SWC Reachback? Tuesday Noon (eastern)

[SWCAdmin]

Dave and Bill will be on a Washington Post live e-discussion, Tuesday at noon. Some info here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/11/DI2007111100852.html).

We're not quite sure just yet how the nuts and bolts of it work. But it is my intent to put some of the questions we get to the Council, and see what kind of quick response we can get. Maybe some of them will grow into threads of their own. But the schwerpunkt here is to harvest responses real time on the spot and feed back to the Post.

So stand up, buckle up, shuffle to the door...

We can use your help!

[Rob Thornton]

12characters

[SteveMetz]

I think it would be much more fun for us to just post ridiculously hard questions and start a pool to see who can make you squirm the most.

[SWJED]

Did some prep today as a rehearsal...

Q - What kind of mistakes do ghosts make?
A - Boo boos!

Q - Why is the red sea Red?
A - Queen Cleo used to have a periodical bath there!

Q - If all the women were taken out of circulation, what kind of nation would this be?
A - Stag-nation.

Q - What does a houseboat become when it grows up?
A - A township.

Q - Where do you find giant snails?
A - On the ends of giant's fingers.

Q - What do you get when you cross a highway with a bicycle?
A - Run over!

Q - Which is the biggest country in the world?
A - Cuba. Its government is in Moscow, its armed forces in Africa and its people in the US.

Q - Which came first, the liar or the politician?
A - hmmmmm (thinking)!

Q - What did the cannibal get when he was late for dinner?
A - The cold shoulder.

Q - If all the cars in the U.S.A. were pink. What would we have?
A - A pink carnation.

Q - Why was the little boy staring so hard at the orange juice carton?
A - Because it said "concentrate"!

Q - Why didn't the skeleton cross the road?
A - Because it had no guts!

Q - Why didn't the skeleton go to the ball?
A - Because he had no body to go with.

Bada Bing, Bada Boom...

[SteveMetz]

Don't give up your day job.

[SWJED]

Don't give up your day job.

I hope the recall e-mail function works....

[nichols]

We can use your help!

Not sure how we can help but is there anyway you can send out a frost call via email/PM 2 hours before the LOD is crossed?

[John T. Fishel]

to plant questions like Hilary did? God forbid!:(

Not that planted questions from this bunch wouldn't be better and more illustrative than the run of the mill from the assembled journalists...

[SWJED]

to plant questions like Hilary did? God forbid!:(

Not that planted questions from this bunch wouldn't be better and more illustrative than the run of the mill from the assembled journalists...

... no planting of questions. My only concern is that there will be any questions at all. :eek:

[Rob Thornton]

"Buddy" is only 1/2 a word:D

[Stan]

"Buddy" is only 1/2 a word:D

Say, you're not talking about the chocolate Lab that hung out with Socks at the White House, are you :D

[Rob Thornton]

there is a difference between "SWC Reachback" and "SWC reacharound".:D

There is a bit of a distinction though between "on demand" and "thoughtful progression". This maybe something a little different then what we normally do. Whereas we might get a flurry of responses to a thread starter based on current interest, relevancy or the chance that those with subject knowledge happen to be looking at the right time and the thread topic cues them - this is more like what might be ascribed to the Knowledge Networks that act as both a repository for information related to their theme, or a HSOC (Home Station Operations Command/Center) that is staffed to answer problems, track down answers and coordinate things coming in from the field.

I'm not saying we can't do that - but I don't think its the SWC strength. Some of this happens with specific targets in mind - my connection with MarcT while I was deployed, and me pinging him for answers is kind of like this.

The SWC strength I think is more akin to a think tank where because of its diversity in membership keeps turning the facets of the cube and comments on the uniqueness of each new turn - most times we never get to a consensus where we see 6 sides each of its own solid color - and even if we do, we gain new members who take a look and mix chocolate in our peanut butter - and sometimes because of new experiences and through contact our own opinions/perspectives evolve, what was written on an old post may differ widely from - this is a strength - but it requires time and diverse participation.

The SWC is a social entity - there is no "product" or "deliverable" - its more akin to a running discourse - this is why nichols mentioned the "frost call" I think.

Showing volume in a short term turn-around will require the questions to be something that people have already done some thinking on - which could lead to just posting hyper-links to existing threads, cut-n-paste, or articulating existing positions.

