First para: Yes. This wasn’t meant to be the entirety of the idea, just an introduction.

Second para: Excellent. This pleases Macklin greatly. *strokes chin*

Third para: And now you see my ulterior motive for posting what I did.

Fourth para: Dude, be careful slinging language around on the internet. That’s how I keep getting into trouble. Most people don’t know you, and even those who do you might not be catching them at their best. When I woke up this morning, I grabbed my iPhone to check my email and went “oh, fuck, is this thing now?” before I saw the follow-up comment. :)

(Granted, if I had done that *after* I did my morning ritual of “becoming consciously aware of my surroundings and more human with coffee & shower”, then I would have known it was a you-ism more readily.)

Lotsa Love,

Mick the Bilious Banter Monkey

And this is a good thing. This topic finally coming out in the open has been very cathartic for me, I think it has helped Rich have a clearer picture of what he wants for the show, and it has definitely helped me to clarify my and articulate what my own agenda is.

Not to mention that according to Google Analytics, the CP site has gotten a pretty sizable Macklin Bump the past three days. And lots of the visits are first-timers. So I guess it’s really true that there’s no such thing as bad press.

But before you get the big head from all this kumbayah-thanks-for-the-beating-it-only-made-us-stronger chatter, you are still Canon Puncture’s sworn arch-rival and also a bit of a douchebag for the part of your OP where you said our segment was “bilious banter”.

BTW, I personally have given up all attempts to do a podcast, so let me add I have immense respect for the time and effort it takes to put out one of these shows.

ME

And I want more interviews, so that’s good.

Thanks for your feedback on the show, guys. Ryan, we’ve had this discussion before so it isn’t a surprise. Daniel, you hadn’t unpacked your thoughts previously to this degree (that I’d seen) so thanks for sharing them.

To speak to Ryan’s blog post:
I feel our crew is better suited to entertain foremost and sometimes educate during the process by sharing our thoughts and experiences. I think of it as the Fat Albert theory, “If you aren’t careful, you just might learn something, too.”

Now on the format change:
The feedback on the discussion/banter per news item is interesting. We began with the Buzz Out Loud (a CNET tech podcast) method. They spend 2-5 minutes per topic. So, we recorded with an approximate number of topics to fill the new 30ish minute time slot with the same ratio in mind I’m not married to doing 2 minute discussions, but I felt when BoL does it, they nail it in that time pretty easily. So it was a good starting point.

As for adding in Ryan, well, that was me being selfish when I really look at it. I think Ryan and I have interesting discussions and thought it might be a way to please different kinds of listeners. The feedback I’d received about the format wasn’t just from Ryan, and. The addition is still something we’re considering. Ryan and I recorded four bits so far. We may do more, or maybe not. I think it’s dependent on our mood and if we have something to talk about.

I hate to tell you, Daniel, but we have more changes down the road: additions or enhancements, in my opinion. And we haven’t stopped doing interviews, so they will be coming soon, too.

Here, when I get a chance later, perhaps I’ll talk about my listener agenda experience with The Game Master Show specifically and my listener agenda in general, which is, I think, primarily social, which is an agenda that I think is valid.

Also, I’m totally amused at how my deleting & reposting my comment (as I wasn’t logged in earlier) has made the conversation out of sync. :)

I keep saying we need a podcast to talk about podcasting.

We’re turning a theory blog post into something that is really not.

Ryan: See, I like the roundup and the blabber segments, but they need to be more organic, I think. Establish the expectation with the listener of what they’ll get. I already know that I’m gonna get both, so 63 was ok (liked the guest appearance by Judd – but does that hearken back to the Kryos-era?) and maybe that’s really all it is: set up an expectation then meet it.

The idea of the second segment thing with Rich is partly inspired by pointing out how The Voice of the Revolution works — there’s a starting news segment, and then topical content. In that respect, I don’t see it as being the same as their old format, because that was their Kryos-era one.

Dammit, times like this I wish we could just get together and talk. Damn this whole country in the way.

I also get the distinct feeling that you and I are arguing as proxies.

I do not demand anything from them. They give me the show they put out, and it’s up to me to take it or leave it. I offered this extremely long and honest explanation because it is what informs my current feeling about the show, which is part of what we’re discussing here. But otherwise I would’ve kept it to myself. This is far more mental real-estate than I’d normally give it.

It probably comes across as “CP must cater to me” but it really doesn’t matter to me, because ultimately I am only 1 listener. I have my opinion, but that and 5 cents gets you squat. In order to express certain things I went the most direct route possible, which usually circumvents politeness though not out of rudeness. So don’t reply to my tone because it’s more of a limitation imposed by the format. Over a beer or two the same words would sound differently.

Though, part of it is because you’re assuming that they were happy with their new format and that you’re owed three episodes of a new format before they continue experimenting. There’s a lot of entitlement and demand in your language, Daniel — I don’t know if you’re aware of that.