[Lnc-business] cosponsors requested to have staff manage social media
Ken Moellman
lpky at mu-net.org
Thu May 25 23:04:13 EDT 2017
I think we're basically saying the same thing. We seemingly disagree only
slightly, and perhaps (ironically) over semantics than substance.
Proper marketing takes a strategy and effort.
I hope the social media committee comes back with good findings and
recommendations.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think you need both, and I disagree that this is a "stop the bleeding"
> measure. Of course I agree that we need a comprehensive strategy. But
> suppose we had one. Would our current governance structures be capable of
> implementing it? I say no - we need to improve our governance structures.
> While there are a lot of other steps I'd like to take in that direction, I
> see this rather simple measure as a part of doing so. I don't think
> putting one of our most valuable assets in the control of staff will
> magically fix things, but I think it is a prerequisite to the other
> improvements you mention.
>
> Our messaging issues, in my opinion, are not about 2 or 3 slip-ups. If we
> frame it that way, there is no winning, because regardless of what you do,
> there will always be slip-ups. An attempt to design a system where no
> mistakes or dumb decisions are made is, in my opinion, utopian. I'm much
> more concerned about more mundane issues, such as this party speaking in a
> clear voice, being able to effectively amplify its voice over separate
> platforms, and having a coherent idea of the image we wish to present to
> the world. I don't pretend that there's any way to not miscalculate. A
> polished politician can, suddenly, bodyslam a reporter. Things happen. I
> don't want to make my battle avoiding bad things happening.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>
>> I didn't see that this motion had enough seconds for discussion, but I
>> see discussion is happening, so I'll add my $0.02.
>>
>> This motion, standing alone, does not solve the core problem. It is,
>> perhaps, something between a band-aid and a tourniquet, and I'm okay with
>> helping to stop the bleeding. But no matter how many band-aids we apply,
>> we still really need an overall marketing strategy.
>>
>> And I hope that is the finding of this social media committee. We need a
>> strategy that works and also has inherent checks-and-balances that keep us
>> from getting burned.
>>
>> I do not want to "water down" our principles or our message. Quite the
>> opposite. I am a (Big-L and Small-L) Libertarian, and I want to convince
>> more people to be as well. I want to tailor our messages to match the
>> current political landscape and lexicon. I want to invite new people in,
>> regardless of their previous or current (arguably horrible) decisions or
>> beliefs. In short, I believe that we are right, and that the reason we
>> don't have more people agreeing with us is simply the delivery; whether the
>> problem is access, pre-existing biases, or packaging. We must find a way
>> to connect with people and bring them in.
>>
>> I want our leaders to voluntarily buy-in to this; I don't want litmus
>> tests by anyone other than the delegates to decide who sits upon this
>> board. And since this ties in loosely with another topic, so I'll add that
>> in here, too. I opposed the censure of our candidates, and I believe that
>> it is consistent to oppose censure of our leadership. Unless someone does
>> something truly abhorrent, our members should be the ones to make such
>> decisions.
>>
>> I understand the anger over the three significant "mistakes" (for lack of
>> a better term at the moment):
>>
>> 1. Political dynasties are bad; yes. But being someone who lives in KY I
>> see it as being stupid and petty to attack Rand Paul instead of the other
>> 99 Senators. Let me tell you, the two guys who lost to Rand (in the R
>> primary, and then the D in the general) sure as heck weren't a "Liberty"
>> guys. For crying out loud, my other Senator is McConnell, who only because
>> he's politically brilliant did he get re-elected with a 60% disapproval
>> rating! Is Rand Paul the best libertarian in the whole wide world? No. Is
>> he better than Mitch McConnell or any of the other establishment pols in
>> KY? Oh heck yeah.
>>
>> 2. "Timing is everything", they say. I do believe that this message
>> would have went out no matter what, and I don't really "blame" anyone for
>> it. It was bad. It was really bad. But I honestly wouldn't have thought
>> of it being bad because I don't think like that. A lot of us don't think
>> like that. A marketing person should be doing our marketing because they
>> do think like that. (And that's why I'd support this measure as a
>> first-step, and hope that the committee finds this to be the case anyway).
>>
>> 3. Wording is critical. Let's take a completely different example.
>> There are feminists who run around screaming angry things, like "mothers
>> are the whores of the patriarchy". Now, is that going to endear any
>> existing mothers, or anyone who loves their mother, to join their cause?
>> Heck no. But if they say "the patriarchy tries to train you to be
>> barefoot, pregnant, and silent" that's a pretty good rallying cry for those
>> same people. The message, in both examples, is the same: women who become
>> mothers are playing into a stereotype created by a male-dominated society.
