Skepticamp Colorado 2010 - Impressions, Part One: Criticisms

I'm sure you all noticed I completely failed to live-blog Skepticamp Colorado. The sharper tacks in the box have also likely noticed that it's taken me quite a while to even begin blogging about the event. I could go on and on about needing time to digest all the information we were fed, or I could just get with the blogging and leave the excuses for the next project that gets swallowed up by the passage of time. *coughs*

Before I delve into each of the presentations I attended, I'd like to give a brief overview of my impressions and I'm going to do it in 2 parts. This was my first Skepticamp experience and I went into it without much in the way of expectations or general knowledge. I hadn't had the opportunity to attend any of the planning meetings, didn't know any of the participants (aside from the husbandish, of course), and only glanced at the presentation schedule once it was finalized. Initially my ignorance was just a matter of lacking the time to really sit down and give it a work over, but eventually I embraced the possibility of going in more-or-less blind and getting the full virgin's view of the event. What I found both exceeded my expectations and fell-short of my hopes.

I'm going to go into the difficulties I found with the event first... not because I want to be a prick right off the bat, but because overall my impression was positive and I'd like to leave on that note. I'm splitting my impressions into Part One: Criticisms and Part Two: Praise, because I want to give a forum to discuss both without getting either muddied up. Please keep in mind, however, that I've already stated I was NOT involved in planning the event. These events rely on the participation of attendees. Had I attended those planning sessions it's likely some of the issues I'm about to discuss would have been addressed. I'm offering them only as an insight into what I felt didn't work coming from a position of complete and utter ignorance.

So... here we go.

Wait... what just happened?

The time limit for presentations defaulted at 15 minutes (**see correction below), with more time being granted to those individuals who could show they needed it (the longest presentation ran an hour, and it was the only one to run longer than 30 minutes). 15 minutes is nothing. Many professional public speakers take that long just to introduce themselves and their topic. I completely understand the organizers wanted to give everyone a chance to speak... but I can't help but feel 15 minutes isn't much of a chance. Adding to the strain of the time limit was the general format of Skepticamp - participants are encouraged to ask question during the speaker's presentations. This allows for instantaneous objections to questionable material, requests for references, and input that is often stymied when questions are saved for the end. Unfortunately, this format also seemed to occasionally cause unintentional hijackings as less experienced presenters were led away on tangents they never quite recovered from. Presenters who read directly from previously prepared speeches were especially vulnerable as precious moments ticked by while they attempted to find their place and get back on track after every question.

If I Were Queen: I think I'd extend the minimum presentation time to 30 minutes, allowing additional time in 15 minute increments to those individuals who could demonstrate a need for it. I would encourage presenters to spend the first 5 to 10 minutes of their allotted time introducing themselves and highlighting any points they believe are essential in conveying the intention of their presentation. I would then ask that the presenters give a moment for questions specific to the introduction (such as requests for credentials) before delving into the topic. Lastly, I would ask that each presenter write up a synopsis of their intended talk to be made available to participants before hand as this might help weed out some early questions that are intended to be addressed later on in the presentation.

How This Creates More Problems: The more time that is allotted to each individual presentation, the fewer presentations you can give in a single room during the space of a single day. Running conflicting presentations in separate rooms almost guarantees that participants will be forced to make unpopular choices. Extending the event to encompass two or more days almost guarantees that some participants will miss at least half of the scheduled presentations. Both options also narrow the list of venues where a Skepticamp might be held.

** CORRECTION: 15 minutes was NOT the default time frame.  Presenters were given a choice between a 15 minute time slot and a 30 minute time slot, and longer time slots were available by request to those who could demonstrate need.  My apologies for making the assumption that the 15 minute slots were assigned by default rather than chosen, and thanks to Festivus2007 for pointing out my error. 

Football is For Pussies.

