[Lnc-business] MOTION to relax publishing restrictions

[Arvin Vohra]

Definitely agree in gen principle, will send specific suggestions later
today.
On Jan 3, 2013 12:43 PM, "Starchild" <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Arvin,
>
> I strongly agree with you and Paulie that our current policies regarding
> blogging are overly restrictive, and it seems like this problem should be
> relatively easily addressed. Accordingly, I will make the following motion
> in line with your call to action. These changes would relax our
> restrictions of online publication while simultaneously increasing the
> authority of the Advertising & Publications Review Committee as a safeguard
> against the publication of inappropriate materials, and by streamlining the
> language in Section II.6, would actually make the burgeoning Policy Manual
> slightly shorter despite the expanded role of the committee:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MOVED that Section II.6 of the LNC Policy Manual be revised to read as
> follows...
>
> *Section II.6 PARTY COMMUNICATIONS*
> *
> *
> *1) Role of elected leaders*
> *
> *
> *The Chair serves as the Party's chief spokesperson and may preempt other
> LNC members *
> *when representing the Party to the public, including the business
> community, media, *
> *elected officials, and government agencies, or when planning or
> directing investigations *
> *or negotiations pertaining to cooperative efforts of the Party with
> other groups or the *
> *acquisition or sale of major assets.*
> * *
> *LNC members and state affiliate chairs or their designees may publish
> blog entries *
> *on LP.org, with approval of the Advertising & Publications Review
> Committee (APRC)** *
> *being both **necessary and sufficient for such publication.*
>
> ...and that Section II.2 of the LNC Policy Manual be revised to read as
> follows:
>
> *Section II.2 COMMITTEE SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITIES*
> *
> *
> *1) Advertising & Publication Review Committee*
> *
> *
> *The APRC is responsible for reviewing public communications of the Party
> and*
> *rejecting for publication or distribution any materials it finds to be
> non-compliant with *
> *the LP Bylaws or Platform or contrary to the Non-Aggression Principle.*
> *
> *
> *All proposed public communications on behalf of the Party for which
> written copy, audio,*
> *or video exists shall be submitted to **the APRC for
> review. APRC members shall be given at *
> *least 24 hours to review submitted **materials, unless a
> communication is extremely time-*
> *sensitive and such advance notification **is not possible, in which
> case it may be submitted *
> *to the APRC simultaneously with **publication or dissemination. However
> this exception *
> *shall not apply to LP News, Liberty **Pledge News, proposed party
> literature, or similar *
> *printed materials of a more enduring **nature, which shall always
> be made available to *
> *APRC members for review at least 24 hours **prior to the final
> proofs being approved **for *
> *printing and distribution.*
> *
> *
> *APRC members shall review all communications submitted for their
> approval as quickly as *
> *possible while exercising due diligence. **If a proposed communication
> is extremely time-sensitive *
> *and the APRC has not reviewed it **within 6 hours of submission (24
> hours **for less urgent *
> *matters), **it may be **published and disseminated **prior to APRC **review with
> the **approval of *
> *the Chair **or **Executive Director. *
> *
> *
> *Rejection of any proposed communication shall require a majority vote of
> APRC members,*
> *and communications shall not be rejected for any reasons other than
> those listed above. *
> *The APRC shall give immediate notice of any rejected communication to
> the LNC along *
> *with the rationale for its decision, citing any relevant Bylaw or
> Platform planks. Decisions *
> *of the APRC may be overturned by majority vote of the LNC.*
> *
> *
> *If the APRC rejects a communication after it has been published or
> disseminated to the public, *
> *the committee shall prepare a notice of retraction which shall be issued
> in as **timely a manner *
> *as possible via the same medium in which the original communication was *
> *issued, unless there *
> *is an LNC motion to overrule the LNC, in which case publication of the **retraction
> shall be put *
> *on hold pending the outcome of that motion. *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I invite co-sponsors of this motion, welcome discussion, and resign myself
> to the inevitable criticisms.  :-)
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                                     ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
>
> I agree with Paulie on this.
>
> BTW, anyone who wants to can already *submit* blog content. The problem is
> that it has to go through two steps (at least it did last time I checked)
>
> 1. APRC, to make sure it follows the platform and bylaws, as well as
> doesn't have any other major problems.
>
> 2. Staff approval, which is wayyy more restrictive.
>
> Last I checked, the following were the rules.
>
> 1. Total word count: 150-600 words. For videos, closer to 150 or even
> less! Text can be
> longer.
