Poor handling of instamine question at open house

X

xjones

Member
During a recent open house an instamine question was asked. I think the response to this was not well-handled. (Go to 47:24 in the video, as the video embedding done by this forum software may discard the time bookmark.)


The presenters should have expected such a question, welcomed it, and responded in a professional manner without getting annoyed or defensive. I don't believe that's what they did.

Furthermore, the response should have included essentially the same facts that in the official instamine document. And I don't believe that was the case. If the answer given at an open house doesn't essentially match the one in the official document, then it looks odd. One or the other needs to be revised to match.

https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/OC/Dash+Instamine+Issue+Clarification

Eric Schmidt prepared for his career by going through training to improve his communication skills. He ended up becoming the CEO of Google. Dash developers who plan to speak at open houses or at other events should think about getting this type of training.


 
True but is normal and authentic. There is no PR firm telling people what to say, more to the point, this question has been answer to exahustion. So really who cares, there will definetly be asked again.

Sent from my MotoE2 using Tapatalk
 
JZA said:
So really who cares, there will definetly be asked again.
Click to expand...
I agree with @xjones. We may understand and not care, but we are not the only one's watching... There are plenty of outsiders watching new to Dash. Since Evan is a public facing figure, there really should be a better prepared answer.
 
I agree but if like a court case and calling the suspect to the stand is usually a bad idea.

Sent from my MotoE2 using Tapatalk
 
JZA said:
I agree but if like a court case and calling the suspect to the stand is usually a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Within the USA, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to remain silent, and everybody is told that silence must not be interpreted as evidence of guilt.

But in public discourse, silence is usually interpreted as guilt. Anybody who expects to be asked hard questions really should rehearse answering them well.
 
So propose PR classes for Evan to me media trained. If Zuckerberg went thorough it, why not Evan.
 
Perhaps the official instamine clarification article should be updated to include Evan's disclosure about his holdings and his stated intentions?

There's no way to prove that he doesn't have more coins but that response is something that people researching the subject would probably be interested to know.
 
I will watch the Eric Schmidt videos you've attached, @xjones. I'm always seeking to improve my presentation skills, so thanks.

And I think I was caught off-guard by the "question" because -- if I recall correctly -- he didn't really ask an honest question. They almost never do when it comes to this topic. Rather than seeking new information like, "I'm curious, how many Dash were mined in the first 48 hours?" or something truly curious like that, it's usually more of a thinly-veiled statement, like, "So, I heard there was an instamine. Why do you think that's okay?"

But your point remains -- we ought always to be prepared for anything the audience might give, whether it's honest questions or thinly-veiled statements.

Perhaps a screener would be useful in the future? That is, someone who screens questions before they're asked to ensure it's not just someone trying to make a public, angry stand (which happened to me at Anarchapulco, incidentally). The screener could even be the person who actually relays the question. Because this is going to keep happening. No matter how many times we address the issue (it happened to me during Salt Lake City and Prague conferences, as well), it just keeps getting brought up again.

So... what do you recommend? A canned response? Isn't that what's been routinely delivered so far, only to keep getting the issue brought back up?
 
amanda_b_johnson said:
I will watch the Eric Schmidt videos you've attached, @xjones. I'm always seeking to improve my presentation skills, so thanks.

And I think I was caught off-guard by the "question" because -- if I recall correctly -- he didn't really ask an honest question. They almost never do when it comes to this topic. Rather than seeking new information like, "I'm curious, how many Dash were mined in the first 48 hours?" or something truly curious like that, it's usually more of a thinly-veiled statement, like, "So, I heard there was an instamine. Why do you think that's okay?"

But your point remains -- we ought always to be prepared for anything the audience might give, whether it's honest questions or thinly-veiled statements.

Perhaps a screener would be useful in the future? That is, someone who screens questions before they're asked to ensure it's not just someone trying to make a public, angry stand (which happened to me at Anarchapulco, incidentally). The screener could even be the person who actually relays the question. Because this is going to keep happening. No matter how many times we address the issue (it happened to me during Salt Lake City and Prague conferences, as well), it just keeps getting brought up again.

So... what do you recommend? A canned response? Isn't that what's been routinely delivered so far, only to keep getting the issue brought back up?
Click to expand...

OK, let me number my points as I have several.
  1. You have good stage presence Amanda, so you did really well there. I don't think you need any training in public speaking (the others who spoke do). However, you called the question a "token" question, which means you treated it like a question with no substance. And that was not a good thing to do. See point 2 below.
  2. Regardless of the motives of the asker, the question itself is a perfectly good one. If the question is a good one, then instead of questioning the motives of the asker, take it as an opportunity to answer the question. There are probably people in the audience who would like to know the answer.
  3. Regardless of what the audience wants to hear, if you're going to be posting a video, then many other people will be watching the video for months or years to come, and if an answer is given poorly, it will continue to create a poor impression for months or years to come. Better to make the answer a good one, so it creates a good impression for months or years to come.
  4. A screener is not a good idea. It means there are questions you will not allow, and that makes all questions and answers suspect. The only situation in which a screener would be a good idea would be if the screener were a neutral person that the audience would trust to be neutral. And you're unlikely to find such a person.
  5. "So... what do you recommend? A canned response? Isn't that what's been routinely delivered so far...." No, I didn't hear a canned response in this case. If it had been canned it would have closely reflected the official instamine response document, and it did not. But yes, any question that is asked often should have a canned answer. Not canned in the sense that it's given in a mindless manner using the same words, but canned in the sense that the explanation has been carefully considered in advance, and is substantially the same every time the same question is asked.
  6. "No matter how many times we address the issue (it happened to me during Salt Lake City and Prague conferences, as well), it just keeps getting brought up again." Yes, of course. It's an obvious issue and in any audience there will be people who don't understand it, so of course the question will be asked again and again, and you and all the others will need to be prepared to handle it professionally and convincingly.
Those of you who are in the US probably recall the presidential campaigns of 2016. There were plenty of questions asked in good faith, and plenty of other questions asked purely to embarrass the presidential candidates or to put them in a bad light. And each candidate had to be prepared for these questions and had to be able to provide a suitable answer. Even for the questions that were asked in bad faith, because many other people were watching who wanted to hear the answer. The Dash situation is not that different, it's just a very small version of a presidential election.
 
You are right, @xjones, I ought not to have said the word "token." It was inappropriate.

I guess if there's no answer that can be crafted to put the issue to bed once and for all, I'll do like you suggest -- provide the same, true, documented answer each time, without irritation.
 
I think the best is an RTFM answer, point them to the documentation resolving that issue and move on. I dont think is worth your (or anyone else time) to answer the question repetitively until infinity I dont care what @xjones think.

I think those questions don't have to do with your talk, which clearly was the intention of the QA at the end. Althought there was no product to present yet, and was simply an update question, these Off-topic questions don't really have to do with the topic.

I think a "Do you have a question regarding what we discussed here" could send that message. I think OT questions are particularly rude and burn valuable minutes from real substantial questions that were not asked. I do agree that the time and energy invested in solving that question was a bit excesive and kind of 'ruined' the QA experience if all.
 
An RTFM answer is OK, but it should be done nicely, and should include a little more than just the RTFM part. E.g.:

"I'm glad you ask that question, because I'm sure others here have the same question on their mind. Here's what happened ... <quick 1-minute recap> ... and we have a document online that gives a lot more details, you can find it at <short memorable URL>."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top