|
Post by richardthebald on Jun 4, 2019 10:22:06 GMT -5
I would love to know a bit more about the idea for "expert discussion" vs "audience discussion", since I feel like most of the time the "expert discussions" do have a level of audience participation (e.g. I was on Pokemon Biology this year and, as in past years, it was mainly audience questions with the panelists discussing theories/possible answers; we did attempt to get audience participation in the answers but the acoustics and volume of people in the room just were not greatly conducive to this unfortunately). I think it would be helpful; perhaps if there is even a "tick box" option when registering a panel rather than including it in the panel description? I also ran "Survivability of Anime Injuries" for the first time this year; it was a "hmm, this might be a fun idea" panel that I honestly had no idea how it would run. I envisioned more of an "expert discussion" format but it actually became quite similar to Pokemon Biology... I don't know how I would've classified this in the expert vs audience discussion format prior to the con since I wasn't sure what to expect, hence if the tick box is included hopefully it won't be mandatory in panel sign-ups? By expert discussion, do you mean like how we had medical professionals (and would like a martial arts master in the future) for Survivability of Anime Injuries, or like how we had the vet tech in Pokemon Biology? Experts would already need to flag how they are an export and in which field through the freeform box, right? How would you envision the "expert tickbox" working with the rest of the application as it currently is? Just saw this. I'm by no means a "martial arts master", but historic weapons are my wheelhouse and there are loads of primary sources discussing the kinds of wounds individuals revieved during duels and battlefield accounts. I'll keep an eyeout in the new year for discussions about the panel because this sounds like an interesting application of this information.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinaofsaffron on Jun 4, 2019 12:40:35 GMT -5
By expert discussion, do you mean like how we had medical professionals (and would like a martial arts master in the future) for Survivability of Anime Injuries, or like how we had the vet tech in Pokemon Biology? Experts would already need to flag how they are an export and in which field through the freeform box, right? How would you envision the "expert tickbox" working with the rest of the application as it currently is? Just saw this. I'm by no means a "martial arts master", but historic weapons are my wheelhouse and there are loads of primary sources discussing the kinds of wounds individuals revieved during duels and battlefield accounts. I'll keep an eyeout in the new year for discussions about the panel because this sounds like an interesting application of this information. There's some really fascinating medical literature from the wars that are mostly case reports, case series, and observational/cross-sectional studies that they could do in retrospect, but are all really integral to how trauma assessment and management is carried out today. (We also have WWII to thank for penicillin!)
|
|
|
Post by crownowa on Jun 4, 2019 19:05:16 GMT -5
I just found the Facebook group, thanks for your help! Personally, I really don't like Facebook as a platform for these kinds of discussions, but some of the points that have been carried over from that thread are helpful to consider! I understand it is not a requirement, but it is a bit awkward to have single panelists sign up for something that is a great idea but no awareness for other potential panelists? Agree that it is not staff/volunteer responsibility to send these reminders. TBH I feel like the ANPanels.com platform is very awkward and weird that the panelists who sign up see something completely different from what the staff see--I felt it was strange that there is no way to know if you're adding yourself to an existing panel until Fingers or one of the staff emails you and says, "Yup you signed up for the right panel". What I had originally thought it would look like is that when I click "register for panel", all the panels with open slots would be "selectable" and then I would click on that to submit my application, which would then NOT require me to re-input the panel description, etc., since I would have expected that to already be input by the first panelist who signed up, and if there needed to be changes we could address that directly instead of having these strange discrepant applications? This point echoes what has been discussed in the Facebook group as well, and I'm sure it's not new feedback. Just wondering how this could be improved or if there is potentially another platform that would work better? Unfortunately there's isn't really anywhere else for for feedback discussions to go, officially. It would be nice if at least the description auto-filled when you typed in a panel name that someone else already signed up under - it would help with the guesswork on your end. Perhaps it wasn't much of an issue in the past because all descriptions used to be sent to all panelists (which I personally liked), and we combine panels in the background in case there are spelling errors, or if panelists who didn't post on the forum signed up under a different name than those who did post on the forum. I still don't agree with a live feed of all ideas, but I have brought up publishing a periodic list of panels that still require panelists with the team.
|
|
Zena
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by Zena on Aug 11, 2019 16:27:22 GMT -5
Hello! As I'm very recently back to the forum after 10 years, I'm so lost. Can someone direct me to where I can talk about hotels?
|
|
|
Post by crownowa on Aug 11, 2019 21:34:58 GMT -5
Hello! As I'm very recently back to the forum after 10 years, I'm so lost. Can someone direct me to where I can talk about hotels? What about hotels - when sign-up starts for the block of discounted rooms for AN?
|
|