[Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns

Ken Moellman lpky at mu-net.org
Tue Feb 21 06:44:53 EST 2017


Yep.  And that's the way to handle it.  On Facebook, I have a personal and
a political page.  The political page was my old personal page, converted
to a "fan page" after I collected a bunch of crazy FB stalkers when I ran
for office.  Interestingly, all of those stalkers seem to have dropped off
soon after that switch.  I'm very selective about who I add to my personal
FB.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This got me curious, so I went to a few websites that link to their board
> members' social media.  From the brief survey I did, either their board
> members are hyper-focused, or they are using multiple twitter feeds and
> only linking to their "official" one.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:27 PM, 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/20170221/0b7f4739/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list