Note From jms

[b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu]

Subject: Note From jms
 No.   DATE           FROM
-----+-------------+--------------------------------------------------
*  1: Apr  3, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
+ 16: Apr  6, 1996: laz at leland.Stanford.EDU (Laz Marhenke)
* 17: Apr  6, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Lines: 63

Took AOL a while to show this group on their newsreader, but it finally
came through today.  Some preliminary thoughts tossed out for discussion,
for the record, for the heck of it.

Yes, the new group is now moderated.  But no, that should not be taken or
interpreted by anyone as inhibiting constructive criticism.  We learn by
doing.  That means sometimes we make mistakes.  When that happens, it's
not just a Good Idea to let us know, it's *necessary*.  If you can point
to something in an episode that doesn't work...then point.  If it's an
objective goof, then it's something we can learn from.  If it's a
subjective opinion, then it opens up discussion from all sides.  

During the whole moderation discussion, I tried to be as quiet as I
humanly could, to avoid influencing the decision.  People have to vote
their conscience, nothing more or less.  Those who voted for or against
the group did so because they felt it was the Right Thing To Do.  Nobody
should have a problem with that.  

This group, fundamentally, is for the users.  For all those who felt they
had to stop posting or just drop out of the prior group, and those who
stayed in the original group and want some options.  The purpose, as I
understand it, is to moderate those situations where you have someone who
is chronically abusive to other users, engaging in personal attacks. 
Simple truth is we're all gonna lose our temper from time to time, use
terms in the heat of an argument we probably shouldn't...but it's my sense
that this shouldn't be interfered with until and unless it becomes a
chronic problem.

That said, however, I leave these determinations to the moderators,
suggesting only that a light hand is better than a heavy hand.  If along
the way some of my messages get blipped as we feel our way through this, I
don't have a problem with that.  (This to those who said it would be a
problem.)

(An aside: I heard that some were arguing that this was about "control." 
And they were right.  But not the way they wanted to be right.  To control
means to limit your options.  The few who used this argument did so
because they knew that if you want to participate in B5 discussions on
Usenet, without paying for one of the commercial services, there's only
been one game in town.  You had to go there and listen to them, and put up
with their abuse.  That is as much a form of control as anything they were
railing against.  Now, users have options, choices.  You can go either
way, enjoy whichever environment you prefer.)

The purpose of this, from my side, is to continue the experiment in
interactive television that's been going on on-line for several years. 
I'd hope that folks take advantage of this to find out more about how
television is made, how this kind of story gets produced, to help
demystify television so that in the end we can get better choices by
knowing what to ask for, and understanding the medium.  In a way, the
answers and information I give are only as good as the questions that get
asked; I'll try and anticipate questions and areas of interest, but it's
up to you to mold this forum as you see fit.  Make it something that fits
your needs and interests.  Don't lurk.  If you have a great question, put
it out where everyone else can profit from it.  

The welcome mat is out, the porch light is on, and there's lemonade over
by the front rail.  I hope you'll all sit for a while and hang out.  Looks
like it's gonna be a nice night....

jms



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: laz at leland.Stanford.EDU (Laz Marhenke)
Lines: 82

In article <4juoqb$ouv at newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Jms at B5 <jmsatb5 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, the new group is now moderated.  But no, that should not be taken or
>interpreted by anyone as inhibiting constructive criticism.  We learn by
>doing.  That means sometimes we make mistakes.  When that happens, it's
>not just a Good Idea to let us know, it's *necessary*.  If you can point
>to something in an episode that doesn't work...then point.  If it's an
>objective goof, then it's something we can learn from.  If it's a
>subjective opinion, then it opens up discussion from all sides.  

   Ok, I'll take you up on this, but I'll do the opposite.  I'll tell
you some things that did work.  (These may be somewhat backhanded
complements, though, since some of these point to things that haven't
worked for me in the past.  But by the same token, then, I'm pointing
at improvements.  Take it as you will.  :')  )

[SPOILERS FOR Severed Dreams FOLLOW!]
























   The scene with Garibaldi and the Narns was very nice.  I'm refering to
the part where he says something like "We'll cut them off here...", and
then all the Narns completely ignore him and rush into the fray.  I know 
to comment on this only because someone else (Jay, I think) commented on 
it.  When I watched the scene myself, I understood perfectly well what was
going on, but I didn't get the disconcerting sense that someone was
_telling_ me what was going on (which, unfortunately, sometimes happens
on B5).  I felt like the characters were talking to each other, not to me,
and I saw immediately what their actions were and why they were doing them.
All this is just as it should be, which is why I pick this scene as one
that I liked :') .  Basically, the medium of transmission (the TV 
production process) was perfectly transparent, letting me see the story
unimpeded.  It took Jay's comment to make me say "Oh yeah, that was nice!".
When things work well, we often don't notice it (I would go so far as to
say that the two usually imply each other).

   Another good & subtle thing:  When Captain What's-Her-Name's ship is
dying, and Major Whositzer is talking with her, we hear her say "Nothing
to do now but s..."  I assume she was saying "set to ram"; what I like
about this scene is that, again, I wasn't _told_ what she was doing.
Instead, I got a hint, and then was _shown_ what she did.  I had actually
guessed that she was going to ram a fraction of a second before it was
shown (as she said, there was nothing else to do), but it was especially
fun to be able to feel "smart" for having figured it out.

   Delenn's scene at the Grey Council was also nice.  At the end, she
calls for people to join her, and five council members go with her (if
I counted correctly).  One just assumes that it's the four Warrior Caste
members that stayed behind, and you only know that if you remember the
episode which showed that the Council was out-of-balance.  Again, I
liked having things left unsaid; things I had to think a little and
observe closely to figure out.

   I also liked how you handled losing the actor who played General
Haig (Hague?  I can never remember).  I guess it was the "obvious" thing
to do, but it was pretty realistic, when you think about it.

   So.  Anyway.  Liked the episode.  :')

   Laz

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Lines: 6

Compliments not backhanded at all, and gratefully accepted.


 jms


-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Messages to this list come from various sources.
-*** Replies to them, automatically to go the maintainer of this list
-*** <b5jms-owner at majordomo.cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply to
-*** someone else, make sure the "To:" header line is correctly set.