Bytemaster and Mumble - A Proposed Solution

[hpenvy2]

So basically you propose BM continue doing the Mumble hangouts but from now on they wouldn't be recorded? But then people that miss the chats will come on the forum and ask what was said and things will be misquoted leading to more confusion plus what's really stopping anyone from recording if they wanted to? Not a good idea in my opinion.

I prefer BMs idea to just do the BitSharesTV stuff to be honest.

 

[gamey]

I would like to offer another powerful analogy to consider. Fuzzy has often used a version of this analogy, and I believe it to be very eye opening:

Let's say bytemaster is attending a crypto-conference. Lets say this conference is in Australia. He gets up on the podium and addresses the crowd. He gives the official PR approved narrative.  Perhaps someone records this. Now lets say that he is roaming around the conference, having conversations and meeting people. At some point, a small crowd forms around him. Say 15 or 20 people, all curious, asking him questions, listening with rapt attention as he fills their mind with possibilities.

Perhaps no one records this. Perhaps the only ones that ever know what transpired in this brief moment are the ones who were fortunate enough to be there, at the right place, at the right time. Would you complain that these people have somehow trespassed on your supposed "right" to freely access every bit of information that is exchanged?

Whats more, there would be many barriers to entry to even attend this event. For example, someone living in the United States would have had to spend a few thousand on a plane ticket and hotel, and perhaps hundreds more on a conference pass.

With my proposal, the same type of private conference, which is perfectly acceptable in the situation I mentioned above, would be available with FAR fewer barriers to entry. In essence, the greatest barrier is that someone living in a certain part of the world might have to stay up past their bedtime to join or listen in. While this may be personally inconvenient for some, it is not a sound argument against allowing others to benefit from it. In fact, as our hypothetical conference was happening in Australia, it was nighttime in the USA!

I've never followed the conference model.  The mumble hangout has always been primarily based around Dan talking about Bitshares and giving updates.  It was probably one of the only places a fanboy could be a fan, listening to that show. 

I tend to agree with Julian about this.  It is a bit comical but it does seem like we've jumped the shark on some level.

This can all be solved by people waiting for a proper edited version and that way Dan can say something "off the record" and the editor can just edit that out or anything else deemed questionable.  I understand that could piss off some, but thats what I did when I was editing the show.

[Stan]

The goal is to present full information to all parties at the same time in a more organized way -- through an outlet that is less likely to generate strong market reactions.  We share your desire to continue high-bandwidth two-way interactions, but... 

Submitted for your consideration:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedspeak

The notion of fed speak originated from the fact that financial markets placed a heavy value on the statements made by Federal Reserve governors, which could in turn lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. To prevent this, the governors developed a language, termed fedspeak, in which ambiguous and cautious statements were made to purposefully obscure and detract meaning from the statement.

...

Although it was originally believed by some that Alan Greenspan, who is generally credited for popularizing fedspeak, may have used such language unintentionally, he revealed in his 2007 book The Age of Turbulence, that the method of avoiding the issues directly when a clear message was not desired was indeed intentional. Greenspan states that the confusion, which often resulted in conflicting interpretations, was used to prevent unintended jolts to the markets as confusing statements were typically ignored.[10]

So seek the following solution:  in what venue, if any, could a Fed chairman speak freely?

Until we master fedspeak, we know of only one approach likely to work...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14274.msg186169#msg186169

[LRENZ]

So basically you propose BM continue doing the Mumble hangouts but from now on they wouldn't be recorded? But then people that miss the chats will come on the forum and ask what was said and things will be misquoted leading to more confusion plus what's really stopping anyone from recording if they wanted to? Not a good idea in my opinion.

I prefer BMs idea to just do the BitSharesTV stuff to be honest.

[julian1]

Haha. Ethereum is going to kill us, with it's vision of openness and friendly ability to attract developer mindshare. It's already got 4x the size of the Bitshares reddit community and even core Bitshares devs post there. In comparison a request for basic code documentation goes entirely unanswered in the technical forum here at Bitshares talk.

I seriously can't believe we are discussing trying to gag the free-speech of developers under some new financially binding agreement, and nobody in the community is even inquiring into what the terms are.

Bitshares has jumped the shark.

[CryptoPrometheus]

Lots of people, such as me, listen to the recordings. If you'd propose to get that information to us another way, I'm all for it, but as long as critical updates are buried in a one hour Mumble session or in a string of 100 forum messages, then I for one am going to dig until I find what I need to make informed decisions. I would keep the recordings, but if there is an alternative, then that's fine.

I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that "critical updates" be only announced in a private mumble session. That would be absurd, although I understand where you are coming from. (We have frequented the neighborhood of the absurd on occasion, like announcing important updates on page 15 of a two week old thread)
My idea was that these would be more like brainstorming sessions

[starspirit]

What if each user needs to use a unique id to get access to a single play of the recording?

