SMOFcamp Post-Mortem
It's 6AM. The failure of the first attempt at SMOFcamp has occupied my mind of late. It could be said to have competed for attention with the larger event in which it was embedded. However, there was at least one discussion that did take place at SMOFcamp. It was a wide-ranging series of petty grievances, criticisms, and plans to avenge grudges. I tried to turn it toward constructive suggestions, to no avail. That conversation has caused me to question one of the premises of SMOFcamp: that fandom hurts from lack of grassroots participation in its own direction, and would benefit from more.
Fandom might be better off with the current cold war of passive-aggressive sniping on the internet between cliques who don't talk to each other, than it would be with fandom's own equivalent of a town-hall meeting shouting match. Accomodations for allergies. For children. For handicaps. For reparations of each other's long-dead ancestors. For keeping an art show that nobody wants to staff or attend any more. Grudges over geek social fallacies. The impotent mewling of social-anxiety-sufferers, that the strong personalities get their way on concoms, by increasing the stress level until the shrinking violets resign. Threats over sound systems that are too loud for fifteen minutes playing music you don't like in a room that you could have just left. Whining over not getting free food when you want it.
The ones who I see getting things done, are willing to form coalitions of convenience with fans who they can barely tolerate sometimes. It requires that you humble yourself before someone else and let them have their way in exchange for their blood, sweat and tears. Effectiveness requires you to shut your feelings-hole for a year at a time and suck it up. That is the level of cool-headed, pragmatic leadership we need, not these useless emotional whiners. I am no longer sure whether cool new projects and innovative solutions would be born in a welcoming, populist environment like Open Spaces. It does for other communities, and I have enjoyed Open Spaces tremendously, but there are no guarantees of success with it.
I wonder, if a hundred of the most outspoken fans all gathered at SMOFcamp and discussed the topic "the future of fandom", would we all leave with such a bad taste in our mouths that there are no more cons? For the first time, I wonder if stonewalling the community is all that's keeping the community together.
I still want to try it and see.
Comments
rmeidaking on Aug. 29, 2009 12:32 PM
One word: SmofCon http://www.alamo-sf.org/smofcon27/
You'll note that it's SmofCon *27*. They've been tilting at this windmill for longer than that, but they've had a con about it for 27 years.
Fandom by its very nature has factions, people who are more into *this* aspect than *that* aspect. What started out as a handful of geeky kids who communicated through the letters column of SF magazines and met once a year, eventually spawned countless regional general conventions, spun off specialty cons such as the furry cons, comic cons, for-profit Creation cons, ad infinitum. Heck, you could argue that some large professional conventions had their roots in SF fandom.
Typically - in my experience - a new con is created when The New Kids can't get the Established ConCom to let them play, and they go Do It The Way They Think It Should Be Done. Lather, rinse, repeat. Get too stodgy as Established ConCom, and you wind up with Windycon or ConClave. Don't be stodgy enough, and you don't survive, or you go broke, through lack of control.
Ask 25 fans what they think the convention should have and how it should be run, and you'll get 30 answers. There is no One Right Way, and you're trying to meet the needs of a group that has some core conflicts (e.g. people with kids vs. the kid-phobic) inherent on the fringes.
The way to resolve it is IN MY OPINION :-) to identify the two or three core fandoms the group wants to promote - because only DragonCon can do them all - and do them well. Good luck on getting your concom to agree on just what those core fandoms are, or should be. That having been said, the problems rarely arise in the core; they arise in the Fringe, when participants want to test the boundaries of just what the concom (who they perceive as parents) are going to let them get away with.
Good luck with this.
tlatoani on Aug. 29, 2009 1:14 PM
Wow, do I disagree with the idea that you should identify 2-3 things and specialize. Unless they're very broad things.
My approach is like what we do with UCon: identify the core groups you have, then give each of them the space and resources they need, within the limitations of what's available, and let them do their own thing. That's largely how ConFusion and Penguicon work too.
rmeidaking on Aug. 29, 2009 2:00 PM
It's interesting that you say you disagree, and then cite a specialty (gaming) con as your example as providing all things to all people. Huh? I think we're agreeing, and you're not realizing it.
tlatoani on Aug. 29, 2009 3:12 PM
I think you're thinking of UCon as a member of the wrong set of things. It isn't a specialty fannish con, it's a broad-spectrum gaming con. They're fundamentally different events, just like ConFusion isn't "a really limited media con with some fringe activities" or "a pretty lame gaming con with good parties" or "the worst gun show I've ever attended". And UCon isn't "a science fiction con with a great gaming track, but really shitty literary programming, and no filk, dammit".
Providing everything to all people is relative. UCon has never been anything but a gaming con. That's what it was founded as, and that's what it is today. But within gaming, some cons take the approach you are advocating: they focus on board gaming, or card gaming, or role-playing, or a couple of those, to the exclusion of everything else. (An extreme example is Ambercon, which does just diceless roleplaying, with very few departures from that.) UCon doesn't do that, though it could have, and there were several specific turning points where we deliberately decided not to specialize.
treebones on Aug. 29, 2009 12:44 PM
Fascinated. You both reminded me why I've temporarily gafiated, and caused part of my psyche to wonder if it may not be time to pitch in again soon.
