“In order to make the best possible use of our panelists, we’re only taking questions from the audience, not statements.”

“We’re only taking statements from the audience, not questions.”

I’ve been to one or two panels where members of the audience had accurate, more recent knowledge of the subject than the supposed experts on the panel. Even the panelists admitted it and offered to trade places with the audience experts. Panelists aren’t always the best choices; it can be a reward for past volunteering or for being the programming head’s friend. Or just a case of putting one’s favorite author on a panel so you can hear them speak.

Of course, one of the best comments I ever heard was made by a member of the audience.

I was on a panel about creating alternate history with Harry Turtledove, Laura Frankos, and Jack Nimersheim. Near the end of the panel, an older gentleman in the front row raised his hand and made a comment…

“I usually focus more on hard science fiction, but listening to you talk, I see that the same attention to detail and research must go into writing alternate history,” said Harry Stubbs (a.k.a. Hal Clement)

Congratulations also on your masthead keywords: the current
“Whatever
Editing! Gerunds! Death!” is maaaaaaaahvelous.

Lastly, you “need” an effective slogan. “Death to naqmoac” is good, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not everyone’s cup of meat to mention death allatime. (“Although it silently co-opts the world-wide popular “Death to America” quite well…)

How about: Deep-six the naqmoac!
No naqmoacs allowed!
Naqmoac-free zone
Please check your naqmoacs at the door.

But I ramble. Ciao from Canada, B

Having spent far too many years running and participating in programme, my experience is in the middle. We DO have a large number of people with some of the failings you highlight, and a good moderator finds ways to deal with them and keep the discussion on track and moving forward. But like Debbie, I’ve also found great points coming from the audience on many occasions, and not always phrased as questions. This is particularly true if the subject matter is one where professional expertise may be relevant and an audience comment may have more behind it than just a strong opinion.

It’s perhaps unfortunate that debates like this sometimes cause people to phrase things in a very bi-polar fashion – for instance “gods vs. apes” is clearly now what was intended. But I WOULD argue strongly that a strength of fandom and of SF conventions and programming is that sense of a single community and I prefer moderation that encourages (appropriate!) participation rather than just passive audience behaviours.

Overall, I think good moderators generally adapt their behaviour somewhat depending on the subject matter, the strength of the panellists vs. the potential audience contributions, whether the on-stage discussion is moving quickly or running out of steam, and so on, rather than by a black and white rule. Although I do think it’s good to ask people at the start to phrase contributions as questions, as you propose, and to prepared to be tough with anyone who’s having a negative impact.

Colin Harris