yeah any competent editor is going to strip out 99% of curse words
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Hey, we really shouldn't be talking about cursing we should be talking about organization
I foresee this being one huge clusterfuck that'll crash and burn if we don't have specific guidelines for what everyone does
What's the difference between writers and researchers, for instance? Who comes up with ideas for the show? If the show has segments who blocks the show for the segment?
As a potential writer am I writing a script? Key points? Am I writing for the host? Who am I writing for? What are the limits to my job? Do I have to script, for instance, breaks? Scripting for emotion and emphasis?
If I have a question who should I ask? Do I have enough laterality to make my own decisions? Who proofreads my copy?
How do we keep in easy contact with each other?
These are questions that need to be addressed waaaay before any of this other stuff is discussed
Just so I'm not a douche I'll answer a big series of the questions I just raised
1: Make writers write for the host of the show (as in intros/outros to segments, summary of a topic if sufficiently detailed to warrant one, etc). Writers then take whatever the researchers...research and convert into a general script and cliff's notes for the round table. Ease of access is a must; Writers must pare down the "roundtable notes" into a small selection of key quotes, phrases, and citations for the round table. In addition, writers work with researchers asking for various clarifications on specific points, More research etc. Writers are by definition neutral. They cannot write with a bias in any part of their work.
2: Make researchers crawl information sites and facts looking for any and all relevant points of interest to help with the topic at hand. Their job isn't really to refine/filter evidence besides "truth or lies"; the writer's job is to take this information and pare down to essentials. Cannot research or use biased sites, or editorials, or journalists with an obvious slant. In addition, researchers can work with a specific roundtable participant to find specifics about a topic if they so desire.
3: Make leaders of each group of people, at the very least. Make a Head Writer, Head Researcher, Head Table Guy (I assume that'll be you wwtMask), Head Audio Guy, Head Editor. Establish a clear chain of command for who defers to whom, and make this evident from the beginning.
4: Give the lower tiers of people (writers, researchers, etc) laterality to do what they want with their relevant areas of expertise, but make any major change/notification require approval of their leader. If that leader doesn't know whether they're able to make the call, have them go to whoever in charge of them does.
5: Make the researchers and writers checks and balances on each other. Writers balance the researchers by filtering the raw info given to them, researchers balance writers by checking the copy for factual innacuracies/loose and/or intentionally vague wording.
6: For easy contact- make several public email accounts. For instance LFTwriters@gmail.com, LFT researchers@gmail.com, LFTleadership@gmail.com, etc. In addition, set up proboards so we can discuss with our peers easily about how to do/word/research/whatever specific things. Facebook is a good way to stay in contact that most of us here have. Contact is key for this sort of thing and should be the biggest emphasis.
I think you might be overestimating the level of organization that's necessary.
You need one person who's competent to handle the recording/production bit, and one person to moderate/host who'll need some prep work, but beyond that I'm not sure the participants each need the backup of a staff of writers (at least not initially.)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Also although I haven't had much to say in the D&D political threads, namely because a lot of them that end up being actual debates turn into a merry go round that I don't wanna ride on, I'd like to participate in this. Also because I'm a com major.
I think you might be overestimating the level of organization that's necessary.
You need one person who's competent to handle the recording/production bit, and one person to moderate/host who'll need some prep work, but beyond that I'm not sure the participants each need the backup of a staff of writers (at least not initially.)
Indeed I might be overstating its importance, but my general point is key: Communication and organization is what will determine whether this whole project is a poorly executed mess or a well-functioning machine.
Guys, once I get my daughter to sleep tonight, I'm going to compile all of the stuff that's been suggested into a big info section on the OP. Please suggest some collaborative tools that we can use for writing and research purposes.
Ah, yes. Google Docs, like someone mentioned, will be more than applicable for writing, a pro board will be really good for organization, writing, and research dump, Google News/Wikipedia will be good for research
Well, it also depends on how centralized we want it to be. If it's completely centralized, with a few guys in charge determining the content and how it should be made, then yeah we need a lot of organization. If it's like I was thinking, and it's more of a single editor/technician/whatnot, and several different groups of writers/researchers who independently create and submit pieces, then it's a lot less necessary.