Wow, do I need therapy. (:
tlatoani on Aug. 29, 2009 1:15 PM
I kind of wish I'd been there, just out of curiosity.
claydowling on Aug. 29, 2009 1:32 PM — Ignore the fringe
The fringe is, by definition, not relevant to your core mission. Ignore them and soldier on. They'll keep whining, and eventually they'll go away if you piss them off enough.
Frankly, some of these groups you're talking about you should ignore. The allergy sufferers? They can suck an egg. Most allergy sufferers have good coping skills and know how to get through life without the world bending over backwards to accommodate them. I've got them, I don't any anybody else to change to make life easier for me.
The people with kids? Nuts to them. Not everything in the world is appropriate for children. Cons are the least of the things that you need to give up with you have young children. Dive bars, the symphony, fine dining and sports cars all go out the window when you decide to have kids. What most responsible parents do is change their activities to deal with what's appropriate for kids or they can get a sitter for. The people who can't do that, you don't want to deal with.
One of the tricks to being in charge is being able to say "no." You're going to piss some people off, and you can't let that bother you. You obviously don't want to piss everybody off, but you can't avoid dashing the hopes of a few.
netmouse on Aug. 29, 2009 7:39 PM
You might find it interesting/helpful to read Idle Minds #4, which has a number of essays on why people are fans.
Which is not the same as being smofs, but some of the people who wrote about it are or have been smofs too.
I think part of the reason Smofcon (and Midwest Construction, when we had it) work is because the people who are drawn to it are largely people who realize that what they want to do might have been done before, or otherwise that they can learn something from people who have been doing this longer than them, or do it in different ways in other regions. Some people go because they want *their* ideas listened to, but more go because they want to bounce their ideas off people who can give them strong critiques and useful pointers. Or whom they can possibly recruit to help with said idea. ;)
I would guess that perhaps the primary problem was that Construct didn't attract enough of those people to give you a core group that wanted something constructive out of Smofcamp, compared to the larger group of people who were passers-by but generally there to attend Construct and not feeling a particular need to learn from others, network, or otherwise knowledge share during that event. I think an Open Space that had a little more lead time and was just about Smoffing might do better. That said, I have yet to see an Open Space really work. Scifoo was kind of an open space, but people also brought prepared presentations and invited particular people to collaborate on particular problems, so it was less so than I expected.
I agree with you that smoffing requires toleration of people one can barely stand. And every so often you just hit the end of that and either gafiate for a while or, as Roxanne said, you create your own con (or create a fiefdom within an existing con and only do that corner of the con so you are within your comfort zone because you created it).
Some of the people I like a great deal I can barely stand working with, because of differences in the way we communicate or make decisions. I hate moments of communication failure, especially when I can tell I might have succeeded but I don't have the right strategy in me, or I missed a crucial opportunity (timing). That sort of thing wears on you.
tlatoani on Aug. 30, 2009 3:18 AM
I'm not so interested in what "a hundred of the most outspoken fans" would say. I'm interested in what the fans who actually get things done would say.
matt-arnold on Aug. 30, 2009 4:30 AM
Of course, but if we have a leadership summit like SMOFcamp is intended to be, I wonder which set we're going to get.
tlatoani on Aug. 30, 2009 1:27 PM
It depends. If you throw it wide open, you'll get a mix. You also may not get some of the core leadership types -- many of whom are very busy between both fannish and non-fannish activities, because competent people tend to be in demand, and the kind of people who volunteer to do things get sucked into a lot of things. If you invite just the leadership, which demonstrates that it's more likely to be useful, you're more likely to get them.
For me, I'm not giving up a weekend of my time, or even a day, to listen to the kind of whining you describe above, or to discuss some of the topics you had on the schedule. I might do it to brainstorm and exchange ideas with other people who get things done, because that could be genuinely productive.
If the proposition behind this is "fandom is harmed by a lack of grassroots participation," though, I'll pass because I think that's a deeply flawed premise. Grassroots participation is all we have.
users on Aug. 30, 2009 2:25 PM
^What he said. Most of the core leadership types I know (and I'll include myself in this number with a characteristic lack of humility) are too busy actually making con and non-con stuff happen; so much so that they don't have time to theorize about how it works in an unstructured manner. Hell, I just had to give up some position space so that I had breathing room for my life. Others are doing the same.
I don't even have the time to properly train someone else to do what I do...if someone wants to know how I do that stuff, they are going to have to be aggressive in their pursuit of that knowledge, because I don't have time to hand-hold.
Hell, if I were going to plan a "how to run cons" thing for SE Michigan (a notion that has been in the back of my mind for a bit now), I would do it as a lecture series, get a panel of entertaining speakers that know what they're talking about, serve lunch, have a chat scheduled somewhere. Have the attendees determine what the next topic will be and find speakers to discuss that topic. If you want to run with it, please feel free, otherwise, it's something that I'll probably have time to consider in a couple of years.
le-bebna-kamni on Aug. 30, 2009 3:33 PM
I get the impression that there isn't a whole lot of "untapped leadership" out there in the local fandom community. Most of the people who are interested and have the ability to do things already are involved in doing just that -- you'll see them already on the concoms and staff of the local conventions.
