As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread:

Panelist Selection Methods: Let's discuss adding transparency

evanephrineevanephrine ev-an-eff-rinnSeattle, WARegistered User regular
As a follow up and to keep the discussion going from the West Planning channel on Slack I’m making this thread so we can discuss the future of our Pinny Panels at PAX and figure out a more fair method of deciding on who will be on the panel and what topics will be covered. Also, the added transparency and use of the forums will lay the groundwork for future panels, give everyone the opportunity for feedback before and after each PAX Pin Panel™, and create a more-permanent-than-3-days-history-of-Slack storage location for all of this glorious information. Hopefully, one that involves all the community members who would like to contribute towards or have a chance at presenting on the panel.

Some backstory for those out of the loop: The PAX West Panel was starting to be planned by a group of 4 (myself included) who were asking the larger community to submit topic ideas they would like to present as a means of filling the last 2 slots on the panel. While this was generally considered a good idea as opposed to just choosing people, there has been talk that this should happen for the majority, if not all of the panelist slots. So in an attempt for fairness and more transparency, something that should be absolute in our growing community and that I personally highly value, we began a discussion about ways we could address panelist selection in the future.

Obviously a lot of people feel strongly about this topic, whether they support one method or another, so I’d like to keep this thread going so that we can really nail down what this process should look like, if not for West then for our Pinny Panels in the future.

Let’s keep this thread on topic and only use constructive criticism and feedback please. If you need an idea of what that looks like, check out the Post PAX threads elsewhere on the forums. I am not quoting any of the Slack discussion so feel free to repost those thoughts in an organized manner here so we can weigh everything equally.

Thank you all in advance for your help and contributions. I know that you can never please everybody, but hopefully we can find an approach that we agree is fair.

Capt WasabiHappendyBekerbravesaturnmerchmistress


  • SolelronSolelron Wandering Gamer Cornelius, ORRegistered User regular
    My .00000001 cents:

    When I've seen panel setups formed. You always got the core topic setup, so that whomever was interested in being on the panel would know what and how the panel would go.

    While we know our panel will be 'pins' we have yet to drill down if we are going to talk about 'what pins you are going to get at this show' (as in past years) vs pin trading vs pin collecting or whatnot.

    Whatever topic we choose will impact who might even be qualified to sit on the Panel. Frostbyte for example is a pinnacle example of how to proxy for people, while there are people who have been collecting pins from different trading programs or other avenues who might not be as good at some of the others. various people have strengths.

    We can't really pick out an exciting array of panelists until we have a more concrete idea oh which of these things we want to hear about.

    My suggestion is to do an poll on what topics people (old and new) would like to hear about at a panel. A subject doesn't have to be a full hour, but a good chunk of the time (15 min per topic probably, and 10-15 for Q/A of panelists). Once we have ideas, we can get people listed who are interested in being ON the panel, which can then be voted on by the community as well, which will give us community input on community people to talk about community interests.

    *throws Glass into fireplace and steps off the soapbox*

  • maywestmaywest Registered User regular
    edited May 2016
    In future, I would like to see a subject first approach. However, we are short on time for the West panel. I have received 8 submissions, and am expecting two more today. I would like to keep the submissions open until midnight Saturday, so we can get the most possible. At the moment we have three or four panelists to select.

    I suggest the submissions be presented to a selection committee (which at a minimum will include those one the panel) to select the topics that appear to appeal to the community the most. From there the panel participants will be chosen, and the panel will determine how they will handle their presentation.

    I would suggest planning for 45 minutes of panel discussion, to be followed by 15 minutes of open questions.

    I would like everyone who is interested to send me, via private message, what they are passionate about and want to talk about. If there are subjects that you would like to hear about, but you don't want to be on the panel, you can send me that too; just let me know, so I am not confused.

    How does this sound to everyone for the immediate panel?

    maywest on
  • thefawnnthefawnn Draws pictures and loves Gabe seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Thanks for posting, Evan!

    I really feel it's necessary to start off by saying that in an attempt to get this discussion started last night on Slack, I've already received some inappropriately harsh feedback -- I really hope that going forward we can keep the discussion civil. Ensuring fun and informative future PAX experiences for new traders is imperative, and we won't be able to make that happen unless we can discuss new and different ideas in a constructive manner.