It could be interesting to have some international contributers as well, have an outsiders (European, Canadian, Austrian, etc) opinion on an American issue, or have Americans give their opinions on a major international issue.
I'd be interested in audio editing or moderation since I have some (limited) experience in both, possibly writing if we end up having a website/blog to go along with it.
Guys, this podcast won't have much circulation outside the PA forum regulars anyway.
Whatever the unspoken limits of good taste are around here are probably good unspoken limits for the podcast. We should make something that makes us feel good and not worry too much about how people who will never hear it will take it.
And on that note, it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to go a bit beyond what is done in the forum, since that's who the audience will be.
Like, is your average PA poster confused about whether a public option means nazi death camps? No.
You need to try to find something that:
1. Is missing from the general information diet presented in the corresponding PA thread
2. Interesting to the audience that posts on that topic
Otherwise, yeah, this will probably crash and burn because you are just producing a crappy knock off of the Daily Show or Air America and it's hard to volunteer your free time for that. Make something valuable to the people who will hear it.
Hey, thanks, maybe if we need someone to poison our drinks, we'll call you. Cheery fucker.
Srsly though, maybe we'd like to do what we do here, but speaking and recording it, and don't care even if no one listens at all.
This interests me a whole lot. I'm currently on the debate team for West Point, so I'd definitely like to get on this as a radio voice. I tend to lean a bit more on the liberal side, but I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I could also probably do well as a researcher or writer depending on what you guys need. This sounds like a lot of fun
Oh, and I have a headset with a mic, and it's not the cheap kind.
I contributed a fair amount to the election threads, but it seems that I don't have much to add these days. It's too bad, this seems fairly interesting.
Okay, I've compiled the relevant info from the thread so far into a google doc. I've also created a gmail account for the podcast, lftpodcast. Send an email to that address so I can add you to the contact list and give you access to the document. In that same email, please also include your forum name, the job(s) you want to do, and your political ideology/affiliation. Once you get access, feel free to add any comments, ideas, or suggestions to the document.
I know we're all flush with excitement over this idea, but I'd like to let it simmer for a few days to see how committed we really are to making it happen. In order to make it match up with our vision, a lot of work will be involved, and the only compensation will be our personal satisfaction. If everyone is still interested, we'll schedule a voice chat session to hash out some details about leadership, division of duties, topics, etc.
I think it would be stupid to put curse words into the podcast. An editor's job is to make information concise, and curse words are never needed. As for any roundtable discussion, anyone who curses is just poor at public speaking or getting too antsy.
So, no matter the context, no cursing says you?
I dunno. I can understand the idea of not allowing rampant cursing. But what I don't understand is no cursing whatsoever. Because then it seems like pandering. And really, who are we going to pander to?
This is nothing about pandering. Tell me, what is the functionality of cursing that is conducive to discourse in a podcast?
Not allowing cursing is just a simple cut and dry rule that removes unnecessary words that basically are derogatory or meaningless.
I guess in situations where the word is used with it's meaning I'd be fine with it, like "Mike and Mary are fucking" as in "Mike and Mary are having sex". Or "This thing is a pile of shit" as in "This thing is a pile of poop". I'd be fine with that. I'm not okay with "This is fucking ridiculous." It's meaningless and wasteful. The curse word is only in there because there is nothing better to say.
Although regardless of the case I think it's just a reflection of poor writing or an inability to express.
No cursing just makes the whole thing simple and easy to have a cleaner cut podcast.
We're forumers for a website that makes comics that often talks about wangs and shit. I'm not going to pretend to be someone else just because people want to make this a sophisticated, professional venture. If that means I'm not allowed to participate, then so be it.
Henroid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
I mean seriously, if someone can't have a serious, meaningful opinion or statement about politics just because they say "bullshit" it's exactly that; bullshit.
I would love to get in on this... but i would rather do analysis than anything else, and i am not sure i can really commit.