The primary reason I can't stand popular American sports is the feeling that for every 30 seconds of play time, they spend 10 minutes standing around in various huddles chit-chatting or looking at bits of film over and over again to decide if there was a foul, or replacing players, or calling their mothers... or whatever it is they're doing while I'm busy falling asleep. I'm a lacrosse girl... a rugby (I prefer league over union) girl... a "fucking do something while you're out there on the damn field or I'm not going to pay for this shit" girl. Injured? Lay still - we'll come get you after your replacement is out on the field and the team has moved out of the way. Foul? Get your ass to the box - your replacement already has the damn ball.

So... I think it's safe to say I can be rather impatient.

What the hell does this have to do with Skepticamp? By the time we hit the first break, my brain was wanting to know why I was confusing academia with rugby. As one presenter was wrapping up, the next was already setting up their presentation. I felt as though the sound of a cracking whip or a starting pistol would be more appropriate than the sound of the participant's applause. There was no time to digest what I'd just heard, wrap up notes, or prepare for the next speaker... because they were already speaking.

If I Were Queen: 5 minutes. That's all I ask. 5 minutes between presentations. Yes, it creates the same time issues that extending the default time limit would and that sucks... just... please... 5 minutes...

Make the Fucker WORK!

Welcome to the digital age, it's less like Star Trek than we really hoped it would be. My computer doesn't like your computer and neither of them like the projector. Your laptop treats my USB like it has cooties and our programs are busy making demon babies even though they're totally incompatible and it'll never work out in the long run.

Basically, technical issues munched on tight time frames like tasty crisps.

If I Were Queen: Finally, something I actually know how to overcome due to experience! Too bad I didn't show up to any of the planning meetings like a douche, eh?

As a once frequent convention panelist, I learned there are ways to avoid the tech time eater. Attach one laptop to the projector, a laptop that both loves and is loved by the projector. Ask presenters to submit the digital portions of their presentations as soon as possible before the event and charge the projector loving laptop's owner with insuring each presentation will run as intended. Presentations that won't run as intended can then be converted to a format that will. (If you absolutely must, plan to have both a PC and a Mac laptop that will connect to the projector. Make it clear to presenters that they'll need to specify the operating system when they submit their presentations.)

How This Creates More Problems: I've just asked two individuals to subject their laptops to at least a week's worth of trial and error by inundating them with presentations sent in my strangers. For some laptop owners, that's synonymous with asking a man to drag his dick through a fetid ditch frequently used as a toilet by dirty whores with nasty heroin habits. (Some computer owners are more than a touch dramatic... but I digress...) Also, while this method really does work, it also requires both a decent time commitment from the laptop owning volunteers and the compliance of presenters. Lastly, it requires the laptop owners be allowed time to insure their equipment is compatible with a projector that is often owned by the venue rather than an individual... which isn't always possible.

WHAT DID YOU SAY?

When Skepticamp proper concluded, many of the participants migrated to a local sports bar to continue the discussions in a less formal way. Sports bars are horrible places to discuss anything (unless you consider monosyllabic grunts of approval and rage directed at sports programming "discussions"). The difficulty in hearing over the roar of the bar resulted in everyone raising their voices... which resulted in difficulty hearing over the roar of the skeptics. It was a self perpetuating cycle that careened me straight into a headache and an acute sense of claustrophobia. The seating arrangements at sports bars, and many restaurants, also make broad discussion difficult - leaving one to either relegate themselves to the discussions at the table they inhabit or feel like an utter cad by migrating around the room.

If I Were Queen: I'd be hosed. There aren't a lot of venues that allow groups to use private rooms with variable seating that don't charge an arm and a leg. In fact, locations like that feed like vampires off the desperation of groups that simply can't handle congregating in another damn sports bar. There are, of course, venues that do have both the room and the inclination to donate it to groups that need a meeting place... typically libraries and churches. Libraries tend to frown on groups bringing in mounds of food and booze, both of which are substances popular enough to be considered necessary, and churches... well... churches don't like people like me... and there are often a lot of people like me at skeptical functions.

That's it. 4 measly criticisms for a day long event and every damn one of them pretty difficult to avoid (and possibly based entirely on my own pissy preferences). Seriously, the gang that put this together rocked it hard. I can't wait to give them the praise they deserve in part two.