    I'll be reiterating a few points that I brought up last night.

    I absolutely agree that the panelist selection process requires more transparency. As a newer community member and someone who's been eager to be involved in the planning of events, I would have loved to have been more informed about who and what was being decided upon. I know I'm not alone in that sentiment; I've had discussions with long-term community members who share the same concerns. We need to offer opportunities for all levels of community members to be involved in these events, because we're a large enough group now that we have a number of different voices who have a lot to offer and should be heard.

    So that's all well and good... but what do we do?

    1. Open up the planning and discussion of events to all community members who'd like to be involved.
    - Advertise involvement opportunities across all platforms (Slack, WhatsApp, forums, etc); make information as available and accessible as possible
    - Create channels/threads where community members feel comfortable having a voice; encourage and empower new or hesitant members to get involved
    - Be welcoming, and be fair; everyone comes to the table with different experiences to offer; keep an open mind about what people can contribute
    - Not everyone will want to be in a leadership position -- alternatively, some will fall naturally into such positions; never make assumptions, and be transparent about your intentions

    The biggest concern here is that we'll have too many voices; that things will become convoluted and complicated. We only need six or so panelists, and we could be dealing with hundreds of submissions! However, it's my firm belief that we're more than capable of handling it. We'll no doubt have a lot of submissions -- especially for West and East -- but that also means we'll have more information and ideas as a jumping-off point. It will take longer, and it may need to be a situation in which we hold a community-wide vote, but that's far superior to the alternative of a select few people making every decision. The more submissions and involvement we get, the better, in my opinion. This community is growing (FAST!) and the reality is that things get a little slower and a little more complicated as we grow.

    2. Keep our priorities at the forefront of everything we do
    - Our job is to get new people excited and informed about Pinny Arcade; make that the absolute priority and the motivation behind every decision we make
    - "How does this positively affect a new trader?" should be asked constantly; avoid becoming repetitive or unproductive

    New traders are what makes this community thrive, and it's important that we come up with innovative ways to both grab their interest and retain it. Repetitive panels and cliquey groups discourage new traders from wanting to be involved in the community. It's our job to make this an enjoyable hobby, and the only way to do that is to make sure our focus is completely on their positive experience.

    I'd like to say that there are a lot of really amazing people in this community, all with a lot to offer. It would make me incredibly happy to see us all represented in the best way we can be. I've loved getting to be involved so far, and I know that I'm not alone in wanting to contribute as much as I can. Let's open up more avenues for those who are excited, knowledgeable, and engaged, but may not know how to go about getting involved. I think we have an opportunity here to make this community even more amazing, if we come at it with an open mind and good intentions.

    evanephrineHappendydontdowditAmberxAltF4evil santamerchmistress
  • maywestmaywest Registered User regular
    So, some panel topics I have heard to include are:

    comparison of Pinny Arcade Trading Vs other Collecting media (yes we can include Amiibos LOL)

    how to get the most from your trade (not calculating value, but doing the best)

    How you can help the community

    Best Pin Collection Stories.

  • evanephrineevanephrine ev-an-eff-rinn Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    So I had a couple different ideas to use that are mostly just variations of the same thing:

    1) Elected "Panel Head" with full agency
    2) Community with full agency
    3) Combination between the two

    Basically a new committee would form for each new PAX consisting of members interested in actively contributing towards community events at the PAX, including the panel.

    From that Event Committee we would ask for volunteers to act as the Panel Head, and those volunteers would submit their idea as to what the panel's theme should be (aside from pins).

    The committee would then vote on the panel head, establishing the overarching topic of the panel and who's managing it.

    After that more volunteers would come forward from the committee with submissions for the individual subjects they would like to present at the panel, which ideally would fit in with the main topic.

    Here's where the three different ideas diverge:
    1) Panel Head chooses panelists and topics from the submissions.
    2) Panel Committee blind votes to choose the best subjects, and by proxy the panelists.
    3) Some combination of the two that can be discussed, for example: committee voting occurs as in 2) but the Panel head gets veto power.