But there should be no debate on the show. Live debates are bad bad bad, they let people lie intentionally and unintentionally. Almost invariably, when presented with the pro's and con's of an issue people are going to diverge in opinion rather than converge. This is not good.
Instead, the discussion should be had before hand, and then a narrative/explanation that accurately describes the issue developed from it.
1. Narratives are more powerful than explanations, but sometimes will be "dishonest"
2. Debate is nearly always a poor form of convincing, for various systematic reasons[the difficulty in understanding all the texts and subtexts when talking about complex issues if they aren't spelled out, especially in the adversarial setting]
3. And for various cognitive reasons [positive-positive cell bias/confirmation bias]
Goumindong on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
If swearing happens, swearing happens, but I'd slap a 'possibly NSFW' warning onto the start of the podcast. Let the listener decide whether they care.
As for show format, I'd err towards the side of letting a conversation or topic run its course and then moving on. If the topic is exhausted in two minutes, so be it. Johnny Carson used to cut off dying segments early all the time; it was a big factor in getting guests to bring their A game. If the topic gobbles up the whole show, so be it. Never get in the way of a good debate.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I think discussion is valuable, it just needs to be directed. That's why moderator prep is very important.
I think it would be far more productive to get into some narrow part of a larger issue; rather than have a podcast about health care, have a podcast about how insurance handles claims and how to change it. By narrowing like that you can get away from a lot of partisanship and massive disagreement, and it's something that really isn't done much at all by most media (or even by the internet.)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
While I have nothing to contribute to this podcast, I will say that I would love to hear one done by you guys. The entire reason I started lurking here was for all the political threads.
Okay so I have an issue. I can't use Google docs. My internet runs on a DoD network, and that's the only explanation I can think of for this issue coming up. What happens is anytime I type in docs.google.com or try to clink any link that takes me to google docs, the internet browser says it found the website and it's downloading information, then all of a sudden gets redirected to 'We can't find that web page.' Is there any way I can periodically download information from the spreadsheet without accessing google docs?
Spawnbroker on
Steam: Spawnbroker
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
About the swearing thing (I'm sorry to be beating on it so much, especially when everyone is asleep):
Are we going to be Penny Arcade fans discussing and debating politics, or are we going to be a bunch of guys being generic about politics discussion? I think a little personality would do the podcast some good. Let alone people acting like themselves, maybe a bit of restraint if need be, but not outright DONT SAY THIS OR THAT. If a dick joke has good timing during the recording, let it be man.
I'd definitely be into this if you guys want an international (Australian) perspective on things. Local US politics isn't hugely interesting to me, but so much of US policy effects the world, I've got plenty of things to argue/debate/say/contribute on Iraq, Afghanistan, trade policies, humanitarian issues, UN, ideological/religious issue etc .
the problem here is that you are equating swearing with personality (or with PA for that matter)
I'm not saying we should try to swear or meet some quota. I'm saying if it happens it happens. If someone is saying "fuck" every other word, yeah I agree it's uncalled for.
I dunno. I'm definitely set off by someone who tells me that I'm not able to participate in discourse with any amount of meaning if I happen to swear once or twice.
I dunno. I'm definitely set off by someone who tells me that I'm not able to participate in discourse with any amount of meaning if I happen to swear once or twice.
That's not what I said but just forget it if you're gonna get all wrapped up about it.
the problem here is that you are equating swearing with personality (or with PA for that matter)
I'm not saying we should try to swear or meet some quota. I'm saying if it happens it happens. If someone is saying "fuck" every other word, yeah I agree it's uncalled for.
I dunno. I'm definitely set off by someone who tells me that I'm not able to participate in discourse with any amount of meaning if I happen to swear once or twice.
and if we're just doing this to hear ourselves talk about politics then it doesn't matter. Lord knows I swear plenty enough for any discussion on my own. But if that's all we wanted out of it, well, there's forum vent servers we could use. My sense is that this is meant for some audience beyond the twenty or so people who post regularly in political threads.
in addition to being offensive to some people, they're literally useless words. Even if all you're concerned about is having a quality discussion there's literally nothing you can say with fuck or shit or whatever that you can't say better without it
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
But instead of getting ginned up about it now, maybe we should just put this debate on hold. It may be that in the event, it isn't such a big deal as it seems to be in the abstract.
