Your Show, Its Profile, and Marketing.

[flannel]

This is really a comment and concern I raise to Meg and Zeke.

The short version is I think Josh's personae on the boards here is hurting your brand and any effort you're making to make your podcast accessible to a larger audience, grow your fanbase, and raise the level of exposure for your product.  I believe, genuinely, that your show would be better served, and quickly, by a change in his attitude towards opposing viewpoints and/or the way in which he posits and argument (which has more in common with your average pseudo-intellectual using big words and lambasting those around him for not measuring up to a level of reasonability that the speaker, themselves, don't appear to have any actual fluency in either).

I like your show, generally.  I think you have a very good product, and that it can be better with a few--simple and immediate--improvements in the tone.  But, if the show is sacrosanct (which it may be, I don't know), the manner in which you all handle its community and fanbase should never be. 

There's a longer version, and I really do have very sound reasons for the advice.  Its not even a matter of "he debates poorly" (though certainly with me he's been foolish--and that's pretty clear), but he does so rudely as well.  Petulantly.  I think that small aspect of ya'lls presence could do with improvement, and I believe it would yield fantastic results in the flavor of the community for the better.

What do you think?  Honestly.  I don't want to be accusatory, this is just observational.  Is this whole production and its presence and expectations for the future already being perfectly met?

[Zeke]

On Josh I will say this: plenty of people debate him and get upset, plenty don't. If he hurts the show, I guess I can live with it. I am saddened when people are driven away. There is a certain amount of personal integrity we have to maintain. That may include maintaining the edge that is distasteful to some.
 As to our brand I prefer to be Moxie rather than RC Cola. Moxie is a unique brand with a taste that many find disgusting. However, it has a loyal following amoung those who enjoy it. RC cola is a cheap version of coke or pepsi. It is usally purchased when those brands are too expensive or unavailable

[flannel]

On Josh I will say this. Plenty of people debate him and get upset, plenty don't. If he hurts the show, I guess I can live with it. I am saddened when people are driven away. There is a certain amount of personal integrity we have to maintain. That may include maintaing the edge that is distasteful to some.
 As to our brand I prefer to be Moxie rather than RC Cola. Moxie is a unique brand with a taste that many find disgusting. However, it has a loyal following amoung those who enjoy it. RC cola is a cheap version of coke or pepsi. It is usally purchased when those brands are too expensive or unavailable

And that's fair, all of this--of course--is prefaced with "its your show, do what you think is best".  And, its probably pretty obvious I'm not much of a "get upset" kind of fella.

If you think curbing that part is going to make your show worse or hurt your image, then that's what you gotta do for your product.  If your uniqueness is encompassed or founded or supported by that part of fanbase-interaction and marketing the show, I don't get it... but you're surely right if saying "but, you don't have to get it".

No worries.

[Meg]

In a part, I agree.  Lowering the small, but loud caustic tone of the boards is something that we're working on, Josh included. 

Zeke and I speak "Josh"- we see the point, not the words as written, so we're a bit biased of course. 

Josh also represents a decent size community to which we cater- those with good points and low tact.  Not a bad thing.  The part of our boards that makes it different than others is that we'll give it right back.  Tease and we'll tease back.  Be confrontational and to a degree, expect the same.  Our guiding principle is that people that listen aren't idiots and are mature.  We don't bend over backwards or assume someone has thin skin.  Everything is just feedback- take it as you will, change if you want, or ignore it.  Up to you.  Nothing to get emotional about.

Was Josh rude to you?  Yes, a bit.  Did you aggravate him?  Clearly. 

So then the question really is- what are your (and everyone's as this is a thread, not a pm) suggestions in general for getting better?

Oh, and moved to the appropriate board. 

[Josh]

This is really a comment and concern I raise to Meg and Zeke.

The short version is I think Josh's personae on the boards here is hurting your brand and any effort you're making to make your podcast accessible to a larger audience, grow your fanbase, and raise the level of exposure for your product.  I believe, genuinely, that your show would be better served, and quickly, by a change in his attitude towards opposing viewpoints and/or the way in which he posits and argument (which has more in common with your average pseudo-intellectual using big words and lambasting those around him for not measuring up to a level of reasonability that the speaker, themselves, don't appear to have any actual fluency in either).

I like your show, generally.  I think you have a very good product, and that it can be better with a few--simple and immediate--improvements in the tone.  But, if the show is sacrosanct (which it may be, I don't know), the manner in which you all handle its community and fanbase should never be. 

There's a longer version, and I really do have very sound reasons for the advice.  Its not even a matter of "he debates poorly" (though certainly with me he's been foolish--and that's pretty clear), but he does so rudely as well.  Petulantly.  I think that small aspect of ya'lls presence could do with improvement, and I believe it would yield fantastic results in the flavor of the community for the better.

What do you think?  Honestly.  I don't want to be accusatory, this is just observational.  Is this whole production and its presence and expectations for the future already being perfectly met?

What exactly do you expect from your comments?  Seriously.