    Then the panelists are chosen and then can then get together, under the management of the Panel Head, and knock out the planning and practice of the actual presentation. Meanwhile the rest of the committee is free to organize and execute the Pre- and Post-PAX dinners and community trading events.

    I'd like to hear some more ideas and/or some feedback, so let's keep it rolling! I know plenty more folks had some ideas to add. :)

  • maywestmaywest Registered User regular
    I like the way of selecting the lead, but I think the panelists could be people outside this committee also, not just those in the committee. I feel the panel head should have at least some say on the topic/panelists.

  • verybluetardisverybluetardis Pins and coffee. Let's be friends. Bellevue, WARegistered User regular
    edited May 2016
    While cohesion is important among a group, everyone is still speaking individually during the panel itself. Not everyone is speaking together at every given time, and there will be no perfect combination of people. The panel "head" should be more of a formality than anything. While they can act as a moderator to keep things/get things on track and assist with the other panelists once chosen in organizing the presentation itself, the panel "head" should NOT have final say on the panel as a whole. There is no logic that supports one person having a dictatorship hold on the topics presented when this is a community panel.

    The beauty of this panel is that it can have a variety of people with varying backgrounds, experiences, and styles. This is one of the goals I'd like to see achieved at the end of this process. Perhaps we can have sort of a mission statement on what we want to ultimately achieve, and go from there, supporting the ideals that branch from what exactly it is we want to achieve.

    Keeping the new pin trader and casual collectors in mind should be the focus. Completionists and hardcore collectors are few and far between; members of the PA staff have reiterated that point many, many times. While those who have been collecting longer have unique insight into history/persistence/trading, new collectors have a fresher view on the current state of the community, and probably how to make it evolve from here. A mix of the two is necessary at this point to give the audience a well-rounded presentation. This is not a tiny niche group anymore. This is big. It's getting bigger, and that is ridiculously exciting. It is my hope that we keep that momentum going with this panel, regardless of who is on it.

    As far as selecting the members of it, no one should have an automatic place on it. It should be ever evolving for every PAX, to ebb and flow as the community does.

    TL;DR - I'm not okay with there being a PAX Panel Dictatorship, and we need to keep new collectors at the heart of what we do.

    verybluetardis on
  • SolelronSolelron Wandering Gamer Cornelius, ORRegistered User regular
    You know: we could always leave seat 6 open and pull someone from the audience who is a new collector from that years PAX.

  • D0rkAnglD0rkAngl Lynnwood, WARegistered User regular
    Solelron wrote: »
    You know: we could always leave seat 6 open and pull someone from the audience who is a new collector from that years PAX.

    That would be terrifying.

  • misskassmisskass Melbourne, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2016
    Solelron wrote: »
    You know: we could always leave seat 6 open and pull someone from the audience who is a new collector from that years PAX.
    In the interest of actually keeping the panel 'interesting', I wouldn't do that. An unprepared person who doesn't know anyone on the panel is (more than likely) going to be uncomfortable and not necessarily contribute a lot.

    misskass on
    Capt Wasabihadiwist
  • SolelronSolelron Wandering Gamer Cornelius, ORRegistered User regular
    misskass wrote: »
    Solelron wrote: »
    You know: we could always leave seat 6 open and pull someone from the audience who is a new collector from that years PAX.
    In the interest of actually keeping the panel 'interesting', I wouldn't do that. An unprepared person who doesn't know anyone on the panel is (more than likely) going to be uncomfortable and not necessarily contribute a lot.

    I was mostly joking, though TBH anyone willing to step up there from the community would know what they were getting into once you asked. YOu ask for new recruits and who is interested. I've seen it done before..:)

  • grgemonkeygrgemonkey Registered User regular
    Consistency and organisation I feel is more important than trying to make all 6 seats up for grabs. Panels aren't created over night, it takes a lot of time, effort and giving up a good chunk of your PAX on the day for preparation. You also need a certain degree of public speaking and to be comfortable with that.

    I think the panels should have a core foundation and experienced hosts (frankly not a job I'd ever sign up for). Larger inclusion is a great idea but I don't see what is gained by going so far the other way.