An alternative would be to make sure that SWC members and lurkers are encouraged to post - I still feel like there are guys/gals out there who have unique and fresh thoughts, but have declined from posting.

Since this will be covered by the media - it will add another difference. While we are all aware that some of the lurkers/non-posting members are media we've largely been free to ignore it in terms of the sense of purpose to which we discuss things.

All of this is OK - it just changes the nature of the conversation some . I bring it up because its about managing expectations. It will be difficult to appreciate the quality of an ongoing, evolving conversation in a small period of time. People use various combinations and proportions of reading, thinking, writing as they consider things then reply.

If the questions are thread quality - meaning they evolve beyond a page in responses and generate a lot of views with a reasonably diverse set of opinions weighing in with thoughtful replies which generate further thought, etc - it might be interesting to see where that goes over time - a day, a week, a month? The challenge would be finding questions that are both thought provoking intellectually and emotionally to draw quick responses across the diverse membership while at the same time being of sufficient depth to sustain a longer conversation of greater substance.

I'm interested to see how this will go.

Best Regards Rob

[Norfolk]

Showing volume in a short term turn-around will require the questions to be something that people have already done some thinking on - which could lead to just posting hyper-links to existing threads, cut-n-paste, or articulating existing positions.

An alternative would be to make sure that SWC members and lurkers are encouraged to post - I still feel like there are guys/gals out there who have unique and fresh thoughts, but have declined from posting.

Since this will be covered by the media - it will add another difference. While we are all aware that some of the lurkers/non-posting members are media we've largely been free to ignore it in terms of the sense of purpose to which we discuss things.

All of this is OK - it just changes the nature of the conversation some . I bring it up because its about managing expectations. It will be difficult to appreciate the quality of an ongoing, evolving conversation in a small period of time. People use various combinations and proportions of reading, thinking, writing as they consider things then reply.

If the questions are thread quality - meaning they evolve beyond a page in responses and generate a lot of views with a reasonably diverse set of opinions weighing in with thoughtful replies which generate further thought, etc - it might be interesting to see where that goes over time - a day, a week, a month? The challenge would be finding questions that are both thought provoking intellectually and emotionally to draw quick responses across the diverse membership while at the same time being of sufficient depth to sustain a longer conversation of greater substance.

I'm interested to see how this will go.

Best Regards Rob

Very good points Rob.:) Just as long as people already posting on the board (we're pretty safe there so far) and those who subsequently join in, do not do so to play to an audience. If board posters become self-conscious, the quality of the discussions may be adversely impacted as some may be tempted to play to an audience rather than to learn.

[Ironhorse]

Say, you're not talking about the chocolate Lab that hung out with Socks at the White House, are you :D
You sure that dog's name was Buddy?

[SWCAdmin]

I'm not saying we can't do that - but I don't think its the SWC strength.
CONCUR!! Also agree with the fundamentals of your thoughts on threads, discourse, social aspects, etc.

This is an improvisational scheme at best. But Dave and I are going on the live discussion, this scheme struck us. Best case, SWC drops some gems in on the topics. Worst case, we're on our own, and it gives me give me something to play at while Dave answers all the tough questions ;).

We don't have an agenda other than to engage this community on the issues of the day. Hammerless in the past, I have used crescent wrenches and rocks to drive nails. So off we go in the same spirit.

We're still in recon pull mode on the details, but I think I'll create a new forum and spin a couple of threads in there.

[Rob Thornton]

Bill,

might try leading with some Op-Eds of the day, or stuff from around the community we've not had a peek at yet - something to build a discussion around - particularly if it comes with a question. I don't know - but I'll be there:) at least for part of it.
Best, Rob

[SWCAdmin]

We'll see how this goes.

Questions are selected by Washington Post editors from submissions by readers. We'll post them for your thoughts once we get them.

[selil]

It'll be a good stress test of the SWC servers...... around noon we may hear the servers whimpering.

[nichols]

What's the scoop on this?

[SWCAdmin]

What's the scoop on this?
See this forum (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95). Rounds complete.

I thought about your mass e-mail as you suggested. We have the capability. But I figured privacy and pestering should win out. A number of members tied in.

I for one really like the new and improved "recent posts" and "new posts" with the more accurate read / not-read markings. It helps.