>
> 2. Breakdown:
>
> •10-40% - what’s wrong with government / damage it does
>
> •10-30% - proposal and any explanation of how it works that’s needed
>
> •5-20% - preempt / rebut anticipated objections
>
> •30-60% - immediate and direct benefits to voters
>
> These rules have been put forward by Carla, with Geoff's approval and
> oversight.
>
> To me, this is not just overly restrictive, but ineffective in some
> important situations, as well as totally ludicrous in others. I mean, if
> you write an article about the difference between Libertarians and
> Constitutionalists (a popular blog post before these micromanagerial
> restrictions were added), and pontificated for 60% of the article about the
> immediate and direct benefit to voters about knowing the difference, you
> would look insane, and also that would heavily decrease the virality in
> social media.
>
> From the sense I got, even more specific restrictions were put on video
> production, which is one reason that video production crawled to a halt in
> the last months.
>
> Now that the election is over, the LNC and the State Chairs of this party
> no longer need to be treated like 6th grade remedial writing students. I
> would say that APRC approval is enough. That's what the committee exists
> for.
>
> We have so far erred on the side of caution that we have turned our
> website into a dud. It's not the colors that really cripple the site. It is
> the one-note, heavy handed polispeak, rarely updated content.
>
> This is one of those cases in which I believe description of the benefits
> is actually in order:
>
> Imagine if the particular argument that powerfully resonated with a few
> passersby at a LP booth could be heard by not just 3 or 4 people, but by
> thousands. Imagine if people would say, "Hey, I really liked the article I
> read on LP.org. You guys are much more honest and authentic, and I can
> get behind that. There were a couple articles I didn't identify with, so I
> just ignored those." Imagine if the LP members could share varied and
> interesting articles, with their non-Lib friends.
>
> Imagine if some articles had a soft touch, and used the soft sell approach
> that Dr. Lark has used so effectively throughout the libertarian movement.
> Imagine if others had the hard sell approach that Harry Browne used so
> brilliantly. Imagine if we had some articles that could help shift the
> views of our statist friends a drop at a time, and others that called to
> those in Campaign for Liberty, and got them to register Libertarian.
>
> Imagine if a single article, not despite breaking the above mold,
> but because it did, went explosively viral OUTSIDE of libertarian circles.
> Imagine if our persuasion was no so limited to super-inner-circle stuff
> like beating the difference in a race that normal people actually wanted to
> read it. Imagine if we could tap into the thousands of professional writers
> in this party, and turn LP.org into a site that gets not 30,000 hits a
> week, but 30,000,000,
>
> No matter how much we prettify the site, restricted content will always be
> restricted.
>
> Now for my call to action:
>
> We call for the immediate opening of the LP.org blog to all LNC members
> and state chairs, with approval by the APRC being both necessary and
> sufficient to get a post on the blog. If this experiment doesn't work, we
> can reverse the rule change immediately.
>
> Anyone want to cosponsor a motion?
>
> -Arvin
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM, <travellingcircus at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we make LP News available electronically and/or integrate it better
> with LP blog?
>
> A) I would like to share articles on IPR and other places. Other people
> may want to share them with their friends by email, on facebook, etc.
>
> B) Even if the answer to (A) is no I would like to be able to receive LP
> News while I am on the road, which is most of the time. I just received the
> new LP News and it is much improved over what I have seen in several years.
> We should make it easy to share the good news.
>
> C) LP blog is not updated much. LP News stories already exist and are
> already content that we have sent the membership (ie approved), so they
> should be an obvious source of LP blog posts that should take very little
> staff time to post (or I would be willing to post them as a volunteer if I
> can get them emailed to me and a login to do so).
>
> D) Can we get a link somewhere that would make it more obvious that people
> can subscribe to LP News without becoming LP members? If there is already
> such a link at LP.org I am not noticing it
>
> E) Now that the election is over I would like to see if we can restore the
> ability of LNC members and/or volunteers to submit LP Blog content. It's
> fine if we have to have it go through APRC before it goes out or whatever
> means we need to use to ensure that we don't embarrass ourselves.
>
> As much of this as can be done without LNC motions would be awesome.
>
> If LNC motions are a prerequisite for making any of it happen, I ask that
> full members please submit motions to make it happen.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Frankel 415-690-6352
> LNC Alt Region 7 (AL, MS, OK, LA, TX)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-discuss mailing list
> Lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20130103/b9e7c7d3/attachment-0002.html>