    Hosting a panel is far from fun. It's fun on the day for 1hr (maybe it's not even fun for the host, it's fun being a normal panelist) but there's a few months of work before that. You need some one willing to do the months, not just the 1hr. You also need some one capable of keeping the panelists at peace, distributing topics and time evenly-ish, this doesn't go as smoothly as you think.

    What I'm getting at is the grass is greener on the other side, then you get there and the grass is actually a field of angry green coloured bees who want to sting you only in the eyes.

    Realistically I think electing 2 hosts for each PAX would be a good idea, with the power for them to choose 1 other seat as they please. Leaving the remaining 3 seats open for random rotation by any one interested. Even split.

    I was invited to be on one panel and been privy to others, I'll reiterate, you couldn't pay me to do the hosting duties. - Be there or be your least favourite shaped pin. Pin trading and more. - Head-To-Head battle of pins! Choose the most desirable. - iOS pin collection tracking app.
    My Delicious Pins For Trade
  • fishfishmonkeyhatfishfishmonkeyhat Freelance Pin Man Newcastle, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    This Pigglesworth pin says otherwise!

  • AyefkayAyefkay Queensland, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    I thought being in Australia meant I was far enough from US politics that I couldn't be affected....but we're here now, so

    I agree with grgemonkey's TLDR post. And I assumed that's how it was: have a panel commitee of 4 or 5 people to decide the structure and tone of the panel, while ANY member, new or old could promote a topic or something of their choosing to say, but in the end it's up to the commitee to finalise everything. If you have everyone allowed to talk with no semblance of order then you have a rambling crowd and shit just wouldn't get done

    My PinnyPals Digital Lanyard: Now Up to date!

  • evanephrineevanephrine ev-an-eff-rinn Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I'm agreeing with a lot of what you're saying @grgemonkey but just for clarification, you're saying we should elect in 2 hosts for each PAX, what would the term look like for those elected hosts? Just one PAX? 5 years? Indefinite?

    I agree that a good combination of experienced panelists and new faces is key and that a lot of work needs to be put forth in panel planning, I learned that pretty quickly while working on South. As long as more community members have a chance to get on the panel and share their viewpoints I'll be satisfied.

    @maywest and I were discussing the possibility of having the previous year's panel select the next year's panel hosts from their 6 person group, or even have the community vote from that pool. We would probably have to take steps to make sure that the same 2 people don't get chosen over and over but it would absolutely help with continuity.

  • evanephrineevanephrine ev-an-eff-rinn Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Ayefkay wrote: »
    I thought being in Australia meant I was far enough from US politics that I couldn't be affected....but we're here now, so

    I agree with grgemonkey's TLDR post. And I assumed that's how it was: have a panel commitee of 4 or 5 people to decide the structure and tone of the panel, while ANY member, new or old could promote a topic or something of their choosing to say, but in the end it's up to the commitee to finalise everything. If you have everyone allowed to talk with no semblance of order then you have a rambling crowd and shit just wouldn't get done

    That's absolutely the idea, however the problem that has been raised is that we've been seeing the same faces on panels so far without really bringing in new people. The reason we're having this discussion is to figure out how to make getting on the panel more accessible and fair to those who, let's face it, probably didn't have a shot at getting on for not being a part of the "in crowd." Nobody is suggesting a "rambling crowd" with "no semblance of order." Merely a different selection method for the committee of 4 or 5 that you mentioned that doesn't require being in a clique first.

  • thefawnnthefawnn Draws pictures and loves Gabe seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Nowhere did I suggest that everyone would be on the panel, or people would be chosen randomly. Everyone is allowed to be involved in the discussion, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be included on the panel. The beauty of having a conversation with the community as a whole (or at least those who WANT to be involved) is that we get to choose who's best suited for the panels, instead of having people who automatically get spots due to tenure alone and for no other reason. That's all I'm trying to get across.

  • HingoHingo Minneapolis, MNRegistered User regular
    From the great blog post by Tim Urban on his TED talk, I give you this:
    Building off of what @grgemonkey said, people need to prep for this thing, whoever is chosen. The audience can tell when you decide to wing it. Even if you think you knocked it out of the park, that's probably just based on some relative viewpoint over the last time you didn't prep. Hell, I'd even propose something as crazy as mandatory monthly meetings and/or hours tracked and vetted presentations a month prior to the panel going live, with only minor tweaks allowed before presentation day.

    I also like the breakdown suggestion grgemonkey gave of 2 main people (one MC, one something else) picked for the panel, with them picking a third (who fits the criteria decided on by the community, be it presentation skills, practice, etc.), and then figuring out the rest after that.

    Pins for trade!
    2015 PAX Prime Omeganaut (I will forever hate Katamari)
  • grgemonkeygrgemonkey Registered User regular
    I don't think we need to point at any one, this is just the discussion for moving forward :)

    I only chimed in because I think most of you know me as fair (toot toot!) with the interest of the community at heart. I have not been active in Slack for the last 2weeks, so my comment wasn't based on any prior knowledge of who said what, which isn't really important anyway.

    The panels existed as they do because that's just the people that formed and submitted their panel suggestion to PAX, it seems logical to think the longest standing members would do this first. However it isn't a sure acceptance and it isn't an exclusive form to just those people. Any one can do this for any panel, even competing panels, that's PAX, a celebration of everything and everyone. (of course it would be nicer if we could stay a united front, this is more for illustrative purposes :)

    It isn't difficult to see why a general group of friends would form to do this or why the people who did the first panels, were eager to improve their performance a second time. Personally, I don't think this had any intention to be exclusive, generally panelists got very positive feedback after their efforts and no doubt that fuelled them in to pressing forward as a group. (personal opinion)

    Now we're in the present, where more people want to join in, which is great. To stand on this side, it isn't difficult to see why it feels like there was no way in and why it seemed like "things just are", it is true panels were not really discussed, just announced.

    Anyway, that's my understanding of things. So that is what based my suggestion, I'll explain it a little more:

    Picking 2 hosts:

    Panels are hard work, the hosts need to be experienced, knowledgable, good speakers and organisers. I would expect them to hold this position for 2yrs-to-forever. Panels get better with iteration, restarting this process too often will only degrade the quality. Possibly we don't even vote on this now, simply let the existing panels pick 2 people to move forward with for 2yrs. Stability is under rated. I would go far as to say we also pose a simply yes/no question first, "Keep existing hosts?", yes/no. No -> Move to a vote. I think you will find the audience will be more comfortable seeing a familiar face every time. It should be noted that hosts don't usually do much of the talking in the panel itself, their job is creating a successful panel and doing a whole lot of work for little to no thanks. (Some people just enjoy abuse, it's a fetish)

    I also don't think it's a problem for the same people to host multiple PAXs, again, the overall goal of these people is making sure the panels go well. Frankly the more experience they get, the better. It's also important to carry over knowledge between different panel groups, it really is pointless for people to go through the same growing pains.

    Allowing the hosts to pick a seat:

    It seems reasonable to me that any people fit for hosts, will make an appropriate choice. If 3 open seats feels like too much, the hosts can pick 2 seats or whatever combo, it can be adjusted but should be guaranteed to at least 1.

    Randomly picking the remaining seats:

    If the goal is diversity, a popular vote is going to achieve nothing. Newer members will highly unlikely come out on top. By random, I don't mean everyone and their dog. It would be from a pool of people who are committed to being a panelist, I don't honestly think that many will even sign up for it to be problematic. There will be a lot of cross-over with East/West and perhaps South, so the pool will just get smaller if you've already been chosen once that year and it should work out that most people get a chance. (If I'm not wrong about sign ups :P)

    Anyway, I'm sure it isn't perfect and at the end of the day, is just another opinion but there we go. More text than you really wanted to read :) - Be there or be your least favourite shaped pin. Pin trading and more. - Head-To-Head battle of pins! Choose the most desirable. - iOS pin collection tracking app.
    My Delicious Pins For Trade
  • HappendyHappendy Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    At no point did any one of us advocate for randomly choosing a panelist. The idea to compare that to having a tried and true panelist would be fallacious.

    The alternative we'be discussed was rather open up the process so that others interested can contribute yet at the same time introduce a strict vetting process so we can get a sense whether someone is serious.

