[Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns

[Arvin Vohra]

They have many, many times.

On Feb 18, 2017 6:17 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170218/a4a3c3be/attachment-0002.html>