[Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested

Tue Apr 18 10:02:53 EDT 2017

Starchild,

My apologies for taking so long to reply. I didn't expect that yesterday
would be so full for me.

Why wouldn't adding additional review eyes by adding members to the
Advertising & Publications Review Committee help ensure that problematic
stuff is flagged before being posted?
As I noted previously, I believe the issue in this instance lies with the
members of the APRC preparing and traveling to the LNC meeting. As the
committee is made up of LNC members, I don't think that adding members to
the committee would have alleviated the problem we faced with the timing of
the post as it coincided with our meeting. I think we have done a good job
keeping up with the volume of content that we encounter between Facebook,
press releases, mailings, web pages, e-mail announcements, etc. up to this
point in our term. I hope that I'm not alone in reading the reports of our
regions and committees prior to the meeting. The volume of this material is
rather large and can occupy a significant amount of time. My travel time to
the meeting was a 6 hour drive from Indianapolis completed after an
abbreviated workday on Thursday, the day the meme was posted. I'm sure that
other members of the committee had similar time constraints. That, coupled
with the low incidence of our intervention in the Facebook postings, likely
made reviewing those posts a lower priority than other more urgent or
important matters. Would 2, 4, or 6 more LNC members also facing
preparation and travel time constraints have caught this and brought it to
the attention of the committee considering what I believe to be the failure
of the APRC in this instance? I can't say. I can say that we've been far
busier on the committee in the past without having any issues with the 5 of
us. I'd like to think this is a single instance of a "perfect storm" of
coinciding factors, based on how well the APRC operates. I don't keep track
of the number of Facebook posts that we review, but I can tell you that the
committee has approved 358 blog posts, press releases, member contact,
website updates, Liberty Pledges, LP News, and other material just since
August 9th (shortly after I was elected to chair the committee and
established the process by which we would operate). Utilizing some
mathematic extrapolation to assume at least 8 posts per day on Facebook,
that would mean that we've reviewed at least 2000 Facebook posts in the
roughly 250 days encompassed in that period. Would more people have reduced
a ~1/2500 fail rate? I don't know.

To what "punishment" are you referring?
I refer to assigning someone to review Facebook posts as a punishment,
because as a task to manage to do so, you have to consider the volume,
timing, and management of those involved. I wouldn't want the direct
responsibility solely myself, and I would view it as punishment, if it were
given solely to me.

Why should the focus be solely on Facebook?
As I noted, that would be the first focus, as it is our largest outlet for
social media interaction/outreach. It's moot at this point, because the
committee we chose isn't tasked with just that outlet. My message hit
inboxes shortly before we heard a proposal and voted to create a committee.
In this instance, I would have suggested that we focus there first and use
what we learn to expand those ideas to other outlets.

And why replace the existing volunteer admins and moderators there?
That was my suggestion to include our internal "experts" in those areas.
People who are terrific in their Facebook engagement may not have the same
expertise with Twitter, Snapchat, or Instagram. I don't consider myself an
expert in any particular social media outlet, yet proficient in all of the
outlets we use, except YouTube and Google+. The replacement of those
admins/moderators in their service on the committee would allow us to view
differing areas of expertise upon the completion of their recommendations
for a particular social media outlet. We would have a core group that
carried over with rotating members of varying expertise as we include their
vision for the outlet for which they operate. This is also moot, however I
have been discussing these types of ideas with other members of the
newly-formed committee, and I think that our structure and ideas will allow
us to include more voices in the discussion than strictly limit it to the 5
members we authorized at the meeting.

I hope this answers your questions, and I apologize again for the length of
time it took me to reply.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative
Libertarian National Committee <http://lp.org/>

