This link is definitely not dance-related, but it has a nice discussion of how a fan site is affected by the entry of Official Persons into message boards, and how sometimes informed online chat is an improvement on what you see (or don't see) in the papers. As some of you may know, next season Curt Schilling will form the second part of what the Red Sox hope will be a one-two knockout pitching punch, and pave the way for perhaps another confrontation with Mystique and Aura over in the Bronx. During his recent contract negotiations with the Sox, Schilling took to posting updates and clarifications about his intentions at the Sons of Sam Horn website, with consequences wittily described below by Seth Stevenson for Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091927/
Full Version: Chatting online with Curt Schilling
Ahem, 1-2-3-4 k.o. punch. Martinez 
, Schilling , Lowe and Wakefield .
I'm woozy just thinking about it, maybe someone who doesn't have a terminal case of the disease can respond to the content of your message better.
, Schilling , Lowe and Wakefield . I'm woozy just thinking about it, maybe someone who doesn't have a terminal case of the disease can respond to the content of your message better.
Thanks for that -- it is interesting. I think it's going to be a Sons of Sam Horny Dilemma soon.
It might be possible to have cross-platform discussions about a contract: "No, I wasn't offered $8 million a week. No, I did not demand my own private locker room with a pink shag rug and a red sofa. etc." Those are facts.
But what happens when Poster X says, "He's got the lousiest fast ball"/"fourth position" I've ever seen. And there's a response, "That's not true! I do not!!"
In the very early days of the Net, I'm told (Leigh could do this better) that there were a few artistic directors who posted. And I don't blame them. "No, I'm not an idiot, actually, and I do care about ballet, and the reason why we dropped Ballet X from the repertory is not because the mafia told me to or that I broke up with the choreographer, but because we lost the rights to the music" [I'm making that up]. But then what happens if the composer emails the webmistress, say, with a "That's a damned lie. I begged them to keep my ballet in repertory. And she did dump me!!! I can't post this, but what really happened is...."
Look what happened here regarding a Certain Ballet Competition. The first year, several people raised some very reasonable, factual -- as in verifiable -- concerns, not opinions, about how late the competition started, etc. The directors of the competition took exception and posted that they were being unfairly treated. Last year, we had no comments on that competition.
On the other hand, you can understand that an artist, reading, "I'm really in the know and my friend told me that Dancer X was fired because she sassed the director back at rehearsal on Friday," would want to respond if it isn't true. (Which is why we try to avoid "I heard this backstage" or "I happened to spot Dancer X at intermission and jeteed over to ask what was up."
Unfortunately, too, the more people try to manipulate message boards, the more rules the boards have to have, and this could prove destructive. If every dancer and artistic director (composer, critic, writer, costume designer, etc.) sends a friend or surrogate to monitor the boards and protect their interests, posting each time anyone dares say, "I thought Mme. Drekova was a tad off-form last night," no one will be able to say anything. Yet, as the article dirac refers to points out, we're all interested in what's really going on and if a board could say, "Sports Star of the Moment X will be here to chat with you every Monday night at 9," that would be a draw. And many people reading the boards would believe everything they read, because it's "inside information."
I see a vicious circle coming on......
It might be possible to have cross-platform discussions about a contract: "No, I wasn't offered $8 million a week. No, I did not demand my own private locker room with a pink shag rug and a red sofa. etc." Those are facts.
But what happens when Poster X says, "He's got the lousiest fast ball"/"fourth position" I've ever seen. And there's a response, "That's not true! I do not!!"
In the very early days of the Net, I'm told (Leigh could do this better) that there were a few artistic directors who posted. And I don't blame them. "No, I'm not an idiot, actually, and I do care about ballet, and the reason why we dropped Ballet X from the repertory is not because the mafia told me to or that I broke up with the choreographer, but because we lost the rights to the music" [I'm making that up]. But then what happens if the composer emails the webmistress, say, with a "That's a damned lie. I begged them to keep my ballet in repertory. And she did dump me!!! I can't post this, but what really happened is...."
Look what happened here regarding a Certain Ballet Competition. The first year, several people raised some very reasonable, factual -- as in verifiable -- concerns, not opinions, about how late the competition started, etc. The directors of the competition took exception and posted that they were being unfairly treated. Last year, we had no comments on that competition.
On the other hand, you can understand that an artist, reading, "I'm really in the know and my friend told me that Dancer X was fired because she sassed the director back at rehearsal on Friday," would want to respond if it isn't true. (Which is why we try to avoid "I heard this backstage" or "I happened to spot Dancer X at intermission and jeteed over to ask what was up."