Yes, you have a few people who are new to the convention thing -- and some of them may be future leaders of fandom -- but they're probably not at Construct, which your average new person is unlikely to know about. If your purpose is to find new ideas and new blood for fandom leadership, you may be better off holding SMOFcamp at a larger event that new people are more likely to have heard of.
Good luck, whether you decide to ditch SMOFcamp, or give it another go. :)
users on Aug. 30, 2009 2:20 PM
One thing that I think you continually fail to recognize (or at least fail to apply to conrunner type people) is that people are poly-modal; and more importantly, that switching modes is difficult to affect from the outside. When folks are sitting around decompressing, relaxing, and yes, letting off steam by bitching, you have to know a few things:
- They are not in "work mode"
- They probably aren't even as annoyed as they might sound
- They are more prone to sweeping, general, and vicious sounding statements that they don't mean
- There is virtually nothing you are going to say or do that will break them into "problem solving mode", especially as they are unlikely to even see what they are bitching about as a problem
You caught people in "relaxed bitching" mode and were thwarted in your attempts to pull them in a different direction. Hell, I might even have been one of the folks you were talking about, lord knows I did my share of venting that weekend. It's how we avoid losing our bloody minds when we're thanklessly putting on events that people attend, enjoy, and bitch ceaselessly about. :)
The rest of what you describe is one (ONE!) method of leadership, one method of getting things done. There are definitely others that enjoy considerable success.
tlatoani on Aug. 30, 2009 3:07 PM
You can get me quickly into problem-solving mode if you present me with an actual urgent problem, or even an interesting one. Otherwise, I was there to relax and have fun. Not to listen to what you yourself describe as "impotent mewlings". ;-)
I would have been happy to go talk to people about how to get AASFA grants -- but I was talking to people about that informally in the consuite anyway, not to mention us giving several of them out on another panel.
Many of the topics in SMOF Camp were of zero interest to me (e.g. "should we organize cons without committees" -- who the fuck cares, as long as the cons run) some were things I would actively run away from (a discussion about race in fandom that was organized and would be attended solely by white people -- that couldn't possibly end well).
I'm still curious what the one discussion that did happen was, but it sounds like it went very poorly.
tlatoani on Aug. 30, 2009 3:08 PM
("You yourself" refers to Matt, obviously)
matt-arnold on Aug. 30, 2009 4:10 PM
You were on the programming team for SMOFcamp. So was every other person there. "The wrong topics" misses the point. If all of them had been well-attended, it wouldn't have been an Open Spaces, because I came up with the programming, and that was not supposed to happen. It needs to take place in a location where there is nothing else to do-- you come up with your own topics or go home. Then at least I would lock the door and go home myself, rather than sit alone at a table.
"should we organize cons without committees"
Without board meetings. Committees work well. Boards of Directors on the other hand, are a consistent source of frustrations that I hear in fandom-- with the exception of you and Jer, and I don't expect that to last forever.
I'm still curious what the one discussion that did happen was, but it sounds like it went very poorly.
It wasn't a scheduled topic. People just saw an empty table, sat down, and talked about several unrelated topics in the space of ten minutes. I'm not sure if you asked them, if any of them would have been aware they were participating in SMOFcamp.
tlatoani on Aug. 30, 2009 4:41 PM
The Penguicon Board of Directors sounds like a consistent source of frustration. I'd be surprised if the AASFA Board were, because prior to the past 4-5 years, it didn't do anything except approve the ConFusion budget annually and decide how much to donate to Clarion. All of the other stuff AASFA does, apart from the annual picnic? Is completely new stuff. And guess what -- we came up with it at board meetings.
Boards of Directors have to exist if the con, or the organization behind it, is incorporated. If you don't incorporate, then the individuals running the event have personal legal liability for debts it incurs, or lawsuits filed against it. If you ever decide to spin up an event that doesn't protect the organizers that way (or something similar, like going under another larger organization), no knowledgeable person will be willing to be an organizer of it unless they're so broke that they just don't care what happens to them. No way I'm putting my personal resources on the line. (Yes, I might put up some of my own money, but I want to limit the risk to what I decide I'm putting up, rather than having some random attendee hurt themselves and try to take my house away.)
matt-arnold on Aug. 30, 2009 4:01 PM
You hardly need to remind me that it failed because it was at ConStruct. You've heard me say so multiple times.
The rest of what you describe is one (ONE!) method of leadership, one method of getting things done. There are definitely others that enjoy considerable success.
Maybe I don't know what you think is the method I'm describing.
users on Aug. 30, 2009 4:13 PM
No, I need to remind you that it failed because it failed. One potential reason was that it was at ConStruct. I doubt it, but it's certainly possible. Lack of advertising, strategy, and clearly defined (outwardly) vision is also a plausible (and far more likely) cause.
Read the rest of your post, you describe one form of leadership.
Leave a Comment