I think the following is the most important point here:
Being a panelist is a special privilege - there are more applicants for Arisia panel spots than there are spots. It's also a special responsibility because panels are an important part of why people go to Arisia. If panelists aren't doing their jobs to inform, engage, entertain, enlighten, share then they're making the whole convention experience less.
Being a panelist is a privilege. Much more of a privilege than just attending the con. Arisia has to be selective about whom to choose to be panelists. Effectively there is competition among potential panelists.
You're fretting about the case of Mr. Kimmel with the framing of justice and punishment. Look at it instead with the framing of an HR person with a stack of resumes that exceeds the number of open reqs. If something unsavory surfaces regarding an otherwise-strong candidate, do the HR person and hiring manager wring their hands and say "dear me, is it just to hold this person responsible for everything?" I think, not usually. Not unless they really really wanted to hire that candidate in particular, such as if the candidate is the hiring manager's old buddy from way back.
Are the pro-Kimmel people who criticize the decision to not put Kimmel on panels favoring him because he's a member of the old boy's club of SMOFdom?
How about consciously seeking some younger, less white, less male voices to give their perspectives on films at Arisia? I'd like to hear some less white and less male opinions on what films to watch.
Look at it this way: Arisia has to "hire" the best panelists to attract the "audience" it wants to attract. The grumpy old white people are dying off and becoming less relevant. Arisia should be trying to attract younger, more diverse consumers of cons. Of the many talented people who want to be panelists at Arisia, which ones will appeal to the people whom we want to be repeat customers? I think it's fair to take in data from social media to inform those decisions.
no subject
Being a panelist is a special privilege - there are more applicants for Arisia panel spots than there are spots. It's also a special responsibility because panels are an important part of why people go to Arisia. If panelists aren't doing their jobs to inform, engage, entertain, enlighten, share then they're making the whole convention experience less.
Being a panelist is a privilege. Much more of a privilege than just attending the con. Arisia has to be selective about whom to choose to be panelists. Effectively there is competition among potential panelists.
You're fretting about the case of Mr. Kimmel with the framing of justice and punishment. Look at it instead with the framing of an HR person with a stack of resumes that exceeds the number of open reqs. If something unsavory surfaces regarding an otherwise-strong candidate, do the HR person and hiring manager wring their hands and say "dear me, is it just to hold this person responsible for everything?" I think, not usually. Not unless they really really wanted to hire that candidate in particular, such as if the candidate is the hiring manager's old buddy from way back.
Are the pro-Kimmel people who criticize the decision to not put Kimmel on panels favoring him because he's a member of the old boy's club of SMOFdom?
How about consciously seeking some younger, less white, less male voices to give their perspectives on films at Arisia? I'd like to hear some less white and less male opinions on what films to watch.
Look at it this way: Arisia has to "hire" the best panelists to attract the "audience" it wants to attract. The grumpy old white people are dying off and becoming less relevant. Arisia should be trying to attract younger, more diverse consumers of cons. Of the many talented people who want to be panelists at Arisia, which ones will appeal to the people whom we want to be repeat customers? I think it's fair to take in data from social media to inform those decisions.