brett.bittner at lp.org
317.537.8344

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> Brett,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, but I'm confused or would like clarification on
> a few points. Why wouldn't adding additional review eyes by adding members
> to the Advertising & Publications Review Committee help ensure that
> problematic stuff is flagged before being posted? To what "punishment" are
> you referring? Why should the focus be solely on Facebook? And why replace
> the existing volunteer admins and moderators there?
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                               ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                           (415) 625-FREE
>                             @StarchildSF
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Bittner
> Sent: Apr 16, 2017 12:30 PM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
>
> Whitney,
>
> As I've noted previously, it's my belief that the APRC let this slip
> through during our preparation and travel for the meeting. I know that I
> did not have an opportunity to review the scheduled Facebook posts for
> Wednesday or Thursday during my preparation or travel, in addition to my
> daily routine.
>
> I think the interest we now have in the process for this asset is a step
> in the right direction. When I joined the APRC, I had concerns,
> specifically about the nature of our Facebook procedures, that have now
> come to light. As Chair of the APRC, I do not think that adding members to
> the committee with the current procedure in place is the correct tack. I
> believe that Steven Neikahla's proposal (that did not pass) was a step in
> the right direction, however my concern lies with the "punishment" of the
> appointment bestowed upon me for the proposal to operate.
>
> I believe the proper step would be to form a committee, consisting of
> existing (non-LNC) Facebook admins & editors, members of the APRC, and
> other members of the LNC to offer an updated procedure recommendation. That
> committee should offer those suggestions at our upcoming LNC session in
> Kansas City. In the interim, I intend to pay MUCH closer attention to the
> Facebook posts myself and encourage the other members of the APRC to do the
> same. During our upcoming discussion regarding the vacancy appointment, I
> intend to suggest something to assist the committee in that regard.
>
> This committee's focus should be Facebook-specific in the immediate term.
> I would suggest replacing the existing (non-LNC) Facebook admins and
> editors with those who focus on other aspects of our social media outreach
> upon completion of the Facebook recommendation.
>
> Thoughts?  <-- I thought it important to utilize Mr. Demarest's standard
> closing with this particular topic.
>
> Brett C. Bittner
>
> Region 3 Representative
> Libertarian National Committee <http://lp.org/>
>
> brett.bittner at lp.org
> 317.537.8344 <(317)%20537-8344>
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If volunteers are overstepping their bounds, that needs to be reigned in,
>> and I would like to see the Chairman deal with that.
>>
>> The material that is being put out gets mixed reviews...that is not my
>> issue. I would like assurances from the APRC that they can handle the FB
>> volume in a timely manner, which based on my conversations with some of
>> those members, is possible, but difficult. Would adding APRC members, whose
>> sole responsibility would be to review FB content, be appropriate?
>>
>> I don't want to create a situation that will stifle the productivity or
>> creativity of the page's volunteers at all. However, some established
>> frontend guidelines/non-negotiables are in order to avoid future missteps.
>>
>>
>> Whitney
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that if we're going to run religious-themed memes, that they
>>> should always include multiple faiths. That way we can never have content
>>> that is singled out and used out of context.  Part of the issue in modern
>>> politics is the out-of-context clip.  Messaging must be crafted in a way
>>> that prevents being clipped out of context.
>>>
>>> Does anyone care that the Satanic Temple is basically a parody
>>> organization?  No.  They see "Satanic".
>>>
>>> So crafting messages is actually a skill.  That's the point.  And
>>> messaging is extremely important to at least corral, if not control, from
>>> an organizational standpoint.  I'm pretty sure other people know that.  I'm
>>> pretty sure that's why we have the APRC.  I am not saying I'm any good at
>>> messaging myself, but I know it is critically important.
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I'm now receiving messages from current and former FB
>>> volunteers who are saying there are fundamental problems with the way
>>> things are structured. That there is one particular person who is
>>> inflicting his vision upon the FB crew.  They have asked to not be publicly
>>> identified because they know this person and their allies will also start
>>> attacking in response.  This exposes a fundamental problem with the way
>>> things are set up currently.  And as it stands, the status quo will
>>> continue with no corrective action.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's extremely frustrating to someone like me, who tries to focus on the
>>> technicals.  I don't want to get involved in platform fights, for instance.
>>> But I can help build websites and email servers, and I can put us on the
>>> ballot. But if others are doing things which push people away and hurt the
>>> party, then all of my work is for naught.
>>>
>>> ken
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Patrick McKnight <
>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arvin,
>>>>
>>>> I respectfully dissent from the premise of your message. The issue is
>>>> not this one post. The issue is the structural process and lack of
>>>> transparency.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All -
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to request LNC oversight on the Satanic Temple posting as
>>>>> part of the #FreeToBelieve series. I don't want to see our volunteers raked
>>>>> over the coals for issues related to the LNC or APRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a Satanic Temple Posting:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Fine on any day of the year
>>>>> 2. Never ok
>>>>> 3. Generally ok, but not during a religious holiday of a conflicting
>>>>> religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If future posts go up, I'd like it to be very clear on what the LNC
>>>>> views are, so that volunteers are not blamed for our decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> My view: I don't think that this is a battle worth picking. You can
>>>>> already be as Satanic as you want in America, so we're not gaining
>>>>> anything. I'd much rather focus on repealing laws and taxes that exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I have no opposition to the Satanic Temple. As part of an
>>>>> overall study of religion, I have read sections of various "Satanic" books,
>>>>> and written in non-political areas on mythology parallels between
>>>>> Prometheus in Greek Mythology and Lucifer in the Judaeo-Christian
>>>>> tradition. Realistically, I'll probably look into the religious legal
>>>>> protections they have, based on the comments by the chair, to see how
>>>>> others can do the same. I'd love to see an America in which every single
>>>>> house and apartment building is legally seen as a religious location that
>>>>> pays no property taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Arvin
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>>>
>>>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>>>> (301) 320-3634
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170418/82142204/attachment-0002.html>