not inspire people to be put at odds with each other. Nobody wants to piss off the people they work with everyday, nobody wants to hurts their feelings. At most we tease each other. We are a department with a liberal majority, including myself and I am pretty sure no student who feels strongly for the game being pulled would say so.

I am the sentimental kind of person that everyone finds weird, the one who doesn't fit and the one who always speaks their mind. I try hard not to offend people, but I know that I do and when I don't speak my mind, I am also criticized. I can't quite have it all, but I won't lie to your face on in the backchannel, or over email so sometimes not saying anything is better than pissing somebody off.

We don't have stormy arguments in this department for the same reasons that we don't hug much or stop and think about what it must be to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. We don't know each other well, we're tired, overworked and afraid to push boundaries, whether they are of personal space or ideological. We're getting a little better at being caring as we get to know each other, but it is hard to argue these things with half-strangers. You know how it is when you're dating for a few years but you still can't quite be 100% frank because it may break everything? Or it may make everything, but you will never know until you say something. Due to the age of this department, I believe that this is where we are.

I don't like getting bullied out of what I have to say and out of fear I shut up sometimes. That sometimes is very little of the time and today I am feeling kinda emotional about things. Yes, I am hypersensitive, but I am working on that. Next time, I will raise my hand and piss lots of people off.

We brought plenty of interesting points in seminar and on backchannel, but nobody approached anything painful. What does that say about our culture? We can be rational, fair and passionate and sensitive. By pulling that game out of the festival, the community was defeated and responded. Almost everything that can be said has been said elsewhere on the net, from the lucid and fair to the horrifically inflammatory. We have to sit and think if we want that kind of s*** storm in our environment. I don't have the answer to that.

One day maybe someone will raise their hand and really, really say what is on their mind and we will all pay attention and/or throw some produce on them. I hereby promise from now on to always say the difficult things that nobody wants to hear. Nobody has to agree with me and you can snicker if you want. I will be bulletproof.

I am not taking it personally. Just speaking my mind, which is what I usually do. I reserve the right to delay being outspoken and I don't like oral/group arguments. Between my mom bullying me with her bipolar wit and my chronic fear of stuttering, arguing in public live is not my preferred arena.