Full Circle Associates

Part 1: "Be Nice to the Speakers"
I had a lovely giggle when I read Loic's LeMeur's transcript of his opening presentation of LesBlogs. It had this little bit in it:Opening remarks: welcome to Les Blogs 2.0 !

"the funniest part will probably be the backchannel, use it as you wish but please be nice to the speakers again, except Jason "

With all that transpired, this is a great reminder about expectations -- and how they are always more of a wish than a reality! Is the intention that the conference backchannel is a place for the clever to strut their stuff? Funniness? I know I have enjoyed it that way (and being far less clever, caused me to "listen" more than "speak.") What is nice? Was that another sarcastic aside? (I can't tell from a text transcript.) Is the backchannel a place to make meaning with and around the podium presentation? To rip it apart? To agree in substance? To attack or belittle the presenter? Is it that the audience takes on the role of speaker?

Personally I think it can and is usefully applied in many ways - often mixed. But what we EXPECT from it matters. Loic's lighthearted introduction might have set a tone. Maybe it was barely heard. But it is great food for thought about our intentions behind the tools we offer and use.

Part 2: Scaling Sociality in the Backchannel
In small groups we can do a pretty good job of sensing each other, offering "slack" and generally working through our disagreements. When the group grows larger, even where there is some form of identity present, it is easier to take less intentional responsibility for the cumulative impacts of our communication. We can "hide" a little bit amongst the crowd. There is not the time and space to go deeper than generalizations and the performance aspects often trump the content. We broadcast. Taken in that context, back channel can quickly go from a smaller group interaction with context and sociality, up to large, broadcast behavior, particularly when displayed behind the podium. It can lose its sociality.

Ben and Mena had what looked to be an ackward and difficult public interaction that started with the intersection of backchannel and live, all in the large group context. Contrast that with what sounds like a productive private conversation after the very public dust up. The success was helped by the intimacy of private communication, with proximity that allows us to listen, adjust, respond with some finesse.

This next bit is half baked -- I'm thinking out loud here.

Backchannel can feel a bit private, particularly when it is not projected behind a speaker. If 8 people are posting, they can be having a small group experience, even while a larger group (which may or may not have the personal context of the active group) just reading it are having a potentially different broadcast experience. One line amongst a fast flowing stream of text is a different sort of utterance than a comment from the podium. A comment from the podium feels public, but can be experienced personally (as it seems Ben experienced). A backchannel post, because it is not the focus of attention, feels more intimate. So what happens when it all gets mixed up? I'm not sure we all know how to handle that yet. We have a lot to learn and probably have a ways to go to negotiate expectations amongst ourselves for what experience we want to create.

Categories: usthem, LesBlogs, civility, backchannel, SXSWPanelPrep