[Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 19:43:22 EST 2017
I would.
Joshua A. Katz
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I doubt any LP members would want to see my recent spring break in Cancun,
> pictures of my friends & family mixed with sporadic political ranting,
> perhaps just the latter.
>
>
> ---
> Sent from Boxer | http://getboxer.com <http://bxr.io/PBI3C>
>
> On February 20, 2017 at 7:28:19 PM EST, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it is very grey but it certainly can contain things that have
> nothing to do with libertarianism and things that are not on LNC time or
> image.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> So your answer is yes? I disagree, but if it were going to be treated
> that way, I would not put mine up either.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Precisely why I will not put my social media info up. I am not a 24 hour
> LNC bot.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:11 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> What about the discussion we've had about putting links to twitter/other
> social media on the site? Would you also see that as an endorsement of the
> contents of those feeds?
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Steven Nekhaila <
> steven.nekhaila at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While having external links is a nice idea, and would benefit people like
> me who run a blog, it is not representative of the LP as an organization
> and should not be permitted. Personal blogs are strictly personal, and if
> someone wants to have one that is fine, but all blog posts connected to
> LP.org or the Libertarian Party, or endorsed by the LP, should be vetted
> for quality by the APRC. Not to mention, that would just drive traffic to
> personal blogs rather than LP.org which defeats the purpose. If anything,
> we should just allow our staff, representatives and members to contribute
> to the official blog.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Steven Nekhaila
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty indifferent on this, but to provide a bit of clarity I want to
> note that websites are not places where interactions occur these days.
>
> Yes, you need to have a website. Yes, it should contain good information
> and should be pleasing to use. But typically websites are for research --
> when's the next meeting, how can I donate, etc. Most interaction happens
> on social media now. So what we're really doing is linking blog entries
> posted on LP.org to social media. This can have various effects.
>
> If someone writes something controversial, it could become a viral link
> that boosts hits to that specific entry, but not to anything else on the
> website. That boosts our hits, which is nice for metrics, but how many are
> looking at anything else on the site? We should try to measure that, if we
> go forward with this plan.
>
> We do have a "hit limit", after which we get charged extra for hits. Now,
> if we're getting hits that turn into memberships or donations, that's
> awesome and we don't care about the hit limit. But if these hits are just
> "garbage" hits, then that's not so awesome.
>
> And there's always the "remorse" factor. Does anyone here want Root's old
> blog entries out there? It's not even about the content, but that he went
> turncoat and for Trump. That sends a bad signal to external people, I
> believe. The upside of using externally-linked sites is that if someone
> turns traitor, we just take the link off the website and we're done (and
> thus the reasoning behind my compromise proposal).
>
> Just things to think about.
>
> ken
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Like Starchild and Caryn Ann, I agree with Arvin’s line of reasoning.
>
>
>
> Now, what do we need to do to make it happen? If it requires a motion, I
> will co-sponsor.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:42 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think alternates can *formally* make motions Ken, but
> the distinction is minimal; you or anyone with access to this list can post
> proposed language for a motion, and any libertarian reading this and not
> able to post to the LNC list who has ideas for a motion can send them to
> me, and I will post them here.
>
>
>
> But what do you all think of Arvin's suggestion? I think he
> makes a good point about links to our personal websites not doing much to
> draw traffic to LP.org, which imho ought to be one of the goals here. Not
> that I have a problem with links to outside sites – I continue to feel that
> we should link more movement sites like Libertarian Republic on the liberty
> links page (https://www.lp.org/liberty-links/), and don't see anything
> wrong with Ken's proposal, as far as it goes, though I agree that an LNC
> member having a personal link on LP.org to a site in which they had a
> financial interest would be questionable. However it does little to address
> the bullet points I raised in my previous message below.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Ken Moellman wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes. Dr. Ruwart did post blogs in the past. As did Wayne Root, and
> others. The problem, of course, is that when a member posts a blog entry on
> LP.org, they're creating confusion for the public as to who that person
> is speaking for -- the individual or the party? Will APRC really say no to
> a fellow LNC member?
>
>
>
> Anyway, my compromise idea was come upon to meet several goals, including
> keeping the site cleaner and on-point while also allowing LNC members to
> have a way to have their personal opinion easily found.