>> But one is a rally cry, and one is hateful and angry. Even if it's not
>> meant that way, it doesn't matter; perception is reality in the world of
>> politics.
>>
>> Remember, Howard Dean was destroyed politically because his voice cracked
>> while screaming "Yeah!" at a rally of supporters. The supporters at the
>> rally didn't care; they loved him. But the rest of the country made fun of
>> Dean and made him a political joke. One innocent moment destroyed his
>> entire political momentum. And it happens to us, too, as we saw
>> all-too-well in 2016.
>>
>> So please, let's try to avoid easily-avoided mistakes. Let's do a better
>> job of packaging our principles to help more people see the light. We know
>> in our hearts and in our minds that our way is the best way. We need to
>> help other people understand that, as well.
>>
>> ken
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Alicia,
>>>
>>> ==A post does not have to say "vote for me at convention" to
>>> effectively be gaining special access to a large audience to raise a
>>> personal profile.==
>>>
>>> But can you please give specifics? This apparently got missed by the
>>> APRC and I am not picking up what you are laying down... I am still
>>> baffled. Can you please give a few specifics?
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This strikes me as an "Afghanistan attacked us, so let's attack Iraq"
>>>> type of motion. This would:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Not have prevented me or anyone else from speaking bluntly on any
>>>> topic on personal social media.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Not have prevented the first or third "satanic post", which were
>>>> directly authorized by the chair.
>>>>
>>>> However, this would have the effect of:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Massively hampering major social media outlets, as Trent Somes and
>>>> Matt Geiger explained during the Pittsburgh meeting.
>>>>
>>>> As we evaluate our overall strategy, I would strongly recommend looking
>>>> at the initial strategies that later, predictably lead to bad reactions.
>>>> Specifically, the outlandish assumption that the LP should be doing
>>>> outreach primarily to the most pro-establishment, pro-status quo,
>>>> pro-government groups on the planet needs to be allowed to die. That method
>>>> makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>> I know that those are the "most likely people to vote", but they are
>>>> specifically the most likely people to vote for the ruling parties. I
>>>> strongly encourage the LNC and state parties to, in addition to outreach to
>>>> public school teachers and religious conservatives, also at least consider
>>>> outreach to the rapidly growing, unapologetically anti-establishment groups
>>>> that have already rejected establishment norms and values.
>>>>
>>>> In Liberty,
>>>>
>>>> Arvin
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just went back through the scheduling list too and see nothing in
>>>>> the past or in the future list that is promotion (or could be reasonably
>>>>> construed as promotion) of a person for internal party office. Examples
>>>>> are needed - particularly so that the APRC can be made aware.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If it comes to a vote, I will oppose for the same reasons I did in
>>>>>> Pittsburgh. What I have found so disconcerting about the discussions that
>>>>>> sometimes take place on this list is that what appears to be about one
>>>>>> thing is often about something else. It is such when a partner gets really
>>>>>> mad for the toilet seat being left up and a huge row ensues. But it isn’t
>>>>>> really about the toilet seat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I digress, since I was alluded to without being referred to, in
>>>>>> critical terms, a volunteer did leave after an interaction I was with said
>>>>>> volunteer (keeping personal details to a minimum purposefully). There no
>>>>>> intention to “drive anyone away” and a misunderstood FB discussion or even
>>>>>> a poorly done one on my part in one instance, in which tensions were
>>>>>> already really high, does not negate any of my prior points about
>>>>>> volunteers and I think everyone knows that. I don’t think all is fair in
>>>>>> love and war and I find this to be a pretty cheap shot. I doubt it is news
>>>>>> to anyone here that I am not perfect. If it is, consider yourself
>>>>>> informed. Follow me long enough, and I will provide ample evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would also add there iIS review process. The APRC who is aware of
>>>>>> the policies noted above. Now obviously there was a hole in the process
>>>>>> that allowed that other post to go through. It was a perfect storm in
>>>>>> which circumstances all converged that don’t require a nuclear option. And
>>>>>> there are less disruptive ways to fix which the Review Committee will
>>>>>> recommend I am quite confident. And they may in fact recommend this
>>>>>> course. We don’t know. This option was rejected at our last meeting in
>>>>>> favour of the committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But one thing did draw my attention, because I am genuinely curious
>>>>>> and I believe the policy quoted a good one, and if something has ran afoul
>>>>>> of that and escaped the review of the APRC - the correct route would be to
>>>>>> bring it to the APRC IMHO - that is the procedure already in place. And
>>>>>> judging from Whitney’s post, I am not the only APRC member who is
>>>>>> completely puzzled and blindsided by this assertion made first here. I
>>>>>> think examples are apropos - I am truly curious what posts seem to
>>>>>> promoting or could seem to be promoting an internal party candidate? I
>>>>>> would like to see if the APRC agrees with that assessment and would modify
>>>>>> its review accordingly and accept that this was missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Whitney Bilyeu <