    Obviously this isn't something that can be really done in time for Prime, but it's something I'd like to see moving forward.

    The proposal that I put forth was to have 1 panel lead, although it could be 2. And then have some sort of blind process to determine the next 2-3 panelists. Finally, as a group, they would choose the remaining panelists.

    This allows for a variable 2-4 panelists that the community could provide input on yet at the same time maintains a certain quality that we continue to expect.

  • thefawnnthefawnn Draws pictures and loves Gabe seattle, WARegistered User regular
    TL;DR Everyone in the community should feel like they're able to jump in and be involved from the get-go. It doesn't currently feel that way.

  • adambargadambarg Forward the Pinglorious Basterds!Registered User regular
    Most of my concerns are already covered, but will post them anyway.

    I think we are in violent agreement that the majority of the panel slots do not need to be tenured. Having 1-2 longer-term (but not permanent) members is certainly a reasonable option for reasons stated above. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that the people filling those spots are active community contributors.

    Public speaking skills are woefully underrated by the sub-community that has been asssembling panels to date. Maybe consider doing video submissions? If you can't articulate your great idea, then maybe it's better served to have someone else present it, for the audience's sake. I would even argue that if you can't find 6 good public speakers, then run with a smaller set of panelists.

    A lot of the current panel content can be covered by handouts. Let's recapture that time and spend it on more interesting presentations.

    100% on board with an overall panel theme, and then people submitting ideas to fit that theme. The actual mechanics of this is an implementation detail.

  • RenfamousRenfamous Weeb, Unexceptional Cosplayer Houston, TexasRegistered User regular
    edited May 2016
    Gonna bullet point this sucker so I don't ramble.
    General points
    1. Tried and true strong panelists should definitely be up for panel spots, but we won't know how many "strong panelists" we have in the community if we don't rotate out every so often.
    2. Agree we need to start having a theme to each panel to keep the material from becoming repetitive or the presentation difficult to follow
    3. Agree potential panelists should pitch their idea on hangouts or skype to demonstrate public speaking skills
    Panel selection idea
    1. May is point woman for West 16 because we're pressed for time and we all already know she's beyond capable
    2. In the future, individuals interested in captaining the next PAX's panel submit panel theme ideas, which are anonymously put up for a vote on the forums
    3. Community votes on theme, winning theme's creator is the panel captain for that PAX
    4. Individuals wanting to be on that panel submit ideas to panel captain within the established theme. Panel captain picks four panel members based on written idea, skype pitch, whatever.
    5. Sixth panel member can be a wild card. Prom queen vote on the forums? Hand picked by people already on panel? Totally random draw from the population of submitted ideas? PA staff member? Arm wrestling contest winner? I think a wild card would make things interesting.
    This allows for wider community input (so we can still be the "community panel"), but also a "panel captain" chosen based on merit of their theme rather than tenure or popularity. It would also allow the captain the freedom to assemble a team they think will work well together and whose proposed content will come together to make an interesting panel.

    The panel captain would also be in a position to review submitted panel ideas and note any submissions that are similar, or submissions that alone aren't that great, but would combine to make a great contribution to the panel.
    • For example, if someone had a great idea on paper but was ehhhh over skype, and another person with a similar idea was vice versa skill-wise, the panel captain would be able to reach out to them and say "hey you guys had similar ideas but different skill sets, why don't you collaborate to fill one of the panel seats?".
    I feel like the above would allow for more cooperative effort, as well as create opportunities for contributions from people who excel in areas other than public speaking.

    Just my two centavos. High five to me for still managing to ramble.

    EDIT: Addendum points:
    1. Happendy had a thought--maybe restrict panel captain submissions to people who have already been on a panel at some point in the past. This would help ensure the individual in a leadership position had some prior panel experience to guide them.
    2. Panel captains wouldn't be eligible to be a captain again for a period of time (two years/eight PAXen?), but would always be eligible for appointment to non-captain panel seats.
    3. The previous PAX's panel captain could be the impartial party who accepts panel captain theme submissions for the subsequent PAX and posts the anonymous poll to the forums.

    Renfamous on
  • thefawnnthefawnn Draws pictures and loves Gabe seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I love every single one of those ideas Ren. So awesome!