>
>
>
> If I remember correctly, I can make a motion, but it doesn't count toward
> the number of sponsors. Also, it doesn't look like many people support the
> idea. So to keep things clean, I'm not going to make such a motion unless
> more members want the compromise proposal.
>
>
>
> ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So much this.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 9:52 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Having LNC blogging on LP.org, subject to APRC review, is a good idea.
>
>
>
> First, we already have people producing content on facebook, personal
> blogs, etc. While what goes out on facebook sometimes tends to be more
> incendiary, there is also plenty of content that is toned down and entirely
> appropriate for the website.
>
>
>
> More importantly, it draws people to LP.org, where they can then learn
> how to volunteer, run for office, donate, etc. That part is the more
> important part. LP.org should be exciting, not tedious. People should
> want to go there to see what's new.
>
>
>
> I would generally oppose personal website linkage from LP.org. That
> doesn't bring people to LP.org site, but rather just advertises our own
> personal web pages. I don't think it is at all appropriate for LP.org to
> be used in that way. As a simple example, if Austin Petersen were on the
> LNC, would it be considered above board to link to The Libertarian
> Republic, his ad-supported news page?
>
>
>
> It also robs Lp.org of all viral marketing. Under this suggestion, if a
> post goes viral, it will just send people to the LNC member's personal
> webpage. If content is hosted at LP.org, viral posts will bring people
> back to Lp.org.
>
>
>
> In terms of staff response: I believe this may be underestimating our
> staff. Staff in the past has been very quick to oppose phrasing that they
> consider problematic, or facebook memes they consider problematic, etc.
> Staff members have been perfectly open with suggested rewrites of my
> materials, or of the writing put out by the Chair.
>
>
>
> I recommend we take steps roughly like this:
>
>
>
> 1. Do a 2 month test run with a few LNC volunteers, ideally those who have
> some kind of measurable track record.
>
>
>
> 2. Maintain APRC oversight on blog content, as is done now with blog
> content.
>
>
>
> 3. At the end of the trial period, revisit the issue.
>
>
>
> Note that similar things have been done successfully in the past. Dr.
> Ruwart and others posted things at lp.org, and the long term virality of
> those posts kept bringing people back to lp.org.
>
>
>
> Let's make LP.org an exciting destination. The potential gains are huge,
> and the risk is minor.
>
>
>
> -Arvin
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:35 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Ken, if you offer your compromise in a motion, I will co-sponsor.
>
>
>
> I am excited about this opportunity!
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Demarest [mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:31 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Cc:* 'Ken Moellman' <ken.moellman at lpky.org>; 'David Demarest' <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net>; dprattdemarest at gmail.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>
>
>
> I like Ken’s suggestion for a "Personal Website link under the image of
> each LNC member who wishes it”. His proposal is an excellent compromise
> and very practical starting point.
>
>
>
> Ken’s approach would not only simplify the APRC task of keeping the LNC
> collaborative message on point. It would also achieve Starchild’s purpose
> of encouraging individual LNC members to speak their mind in a setting that
> that gives them the freedom to express their individual Libertarian
> perspective without the imperative to regurgitate the necessarily cleansed
> official collaborative LNC message.
>
> The text of our individual links under our LNC page images could say “Dear
> Starchild”, “Dear Ken”, “Dear Caryn Ann”, “Dear Joshua”, “Dear Daniel”,
> “Dear David”, et cetera. LOL – that would likely draw some traffic and
> enhance the official collaborative LNC message while maintaining the
> Libertarian spirit of individual voices of freedom!
>
>
>
> Ken, what a great compromise!
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> *Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>
> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
> <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Starchild
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:30 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Cc:* Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>
>
>
>
>
> The point of having a more interactive website, with more
> blogging and ability for site visitors to post comments, isn't only to help
> people find out more about who we as LNC members are, although that would
> be one benefit. Other positives would likely include:
>
>
>
>
>
> • Drawing more traffic to our website, thereby raising it in search
> rankings, and making more people more likely to discover it, resulting in
> more inquiries, memberships, donations, etc.
>
>
>
> • Giving the LP the bandwidth to publicly address topical issues with
> greater frequency than we do now, and increasing the likelihood of media
> coverage of our statements
>
>
>
> • Making the party more participatory and bottom-up by decentralizing
> power a bit and giving members more of a soapbox than they are currently
> allowed to have
>
>
>
> • Reinvigorating the party and making LP News and LP.org more interesting
> to read by having more Libertarian voices and less institutionalism and
> sterility, as per David and Caryn Ann's comments below
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
> A personal website is even more problematic... would rather things be
> vetted by APRC
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'd like to propose a compromise.
>
>
>
> How about, on the LNC members page, we put a "Personal Website" link under
> the image of each LNC member who wishes it. In that scenario, it keeps the
> primary LP.org "clean" or on-point, but also allows us to each,
> individually, allow people find out more about who we are.
>
>
>
> That will prevent the APRC issues with approving content. That will
> prevent fights over content on our party's website.
>
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ken
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2017-02-15 19:47, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> I think this is better discussed in person, but I am generally in favour.
> Frankly what comes out sometimes has been sanitized to death and we have
> become a bit sterile, and not the vibrant passion-filed wildfire to liberty
> I see in our historical documents. This isn't meant as a criticism, it is
> I think natural. And I think we have to consciously go back to the
> vanguard voice.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This topic came up, if I recall correctly, early last term. When first
> suggested, it made perfect sense to me - how can we, the board, delegate
> the authority to do these things without having it? I lost interest as the
> direction of the discussion turned towards wanting a uniformity of message
> or tone, which pointed out to me some of the practical difficulties with
> implementation.
>
>
>
> While Mr. Demarest is correct that, philosophically, it is nonsensical to
> speak of organizations as having a voice, it isn't meant as a philosophical
> claim, but rather as a description of how (some) organizations present
> themselves. I want to ensure that everything that comes out from this
> party, with our stamp of approval, is true, professional, on-message, and
> strategic. We pay staff to do that (although they could do it better with
> some advance strategic and image guidance from the board). Starchild
> speaks of anything written by board members passing through the APRC, which
> does solve the objection that, as I said separately, our position vis a vis
> the party is as members of the board, not as individuals - would it also be
> evaluated by staff for the things I mentioned, and possibly edited? If so,
> will it be signed when it comes out?
>
>
>
> If it is, I find that problematic. Staff might not be in a great position
> to say that a piece is not useful/timely/etc. to a person who votes on
> their contract and pay. EPCC and EC members might be viewed differently in
> this regard, as well. If not, well, we've made staff's job of presenting
> this party to the world a little harder by providing another channel
> outwards from the party, and it's not clear to me exactly what we'd be
> getting in return. Yes, many of us may well have things worth saying, and
> many of us do say them, in our personal capacity. Do we really have such
> indispensible insights that they must be distributed by the party itself?
> (If we do think that, well, feel free to organize a giveaway of my book.)
> Personally, I am satisfied with staff and our chair being our public
> voice. Certainly, of course, board members often make media appearances
> and identify ourselves with our board position, speak at various events,
> and so on, and I think that's all well and good, but, again, we're not
> speaking as the party when we do that. At this point, it is hard for me to
> see what is gained from this proposal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:24 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Starchild: Your suggestion certainly opens a can of worms. However, it is
> a can that must be opened if we are to effectively embrace our ideological
> and methodological diversity and connect effectively with the broader
> audience within and external to the Libertarian Party. Your blogging
> brainstorm presents an exciting challenge and long-overdue opportunity to
> develop and refine our personal Libertarian messaging technique and
> targeting strategies.
>
>
>
> We need to keep in mind that individual living, breathing Libertarians are
> the voices of our institutions, not vice versa. The notion that inanimate
> institutions have a "voice" is philosophical nonsense and a classic example
> of authoritarian groupthink that we Libertarians are or should be fighting
> against.
>
>
>
> There are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are
> Libertarians. Nevertheless, individual Libertarians each have inspirational
> message worthy of an equally remarkable messaging technique and targeting
> strategy. It is high time to develop innovative individual messaging
> technique and targeting strategies so we can effectively communicate our
> inspirational personal Libertarian messages of freedom.
>
>
>
> Daniel: I agree that website integrity takes precedence but should not be
> used as a delaying tactic to prevent the discussion of the viability of
> Starchild's ground-breaking blog proposal. While the website is a critical
> tool, it is only a vehicle to express our individual voices, the core of
> our Libertarianism.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> *Celebr*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_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/20170220/05d97b56/attachment.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list