Your style of writing is extremely douchey and you mix extreme pompousness with an almost complete lack of knowledge about gaming.  

So whats the deal?

 

[flannel]

In a part, I agree.  Lowering the small, but loud caustic tone of the boards is something that we're working on, Josh included. 

Zeke and I speak "Josh"- we see the point, not the words as written, so we're a bit biased of course.

That I do get, surely.  I can think of some people I know or work with that are a themspeak situation, sometimes.  I'm no different.  I'm with you so far.

Josh also represents a decent size community to which we cater- those with good points and low tact.  Not a bad thing.  The part of our boards that makes it different than others is that we'll give it right back.  Tease and we'll tease back.  Be confrontational and to a degree, expect the same.  Our guiding principle is that people that listen aren't idiots and are mature.  We don't bend over backwards or assume someone has thin skin.  Everything is just feedback- take it as you will, change if you want, or ignore it.  Up to you.  Nothing to get emotional about.

I probably don't strike you as the emotional sort, do I?  : )  I'm kinda Jimmy Buffet-like, mostwise.

I don't guess I deal with too many people represented by that personae.  Most of my gaming buddies are pretty go with the flow, all in all.  I can see how being able to represent those is an attempt to maintain "market share" in people like that, though.  Self-identification, then?  Am I understanding it right?  As there are people in gaming that are like that, a "decent" number, its an appeal to them?

Was Josh rude to you?  Yes, a bit.  Did you aggravate him?  Clearly.

Yes, and clearly--spot on.  See, I knew you weren't just a pretty voice... (I don't mean to be flattering here, its just nice to be on the same page and I'm trying to thank you for the effort)

So then the question really is- what are your (and everyone's as this is a thread, not a pm) suggestions in general for getting better?

Oh, and moved to the appropriate board. 

Well, I can think of a few.  I would say a big deal for me, being a new fan, is some way to be included in the fanbase (its why this issue raised a flag with me).  The content of your show, I consider that showbiz.  I don't have to agree with everything or much of anything my favorite radio hosts say, on the morning drivetime, so long as its part of the show's philosophy.  But outside the broadcast, where the fanbase lives and congregates, these boards seem to be the strongest effort to create a fan-community.  As such, I think your show would be better with a tighter community.

Not necessarily warm-fake-touchy-feely stuff, but you have a lot of boards you could nix or merge with other boards... I think that'd probably give a more inclusive feel because a given board would have more diverse threads on it.  Make sense?  (not a patronization, I'm just not sure if I'm producing the right word-picture here)

And I really am sorry about where I posted the thread, I thought from the description it was the right place for it (this may be indicative of an overly complex and micromanaged system of too many specific boards to keep track of)

[flannel]

What exactly do you expect from your comments?  Seriously.

To help give advice that might improve what BG's fans think of the people who represent the show--which might improve the appeal the show and its hosts have to the greater game community, without sacrificing the show's integrity.  Seriously, that's the hope.  Expectation?  I expected you'd start name calling and making Ad hominem attacks, and Zeke's response would be carefully worded and acknowledge the goal of the show (not so much argue with me as just restate the general philosophy of the issue), and Meg's response would point out I'm correct and then expand that to include some information I didn't know to give an inclusive but different perspective on the goals in play.

I registered days ago.  I discovered BG not a week ago.  But there are months and threads and dozens of examples of how you each converse.  I didn't just bluster in here, out of the blue. 

*shrug*

Your style of writing is extremely douchey and you mix extreme pompousness with an almost complete lack of knowledge about gaming.  

Your opinion is noted, sir.

So whats the deal?

I'm not sure I entirely understand the question.

[Josh]

I apologize. Sometimes I come on a bit strong.  I am working on it.

[anomalousman]

How that didn't blow up into a huge flame session is beyond me.

I suppose this is some kind of internet forum with mature people posting.  Which, by the way, is the first time those words have been used to construct that sentence.

[veekie]

Maturity helps, though, I gotta say, it's more intimidating than offensive when two strong willed and very loud people have a vigorous argument to me. Prefer to stand at the sidelines and watch.

[flannel]

Prefer to stand at the sidelines and watch.

Me, too.

[Wordman]

…

[Zeke]

I agree with most of your points. We try to be an advice show, but we turn into a lecture show more often than I would like. I think the "tell you how to play" stuff comes from our distaste with the doctrine of moral equivalency. Some things are not OK and we feel the need to point them out. If we said “everything is as good as everything else”, what would be the point of listening? The problem with taking a position is that then you have to defend it. This is where we have gone astray from time to time.  We have altered our approach of late and now we try to say: "I know you think that the situation is X but if you look at it from this angle you might see that it is Y" Rather than “X is for losers, Y is the way to go”

As to Josh, he is trying and is, I think, making progress. The problem is that most people don't want to change the way they think and will use certain dodges and logical fallacies in order to justify heir own view points. I always try to learn from the other people I exchange ideas with, even if they're avoiding the topic somewhat. Josh has a hard time doing this. If he perceives that someone is not addressing the issue as he sees it, he becomes incensed. He's my Brother (and yes the capital b was on purpose) and I put up with it. I can also see why others would not choose to. He is working on it and trying to drain some of the venom from his system. He is VERY intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject of games. It is difficult to name a game he is not intimately familiar with. However, he doesn't always include the footnotes with his theses. That is to say, there's a lot of information flying through his head that doesn't make it onto the page. I'm reasonably sure that you'll agree that he is pretty palatable on the show. He's even more so in person. He is taking steps to make sure that his “character” from the show is evident here on the boards as well.