Ok, this discussion about the merits of cursing has gone on a little too long. How about we just exercise some common sense?
Wouldn't that be supporting Mr. Beck?
The Crowing One on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited October 2009
Okay so if you guys do this, you can't associate Penny Arcade with the effort. The copyright is owned by Gabe and Tycho and they probably wouldn't want whatever views are produced to be associated with their website.
Sorry, but this is just how it's going to be.
Irond Will on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
I don't think anyone was asking for such a thing anyway.
Edit - Clarification: It's not what I was asking for in my "let cursing be" shit.
Henroid on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Okay so if you guys do this, you can't associate Penny Arcade with the effort. The copyright is owned by Gabe and Tycho and they probably wouldn't want whatever views are produced to be associated with their website.
Sorry, but this is just how it's going to be.
Can we use Debate & Discourse, or is that verboten as well?
Posts
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I foresee this being one huge clusterfuck that'll crash and burn if we don't have specific guidelines for what everyone does
What's the difference between writers and researchers, for instance? Who comes up with ideas for the show? If the show has segments who blocks the show for the segment?
As a potential writer am I writing a script? Key points? Am I writing for the host? Who am I writing for? What are the limits to my job? Do I have to script, for instance, breaks? Scripting for emotion and emphasis?
If I have a question who should I ask? Do I have enough laterality to make my own decisions? Who proofreads my copy?
How do we keep in easy contact with each other?
These are questions that need to be addressed waaaay before any of this other stuff is discussed
Just so I'm not a douche I'll answer a big series of the questions I just raised
1: Make writers write for the host of the show (as in intros/outros to segments, summary of a topic if sufficiently detailed to warrant one, etc). Writers then take whatever the researchers...research and convert into a general script and cliff's notes for the round table. Ease of access is a must; Writers must pare down the "roundtable notes" into a small selection of key quotes, phrases, and citations for the round table. In addition, writers work with researchers asking for various clarifications on specific points, More research etc. Writers are by definition neutral. They cannot write with a bias in any part of their work.
2: Make researchers crawl information sites and facts looking for any and all relevant points of interest to help with the topic at hand. Their job isn't really to refine/filter evidence besides "truth or lies"; the writer's job is to take this information and pare down to essentials. Cannot research or use biased sites, or editorials, or journalists with an obvious slant. In addition, researchers can work with a specific roundtable participant to find specifics about a topic if they so desire.
3: Make leaders of each group of people, at the very least. Make a Head Writer, Head Researcher, Head Table Guy (I assume that'll be you wwtMask), Head Audio Guy, Head Editor. Establish a clear chain of command for who defers to whom, and make this evident from the beginning.
4: Give the lower tiers of people (writers, researchers, etc) laterality to do what they want with their relevant areas of expertise, but make any major change/notification require approval of their leader. If that leader doesn't know whether they're able to make the call, have them go to whoever in charge of them does.
5: Make the researchers and writers checks and balances on each other. Writers balance the researchers by filtering the raw info given to them, researchers balance writers by checking the copy for factual innacuracies/loose and/or intentionally vague wording.
6: For easy contact- make several public email accounts. For instance LFTwriters@gmail.com, LFT researchers@gmail.com, LFTleadership@gmail.com, etc. In addition, set up proboards so we can discuss with our peers easily about how to do/word/research/whatever specific things. Facebook is a good way to stay in contact that most of us here have. Contact is key for this sort of thing and should be the biggest emphasis.
You need one person who's competent to handle the recording/production bit, and one person to moderate/host who'll need some prep work, but beyond that I'm not sure the participants each need the backup of a staff of writers (at least not initially.)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
http://ralphehanson.com/blog/seven_truths.html
I hated that term before, I hate it now.
Also although I haven't had much to say in the D&D political threads, namely because a lot of them that end up being actual debates turn into a merry go round that I don't wanna ride on, I'd like to participate in this. Also because I'm a com major.