  • HappendyHappendy Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I'm really liking the panel captain idea. However, the only concern I have with it is that I believe that the panel captain should be a seat of tenure. Someone who has been tried and true. Maybe a participant from the prior year's panel?

  • RenfamousRenfamous Weeb, Unexceptional Cosplayer Houston, TexasRegistered User regular
    Happendy I like that idea. Maybe for the first year it's open submissions, then in 2017 only people who were on one of the four 2016 panels are eligible to apply to be team captain?

  • RenfamousRenfamous Weeb, Unexceptional Cosplayer Houston, TexasRegistered User regular
    Actually now that I think about it, there have been enough panels at this point to pick panel captains from that pool starting with AUS 16. I like that!

  • rentfnrentfn Registered User regular
    edited May 2016
    If the panel captain is the one picking people for the panel will they have to discuss why they picked who they picked?? It still seems like one person is putting together the panel, sans one spot. Isn't the community voting on panel members what started this discussion?? I see that the community would vote on the captain but it's still having one person decide who is on the panel.

    rentfn on
  • RenfamousRenfamous Weeb, Unexceptional Cosplayer Houston, TexasRegistered User regular
    I feel like letting the community vote on every panel seat would remove anything vaguely resembling a "vetting" process or a check to ensure the panel ideas are cohesive/not repetitive. It would also eliminate any "public speaking" assessment because a YouTube of someone presenting their idea would destroy the anonymity and make it another popularity contest.

    In my proposed process I'd honestly imagined that sixth "wild card" spot as a process involving either community input or pure chance. Wild card could be a straight up forum vote, maybe from a selection of people who have declared the PAX in question their "home PAX"? That'd keep the same person from winning every wild card vote and add a little local flavor :P

  • timmywiltimmywil Chattanooga, TNRegistered User regular
    Perhaps a common, tenured moderator could assist said panel captain. With a new panel captain every time (or almost every time), the moderator would be there to guide them and be a much-needed mentor. I'm not sure once is enough to become a seasoned moderator. The moderator would be there not to give a presentation, but to give introductions and split up the time appropriately among the panelists.

  • rentfnrentfn Registered User regular
    I do like the idea of the home pax wild card but might go a step further and add home pax and only pax. A lot of people can claim a home pax if they attend most of them.

  • rentfnrentfn Registered User regular
    Picking the captain is a lot more transparent but it seems mostly like how the process was going. May was chosen to lead the panel. She selected some people she thought would do a good job then started a channel and asked people to send her topics they'd like to talk about on the panel. I'm not seeing a huge difference between the two ways. Sorry. I'm sure as the discussion evolves it will become clear and I'll realize I'm an idiot. Just wanted to throw this out there.

  • SolelronSolelron Wandering Gamer Cornelius, ORRegistered User regular
    I'm still not sure your 'captain selects a group sans one' will solve your problems you are trying to address

    CaptainA: I pick B,C,D
    Next Year, B gets captain
    Captain B: I pick A,C,D
    Captain C: etc etc etc

    you can ALSO separate out Moderator from Captain, and separate coordinator from the panel. there is NOTHING in the setup that says the person setting it up has to sit on the panel. I know several people who are great at organizing things like this but would HATE HATE HATE sitting up in the spotlight.

    If you want this to be a true community panel, you let people offer to be on the panel, and make it a vote. People should only submit interest if they are agreeing upon the pre-selected topic and willingness to contribute. From those you can select your moderator and the group can fine tune everything.

  • RenfamousRenfamous Weeb, Unexceptional Cosplayer Houston, TexasRegistered User regular
    @timmywil I feel like if one of the seats was reserved for a tenured "moderator" it would make the panel captain's role in the actual panel superfluous. We'd also then have the problem of determining how the "tenured moderator" would be selected.

    What if a tenured panel member offered to mentor the panel captain in the weeks leading up to PAX, but didn't actually sit on the panel?

    We'd also have to make the responsibilities of the panel captain very clear before opening up for submissions--using this method, the panel captain position would be a lot of responsibility and would require a significant amount of effort. The applicants would all need to be aware of the requirements and willing to serve in that role.