[flannel]

...I was nodding and grinnin' at your post, Zeke, up until this part...

As to Josh, he is trying and is, I think, making progress. The problem is that most people don't want to change the way they think and will use certain dodges and logical fallacies in order to justify heir own view points.

I don't think the issue is that "most people" don't want to change the way they think, use dodges, use logical fallacies, and argue irrationally...

...its that Josh does.  Its a great failing of very smart people that they think that just because they're bright, that means they have whole Logic and Philosophy textbooks automatically uploaded into their brain somehow--ridiculous.  Arm-chair fools who pipe up about fallacies and objectivity and facts and berate others for their ability to argue "properly" or "make a point" when they practice it, themselves, like a clumsy stage dancer tripping over the scenery and claiming "they meant to do that" after they break something.

I think he's very smart, but the sort of very smart that comes with that misconception about their ability to use Logic and debate from it.  A lack of being challenged about that seems to have made him arrogant (I've seen threads going back before I came here, he reasons poorly and berates others for the same), or at least numb to the contradiction.

That's a deep shame.

Its a bit of a cop-out to claim "Oh, lament... for this too shall pass" about his conduct.  Either the man is in control of himself and can choose what to say (certainly before hitting "send"), or he is not in control of his mind, fingers, keyboard, and mouse.  If its the former, then this doesn't require "work" or "therapy" or some long drawn out series of promises about intending to change.

Just grow up and change it.  Treat it for what it is, what one says--not for what we're painting it to be, some kind of deep anti-wrong-people compulsion.

If its the latter?  Then all the pity more.  Look, you don't have to answer to any one in particular about it.  And if nothing changes, then nothing changes.  You're asking your fanbase to accomodate you, instead of accomodating their demands--just another day in Hollywood, I'm sure.  That question happens all the time.  It goes both ways.  No right or wrong answer.

But, geez, let's make up our minds here.

[Wordman]

…

[Josh]

quote author=Wordman link=topic=2888.msg89885#msg89885 date=1228497379]
Interestingly, his tone isn't anywhere near as useless to me on the audio of your podcasts. Some of this might just be the nuance of voice, but I don't think so. It seems to me that Josh uses entirely different phrasing in posts vs. speaking.
[/quote]

Part of the reason is that the podcast is a broadcast medium.  It creates a sense of authority, and it creates a  case where you are just listening.  On a message board the assumption is more generally that of equals and people will tend to be waiting to talk, rather than listening. 

That equality is actually what I prefer.  Every idea should stand on it's own merit.  But there are two issues with that.  First, not everyone even wants to hear that something they think is wrong, and I have to accept it.  And second, it takes a lot of background knowledge to understand many of these concepts. 

I have to accept that some people won't or can't be swayed. 

And the fact of the matter is, I am an expert.  It is not possible to prove ideas to most people.  So final conclusions do need to be presented for people to either accept or reject.  And If they reject them, oh well.

I am better off presenting what I know as clearly and as concisely as I can, and then letting go.  Endlessly arguing with the intractable is not fruitful. 

There is a middle ground, however, between an absolute notion of "good" and "bad" and saying "everything is as good as everything else", which is the notion of "this is good at one thing, not so good at another".

This is often the result of situation. 

Endlessly qualifying statements confuses people as does giving conditional answers. 

Someone asks “should I buy Vampire?”  The answer is “no.”
The facts are: There are better games and Vampire is of a low quality. 

Now conditions might include: All my friends play now and will not play anything else, I can get it used for a dollar, I spend thousands on gaming books...and so on.  It remains withing the realm of possibility that you might get the book.  But the general or that particular case are the clearest examples to discuss. 

[flannel]

And the fact of the matter is, I am an expert.

In what?  And why?

...I don't think that comes through as clearly as it does to yourself.

[Josh]

And the fact of the matter is, I am an expert.

In what? 

Herpetology, the study of herps.

[Cam_Banks]

There are a lot of experts here. I'm an expert at a lot of things. I am not an expert at many others. One thing that seems clear is that experts don't necessarily know, despite being experts at something, how to get across a message to another expert, and indeed other experts are much harder to get messages across to because they are, themselves, experts and thus don't necessarily need another expert to tell them something they're pretty sure they already know.

Cheers,
Cam

[flannel]

Herpetology, the study of herps.

Study of reptiles is germaine to discussions about gaming because...?

But seriously, scooter... if you're going to premise your actions or speech on the "fact" that you're an expert, then what are you saying you're an expert in and why?  That's hardly an unreasonable question.