| stfnal chatroom etiquette |
[May. 25th, 2009|06:41 pm] |
Well, this weekend's webfeed from Baycon was successful, even with the technical problems that plagued the system; these, though, are to be expected. Hats off to Kat Templeton for her attempts to deal with the system and the crazy folks in attendance.
The chats accompanying the fanzine lounge and Hugo panel discussion feeds were interesting and fun, and I believe something good will eventually come of them: stfnal chatroom etiquette.
See, at one point during today's Hugo panel discussion - which included Chris Garcia, Kevin Standlee, and three others whose names I forget offhand - Cheryl Morgan dropped into the chatroom, which was a pleasant surprise. Or so I thought. At just about the same time the six or seven chatroom members were zinging puns with nautical themes back and forth largely because Kevin was wearing his captain's uniform. (Aside: I am well aware that he loves that uniform, and he does look mighty sharp in it.) None of the puns - and some of them were truly atrocious, mine being among the worst - were personally aimed at Kevin, and before any of us knew it, Cheryl had bid adieu to the chatroom. Within minutes Steve Green passed along the URL to Cheryl's blog, which I read, passing along a key quote to the chatroom. Lloyd Penney commented back to her, as did I, both of us apologizing for any bad impression she had received from that brief exposure.
But Cheryl's comments deserve some worthy thought. Most of the fans who get into these fannish chatrooms do so with full knowledge of the kind of lunacy that happens there. It is one of these livestream chat's major attractions. We zing puns, jokes, comments pithy and pissy back and forth at breakneck speed; it is almost like being in a real, live consuite. Cheryl observed that these comments can be seen by anyone since they are made live on the Internet, and unless people looking in aren't In The Know, fandom could be seen as a bunch of immature, drunken yahoos who just like to act goofy. Point well taken. I can see this. In fact, historically speaking, this falls right in place with how science fiction fans have been seen and described over the decades.
Bottom line: we should watch what we say, even though virtually everything said in these convention chatrooms is done with absolutely no malice intended. It is a good thing that Ustream does have a censor function that prohibits foul language. In essence, Cheryl Morgan is advocating that we should attempt to censor our comments.
Now that is going to be hard to do. We can each do our parts, but fannish nature is to not take everything super-seriously. I will try not to make stupid puns in the future that could be taken offensively. That's an admirable attitude. But will others follow my example across the board? Will other fans take heed of Cheryl's warning? These are two good questions. Science fiction fans will unfortunately be fans, and so stupid things will continue to be said. Unintended hurt will happen. Perhaps what we all need to do is keep this lesson in mind during future webcast chatrooms. If anything, that's a good lesson to maintain in day-to-day life. Let us see what happens to these webfeed chats in the future.
|
|
|
| Comments: |
From: (Anonymous)
2009-05-26 10:45 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Is Cheryl advocating censorship? I didn't read her blog that way. I think she was pointing out that when it's a public livecast, it's not a private space. Also, something to bear in mind is that chatrooms lacks the face to face nuances of being physically present in a consuite or fanlouge. As a total stranger to any gathering, virtual or not, one can only take things at face value. And my impression from Cheryl's entry was that this one left a negative one.
From: (Anonymous)
2009-05-26 10:50 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Is Cheryl advocating censorship? I didn't read her blog that way. I think she was pointing out that when it's a public livecast, it's not a private space. Also, something to bear in mind is that chatrooms lacks the face to face nuances of being physically present in a consuite or fanlounge. As a total stranger to any gathering, virtual or not, one can only take things at face value. And my impression from Cheryl's entry was that this one left a negative one.
Oh, definitely. My use of the word "censor" was perhaps a poor choice, but Cheryl's admonition is that fans should be aware not of only what they say but also where they are saying it is sound advice. A little common sense and courtesy can go a long way. This is all definitely a good lesson to learn.
I always thought a chatroom was just a chatroom, and who would stumble in there that didn't have some idea what it was about? I don't even know what a public livecast is. I'm not sure why someone would want to broadcast a conversation like that. I mean, it's supposed to be conversation, not a presentation, or am I wrong?
Of course I should talk. I've hardly ever been "in" a chatroom. I'm the kind of person who thinks up clever remarks and awful puns an hour later. I'd be overwhelmed, but at least I wouldn't be quick enough to say anything offensive!
Online chats can be very overwhelming, 'tis true, especially in the heat of the moment. When fans get on a roll - most likely a silly roll - in a live chatroom, they will definitely write things without thinking. It's definitely like opening mouth, insert foot in a real live conversation. Problem is, this time it's in print (essentially); chats, LJ's, blogs, e-zines, etc., are electronic documents. Note the emphasis added. I honestly don't know what legal ramifications there are here, but it's an interesting question to ponder, and thus might be an important point to consider in the future.
Not to mention that people present can be running loggers of everything that goes on in such a place and things could be around quicker than you know.
Also, maybe Peter Sullivan and I should be more upfront about this, but there's a reason tuckerbot exists, and it's to catch and log the fannish conversation simultaneously with the webcast. And those logs could end up someplace where you might not expect them to be.
As an example, a few words of mine at the Eastercon webcasting brought me a small batch of fanzines in the snail mail, so it's not unheard of that somebody not present could see what's being said in the chats that accompany broadcasts.
I don't know what to do about it, in all honesty, except make it clear that people's words, like anywhere else on the Internet, can end up in places they weren't expecting.
(Hi, it's me, your friendly Baycon webcam operator!)
-kat
And you did a marvelous job, Kat. Thank you! | |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
profgeek's journal
