Date: 2005-12-04 09:37 pm (UTC)
Ah, good point. The material in my entry above is not nearly as chronological as it may appear from reading them. Dave had something of a right to be defensive when people wanted to slag him for errors made by others for which he had no responsibility.

I'd like to think (but can't be sure) that if I was in the same position, I would try not address too many specifics, while saying, "We will make a good-faith effort to not repeat known erros, while working from our past strengths." (Yes, I know that sounds like a platitude.)

Unfortunately, rehashing obvious known errors in detail -- and someone dredged up stuff from MidAmeriCon's Masquerade as a fairly harsh question tossed at Kansas City -- is probably not hugely productive in these Inquisition panels.

Trust me, I Feel the Pain of people sitting up their on the Fannish Inquisition. One thing that I thought valuable was for our committee to role-play an FI session, because internally we almost always could come up with much nastier questions than anyone is likely to ask, and we could work out diplomatic replies to most of them. This made the actual Inquisition seem less difficult.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 3 4 567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 7th, 2025 07:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios