[Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 18:15:57 EST 2017
yes the APRC would say no to an LNC member
-Caryn Ann
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:34 PM Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> 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*
>
>
>
> *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>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
>
>
> Are you volunteering to be in charge of rebuttals when
> somebody says later, "Why didn't you propose that change when the website
> was being overhauled, instead of waiting until now that we finally have
> everything running smoothly!"?
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild ))) At-Large
> Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>
>
>
> > Starchild,
>
> >
>
> > Absolutely not at the moment. Let's get the website under control first
> before we even talk about something like that.
>
> >
>
> > Daniel
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> >> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Thanks, guys! I'll have to keep that in mind if I get really hard
> up... Not that I'm convinced there's a great market for my advice; here on
> the LNC, it's hard to even give it away sometimes, LOL. ;-)
>
> >>
>
> >> Regarding columns however, I do think LNC members being able to blog
> on our website along with staff (of course what we write could likewise be
> vetted by the Advertising & Publications Review Committee), with LP members
> allowed to comment on those blog posts, would be a good idea that could
> draw more traffic to our site, spur greater member
> participation/engagement, and help spread the libertarian message. Perhaps
> each LNC member could also have the option to publish an occasional column
> in LP News, like the chair's column that appears every issue, but less
> frequently. Anyone else interested in a motion on either or both of these
> ideas?
>
> >>
>
> >> Love & Liberty,
>
> >> ((( starchild ))) At-Large
>
> >> Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> >> (415) 625-FREE
>
> >> @StarchildSF
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> P.S. – For those wondering what David and Daniel were referring to, it
> was a response I wrote to a very long letter that was recently sent to a
> number of LNC members (perhaps everyone on the committee, I didn't check).
> Normally when I receive something that's sent to more than two or three LNC
> members, I will respond and post my response to this list along with the
> original letter, however I didn't initially do that in this case, because
> the letter had basically nothing to do with the Libertarian Party and I
> suspected people would generally not want to read it. When replying, in
> fact, I "bcc'd" my LNC colleagues, which I normally don't do, lest she hit
> "reply all" and send us all additional correspondence. Since it's now been
> discussed (indirectly) on the list however, I've posted the correspondence
> at bottom for the sake of transparency – and also in case anyone else
> reading would like to write back to her with any words of encouragement or
> other things that I should have said in my reply, but didn't.
>
> >>
>
> >> To put it gently, the writer appears to be experiencing "consensus
> reality" a bit differently than most of us. But her final line (for those
> who managed to read that far), also suggested possible suicidal tendencies,
> which made me feel I should try to provide more than a cursory response. (I
> haven't heard anything back, although it's only been a couple days.) She
> did write to us for help, and she does have concerns about government –
> although I think they may be less well-founded than the usual concerns that
> libertarians have about government! Not that her letter contains any
> particular indication that she is a libertarian, just someone who sounds
> like she could use some help.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:19 AM, David Demarest wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Starchild,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I second Daniel's motion. Seriously, what a great idea! The next
>
> >>> challenge will be to find a media outlet worthy of a 'Dear
>
> >>> Starchild' column. Let's tackle that challenge head-on.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 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>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
>
> >>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
> <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] On Behalf
>
> >>> Of Daniel Hayes
>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:06 AM
>
> >>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> >>> Subject: [Lnc-business] Dear Starchild
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Starchild,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> You should get a "Dear Starchild" column in one of the remaining
>
> >>> print newspapers around the country. Take this comment entirely at
> face value .
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Daniel
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>
> >>> _______________________________________________
>
> >>> Lnc-business mailing list
>
> >>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2017, at 7:39 PM, Julie Nguyen wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Every day it becomes more lawless. The government became stealer
>
> >>>> and robber. Before they had stolen some valueless things like brand
>
> >>>> new camera, brand new bed cover sheet set and other secondhand
>
> >>>> things. Now I lost three thousand dollars cash. They cannot cheat
>
> >>>> me to rob my money anymore, now they rob my money in other way. I
>
> >>>> may lose more money and my jewelery. Please stop them. Please help
>
> >>>> me to find a civil right attorney who dares to bring this evil to
>
> >>>> light. I want to do something to stop this dirty game.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170218/d79fe51c/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list