Ah, yes. Google Docs, like someone mentioned, will be more than applicable for writing, a pro board will be really good for organization, writing, and research dump, Google News/Wikipedia will be good for research
Particularly, I would love to do pieces highlighting scientific misinformation, pseudoscience, poor science reporting, that sort of thing.
I'd be interested in audio editing or moderation since I have some (limited) experience in both, possibly writing if we end up having a website/blog to go along with it.
Srsly though, maybe we'd like to do what we do here, but speaking and recording it, and don't care even if no one listens at all.
Oh, and I have a headset with a mic, and it's not the cheap kind.
edit: I guess I could be the occasional everyman because I'm not an insider, but I care enough to want to participate.
I know we're all flush with excitement over this idea, but I'd like to let it simmer for a few days to see how committed we really are to making it happen. In order to make it match up with our vision, a lot of work will be involved, and the only compensation will be our personal satisfaction. If everyone is still interested, we'll schedule a voice chat session to hash out some details about leadership, division of duties, topics, etc.
Poseur
:P
We're forumers for a website that makes comics that often talks about wangs and shit. I'm not going to pretend to be someone else just because people want to make this a sophisticated, professional venture. If that means I'm not allowed to participate, then so be it.
But there should be no debate on the show. Live debates are bad bad bad, they let people lie intentionally and unintentionally. Almost invariably, when presented with the pro's and con's of an issue people are going to diverge in opinion rather than converge. This is not good.
Instead, the discussion should be had before hand, and then a narrative/explanation that accurately describes the issue developed from it.
1. Narratives are more powerful than explanations, but sometimes will be "dishonest"
2. Debate is nearly always a poor form of convincing, for various systematic reasons[the difficulty in understanding all the texts and subtexts when talking about complex issues if they aren't spelled out, especially in the adversarial setting]
3. And for various cognitive reasons [positive-positive cell bias/confirmation bias]
As for show format, I'd err towards the side of letting a conversation or topic run its course and then moving on. If the topic is exhausted in two minutes, so be it. Johnny Carson used to cut off dying segments early all the time; it was a big factor in getting guests to bring their A game. If the topic gobbles up the whole show, so be it. Never get in the way of a good debate.
I think it would be far more productive to get into some narrow part of a larger issue; rather than have a podcast about health care, have a podcast about how insurance handles claims and how to change it. By narrowing like that you can get away from a lot of partisanship and massive disagreement, and it's something that really isn't done much at all by most media (or even by the internet.)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Are we going to be Penny Arcade fans discussing and debating politics, or are we going to be a bunch of guys being generic about politics discussion? I think a little personality would do the podcast some good. Let alone people acting like themselves, maybe a bit of restraint if need be, but not outright DONT SAY THIS OR THAT. If a dick joke has good timing during the recording, let it be man.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm not saying we should try to swear or meet some quota. I'm saying if it happens it happens. If someone is saying "fuck" every other word, yeah I agree it's uncalled for.
I dunno. I'm definitely set off by someone who tells me that I'm not able to participate in discourse with any amount of meaning if I happen to swear once or twice.
That's not what I said but just forget it if you're gonna get all wrapped up about it.
:P
and if we're just doing this to hear ourselves talk about politics then it doesn't matter. Lord knows I swear plenty enough for any discussion on my own. But if that's all we wanted out of it, well, there's forum vent servers we could use. My sense is that this is meant for some audience beyond the twenty or so people who post regularly in political threads.
in addition to being offensive to some people, they're literally useless words. Even if all you're concerned about is having a quality discussion there's literally nothing you can say with fuck or shit or whatever that you can't say better without it
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
But instead of getting ginned up about it now, maybe we should just put this debate on hold. It may be that in the event, it isn't such a big deal as it seems to be in the abstract.
definitely an example of quality discussion
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Wouldn't that be supporting Mr. Beck?
Sorry, but this is just how it's going to be.
Edit - Clarification: It's not what I was asking for in my "let cursing be" shit.
Can we use Debate & Discourse, or is that verboten as well?