  • RenfamousRenfamous Weeb, Unexceptional Cosplayer Houston, TexasRegistered User regular
    @Solelron your proposed situation would only occur if this ABCD panel cabal consistently came out on top in the anonymous topic selection vote, which if they managed to do would probably mean they deserve to run the damn thing every year!

    I guess after this burst of interest in transparency, I'm more inclined to believe hypothetical captains would be very judicious and thoughtful in their selections.

    Rent also had two ideas that would mitigate the issues you're proposing:
    1. limiting people to two panels max per year
    2. requiring the captain to compose a forum post outlining their panel selections and thought process.

  • SolelronSolelron Wandering Gamer Cornelius, ORRegistered User regular
    @renfamous I'm discussing the suggestion I saw where the captain was voted and the captain picked her team and that the requirements of captain were that they had been on the panel previously.

    I dunno..there isn't a single way everyone is going to be happy with what we pick.

  • verybluetardisverybluetardis Pins and coffee. Let's be friends. Bellevue, WARegistered User regular
    I agree with limiting number of panels that the same person can be on annually. Two is a good number, because I'm sure having someone with tenured experience can assist those with little to none. This also allows for a rotation and addition of others.

    Having two on each panel that can share the hosting duties would be ideal, because it's a lot of work, a lot of planning, and requires people with serious commitment and skills to get the job done.

  • BekerBeker Child's Play Program Director SeattleRegistered User, Penny Arcade Staff regular
    thefawnn wrote: »
    TL;DR Everyone in the community should feel like they're able to jump in and be involved from the get-go. It doesn't currently feel that way.

    PAX is enhanced and made better by community content. Having this much structure on the "Pinny Pal Community" panel is fine, but even if every member of the panel is new every PAX (and it sounds like you don't want that) that would only be a handful of new people that get to be involved. Not everyone can be on the panel, as the community grows, that will only be more and more true. If new people feel like they want to be involved and can't find a role in existing events\structure, they are welcome and should be encouraged to make their own things.

    Sure the community has a pre-pax dinner, community panel, daily PAX trading meet up, 2 podcasts and a handful of great useful websites. But that does not mean we can't use more. Maybe a post PAX dinner, maybe a tool\app designed to enable real-time trades during PAX, maybe another podcast with a different slant on things, a panel of marketing people talking about methods of pin distribution from their perspective, or some other wonderful thing that hasn't been thought up yet. More diversity in content helps the community appeal to a more diverse audience.

    For panels specifically, I would not want some new person with great ideas to see all this formal structure, and think they can't submit their own panel idea directly to PAX for consideration. The Panel vetting committee probably would not accept 2 Pin panels yet, but that day may come at some point. But until then, the more good panel submissions the better for PAX'es purposes.

    I look forward to seeing what kind of interesting idea's you all come up with next. They are all noted.

  • drusus82drusus82 Narara, NSW, AURegistered User regular
    Some thoughts from a newer aus member.

    1. What works for the american paxen may not work for Aus and vice versa. Will Aus have a bigger pool of newer collectors vs experienced traders at the panel and in the wider pax community compared to east and west? Will the needs of Aus be different to East and West?

    2. I can see the risk of the same people being on multiple panels reducing opportunities being heightened in the US. Less of a problem for Aus given the majority of people at Pax Aus (panellists and attendees) will only be attending 1 event. I would hate to see someone great from the US missing out on presenting at Aus just because they presented twice in the US.

    3. How much say should the wider community have over a single pax panel. If voting is done on topics should it be restricted to people likely to attend the pax? Should I get a say about the panel topics at West even though i have no chance of attending? Do we risk losing all the useful content for new members becuase old hands want 6 fresh topics that may have little interest to the new trader that wants to know the etiquette of trading, the ins and outs of shipping or what limited edition really means.

    4. How far out should we be planning? Should the ground work be starting now for Aus 6 months away? Since 3 months seems short on time for West? Do we risk losing people from the community helping if they get rejected from presenting once or multiple times?

    5. Should we be looking wider than just the panel. Should we be encoutaging people to help with the community trading events, the dinner etc. to lighten the load?

Sign In or Register to comment.