Unfortunately, too, the more people try to manipulate message boards, the more rules the boards have to have, and this could prove destructive. If every dancer and artistic director (composer, critic, writer, costume designer, etc.) sends a friend or surrogate to monitor the boards and protect their interests, posting each time anyone dares say, "I thought Mme. Drekova was a tad off-form last night," no one will be able to say anything. Yet, as the article dirac refers to points out, we're all interested in what's really going on and if a board could say, "Sports Star of the Moment X will be here to chat with you every Monday night at 9," that would be a draw. And many people reading the boards would believe everything they read, because it's "inside information."
I see a vicious circle coming on......
QUOTE (Alexandra @ Dec 3 2003, 07:14 PM)
. . . [Y]ou can understand that an artist, reading, "I'm really in the know and my friend told me that Dancer X was fired because she sassed the director back at rehearsal on Friday," would want to respond if it isn't true.
Don't need a website for that!
:shhh: I once observed a very gossipy dance writer/reporter confront a former NYCB corps dancer with the remark, "Someone told me you were fired from City Ballet, but everyone knows Balanchine never fires anyone."
I love your scenarios, Alexandra!
Just thought I’d revive this in light of recent events, as the most optimistic prognostications for the Sox were borne out last night. I’m a National League girl, so I was rooting for the Cards and yes, Tony La Russa (for his efforts on behalf of ballet, stray animals, and advanced platooning, although his pitchers look like they need a break), but this was nice, too. So congrats to the Sox, and their fans, and their hair. Hope you enjoyed it, dido!
(keeping with the topic) Whether one considers Schilling a media whore or great communicator, I thought it was pretty interesting that he chatted online with the fans on bostondirtdogs.com before Game 4, which was nice for the fans.
That bostondirtdogs. chat is worthwhile reading. He's a chatty guy. His parents sure went wrong calling him "Curt" -- never was a man less aptly named. As to the communicator/media whore dichotomy, he's probably a bit of both, I imagine. I always read his interviews -- at least he gives you something to chew on.
Among other things, he chatted about his injury, about which some rumors ("That's not really blood") made it into print, and you could call this going over the heads of the printpersons to the people. When Suzanne Farrell's hip problem surfaced, there was a lot of talk about the cause, and if boards had existed then, I could imagine (well, I can't imagine Farrell herself, but another dancer in that situation) popping onto the board to say, "No, Balanchine's training did NOT hurt my hip! Those speculations are groundless! It's hereditary!"
As to the communicator/media whore dichotomy, he's probably a bit of both, I imagine. I always read his interviews -- at least he gives you something to chew on.Among other things, he chatted about his injury, about which some rumors ("That's not really blood") made it into print, and you could call this going over the heads of the printpersons to the people. When Suzanne Farrell's hip problem surfaced, there was a lot of talk about the cause, and if boards had existed then, I could imagine (well, I can't imagine Farrell herself, but another dancer in that situation) popping onto the board to say, "No, Balanchine's training did NOT hurt my hip! Those speculations are groundless! It's hereditary!"
QUOTE (dirac @ Oct 29 2004, 02:35 AM)
When Suzanne Farrell's hip problem surfaced, there was a lot of talk about the cause, and if boards had existed then, I could imagine (well, I can't imagine Farrell herself, but another dancer in that situation) popping onto the board to say, "No, Balanchine's training did NOT hurt my hip! Those speculations are groundless! It's hereditary!"
Farrell didn't have to post to a Board -- she saved it for her memoir
I'm glad Boston won. I don't think I could bear more years of shots of Boston fans in agony.
Thank you for the congratulations on behalf of all real (i.e. non-drunken-rioter, non-badly behaved) Red Sox fans. Was I right, or was I right?
More on topic, I think perhaps one of the reason's Curt is so chatty is that he realizes fans are going to feel as if they know him personally whatever he does. (E.g. Watching Pedro struggle and then, finally, triumph was like watching a friend go through some very bad personal situation which you cannot help with--at least for me.) Yes, it's a bit nutty but I think it's fairly common. This could be a way to make sure that the public perception of someone is actually coming from his actual behavior and opinions.
More on topic, I think perhaps one of the reason's Curt is so chatty is that he realizes fans are going to feel as if they know him personally whatever he does. (E.g. Watching Pedro struggle and then, finally, triumph was like watching a friend go through some very bad personal situation which you cannot help with--at least for me.) Yes, it's a bit nutty but I think it's fairly common. This could be a way to make sure that the public perception of someone is actually coming from his actual behavior and opinions.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.