[CryptoPrometheus]

I would like to offer another powerful analogy to consider. Fuzzy has often used a version of this analogy, and I believe it to be very eye opening:

Let's say bytemaster is attending a crypto-conference. Lets say this conference is in Australia. He gets up on the podium and addresses the crowd. He gives the official PR approved narrative.  Perhaps someone records this. Now lets say that he is roaming around the conference, having conversations and meeting people. At some point, a small crowd forms around him. Say 15 or 20 people, all curious, asking him questions, listening with rapt attention as he fills their mind with possibilities.

Perhaps no one records this. Perhaps the only ones that ever know what transpired in this brief moment are the ones who were fortunate enough to be there, at the right place, at the right time. Would you complain that these people have somehow trespassed on your supposed "right" to freely access every bit of information that is exchanged?

Whats more, there would be many barriers to entry to even attend this event. For example, someone living in the United States would have had to spend a few thousand on a plane ticket and hotel, and perhaps hundreds more on a conference pass.

With my proposal, the same type of private conference, which is perfectly acceptable in the situation I mentioned above, would be available with FAR fewer barriers to entry. In essence, the greatest barrier is that someone living in a certain part of the world might have to stay up past their bedtime to join or listen in. While this may be personally inconvenient for some, it is not a sound argument against allowing others to benefit from it. In fact, as our hypothetical conference was happening in Australia, it was nighttime in the USA!

[donkeypong]

Lots of people, such as me, listen to the recordings. If you'd propose to get that information to us another way, I'm all for it, but as long as critical updates are buried in a one hour Mumble session or in a string of 100 forum messages, then I for one am going to dig until I find what I need to make informed decisions. I would keep the recordings, but if there is an alternative, then that's fine.

[gamey]

Mumble sessions might have drawbacks of some sort, but the saving grace has always been that the recordings are made available. Either record them or don't have them.  I quit attending them some time ago because of scheduling but have always listened to the shows. 

We are an international audience and there is no way in hell to make this fair if not recorded. 

[julian1]

I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate.

I don't see how this is true when the sessions are in the middle of the night for many people.

[fuzzy]

I'll bump this to see what response it draws.  I would also recommend adding a poll to see what the community has to say.

[CryptoPrometheus]

BitShares Community,

I would like to thank everyone who was able to participate in our discussion on mumble this morning,  and I want to extend my hand and express my gratitude for all of your efforts at helping to form a communication bridge between the east and west. I am looking forward to many such meetings in the future, and I am honored and humbled to be a part of such a brilliant and gifted group of individuals.

That said, I would like to offer to you a proposal. This topic was discussed in our meeting, however I do not wish to imply that there was any overall consensus. Rather, I have organized a version that I would like to bring forward in order to stimulate further discussion.

We cherish the level of intellectual intimacy that we have thus far enjoyed between ourselves and one of our beloved founders, Dan Larimer. We also understand that as a community, our organization has often suffered from sudden market turmoil because it seems we have yet to figure out how to enable the free and open exchange of ideas between us, without leaving ourselves vulnerable to subjective responses from people for whom it is impossible to grasp the larger picture. This is not by means the only force at play, but I present it for purposes of illustrative example.

We discussed, in our session today, the various PR blunders that we have experienced in the past year, and the point was often raised that if a radical idea was initially proposed by bytemaster in a mumble session, the blunder would be quickly contained and not escalate very far. We observed that this was likely due to the immediate feedback he received, combined with a general human tendency to grasp the more subtle implications of words when they are spoken, rather than written on a page. By extension, whenever he brought fourth a radical idea or concept on the forums, the asynchronous delay (lack of real-time participation) combined with natural language barriers became a powerful fertilizer for seeds of doubt that would then be cast and sewn across the landscape.

In most places within the United States, it is illegal to use recording devices inside a courtroom. The reason for this is because a recording can potentially be taken out of context, and used as a tool to manipulate public opinion. The written account of an eyewitness, or an artists graphic rendering of a dramatic court scene do not have 1: 10,000 the impact of a “viral” video or audio recording. To make up for this, a high percentage of court preceedings are open to the public, so as to protect against overt or blatant foul play. Again, by no means the rule, but presented for arguments sake.

My proposal to bytemaster and to this community is that he consider continuing to hold mumble sessions with us, but that we do not record them. I do not believe that this would betray our principals, because anyone is still welcome to join and participate. What it does provide is an opportunity for all of us to continue the lively discussions that we have grown fond of, while protecting ourselves significantly against the accidental rapid dissemination of subjective misinterpretation.

Public Relations is the art of managing the spread of information, much more than placing restrictions on the source of the information. Many Hollywood actors are prone to running at the mouth and making a fool of themselves, but if they have a good publicist, the channels through which this information might otherwise be spread are carefully observed and controlled. Thus, the restrictions I am proposing are aimed at limiting the damage that might be caused by our open discussion by eliminating the opportunity for it to spread.

The greater internal PR strategy will continue to fall upon those who are working closely within his circle of trust. Perhaps they might consider advising Mr. Larimer to limit all initial presentation of his more radical ideas to to weekly or bi-weekly mumble sessions? That way we can continue to enjoy the inspiration and excitement of his wisdom and understanding, and he can continue to enjoy the benefits of personal growth through our valuable feedback.

What say you all?