>>>>>> whitneycb76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal
>>>>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
>>>>>>> convention."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you referring to things that showcase the efforts of
>>>>>>> individuals? And are you saying that such showcasing is meant as campaign
>>>>>>> fodder to promote said individual for internal office? In looking at the
>>>>>>> next 24 scheduled FB posts (scheduled over 6 days), I don't see anything
>>>>>>> that fits such a description, but I will certainly be on alert for such
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree that the APRC doesn't have the time to review everything
>>>>>>> in advance. I am on the APRC, and I do have the time. While it is not just
>>>>>>> my responsibility, I do need to be more vigilant with regard to the FB
>>>>>>> queue, but I trust that my fellow APRC members, more adept at FB, are
>>>>>>> supporting that effort. We are aware of the recent misstep, and it is being
>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I spoke against the driving out of staff or other volunteers by
>>>>>>> 'leaders' in the design group at the last LNC meeting, and I strongly
>>>>>>> oppose such actions. I am under the impression that was addressed by our
>>>>>>> Chairman. I also note that at least two if the individuals who were driven
>>>>>>> out, are back in business, and making things happen in there :).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be honest, I think this motion is unnecessary at this time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whitney Bilyeu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm asking for co-sponsors for a motion to insert a new Policy
>>>>>>>> Manual Section 2.06.5 Social Media to read as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only LNC employees and contractors shall serve as administrators
>>>>>>>> of, serve as moderators of, or post content to, the Party’s social media
>>>>>>>> accounts. Volunteer content creators may submit content for
>>>>>>>> approval.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the LNC meeting there was majority support for the motion to
>>>>>>>> both do the above and also to create a committee to review our social media
>>>>>>>> processes. I could have supported it, but if we know what we need to do to
>>>>>>>> fix the problem, why spend the time to have a committee study it first?
>>>>>>>> Just fix it. I thought there was majority support for the other motion to
>>>>>>>> simply turn control of our social media back over to staff. Turns out that
>>>>>>>> I was mistaken, and one person was not willing to turn control back over to
>>>>>>>> staff without the creation of the committee, so then the other motion
>>>>>>>> failed. Because I misread the room, an option that actually had majority
>>>>>>>> support didn't pass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that we have separately created the committee, I want to go
>>>>>>>> back and re-visit turning control back over to our staff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note that the motion welcomes volunteers to submit
>>>>>>>> material. It does not eliminate their opportunity to contribute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want to add some details to the discussion we had in Pittsburgh,
>>>>>>>> with two Facebook PR blow-ups on our minds at the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since Pittsburgh, we have had yet another PR disaster. Granted it
>>>>>>>> was not on our official FB page, but on the personal page it was posted to,
>>>>>>>> the person's party position was touted right there in the sidebar, and we
>>>>>>>> took a lot of damage from it. The Convention Oversight Committee lost two
>>>>>>>> very valuable volunteers over this latest disaster -- volunteers who did a
>>>>>>>> lot of work for us in Orlando and were again helping for New Orleans. Gone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are no group votes before volunteers post on the party's FB.
>>>>>>>> One person puts it into the schedule, and unless someone else sees it and
>>>>>>>> objects, it goes public. We publish so much material that the APRC doesn't
>>>>>>>> always have time to review everything in advance. Though the group has an
>>>>>>>> informal rule against people posting their own material, people sometimes
>>>>>>>> do it anyway. The comments about the military could easily have been
>>>>>>>> posted on our page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was a very recent incident in which a new volunteer was
>>>>>>>> driven to quit on the same day she joined for the crime of suggesting that
>>>>>>>> we post more positive material and less negative material. I don't want to
>>>>>>>> hear that the LNC giving final control to staff is somehow disrespecting
>>>>>>>> the work of the volunteers, when that new volunteer's desire to contribute
>>>>>>>> was so summarily disrespected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have some important policies that I don't believe the volunteers
>>>>>>>> have even been informed about, and volunteers are not really accountable
>>>>>>>> for following policies in the same way that our staff is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Policy Manual Section 2.09.6:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or
>>>>>>>> services for any candidate for party office unless:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - such information or services are available and announced on
>>>>>>>> an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that
>>>>>>>> office, or
>>>>>>>> - such information or services are generally available and
>>>>>>>> announced to all party member
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not all party members have access to post on our Facebook page.
>>>>>>>> Not all candidates for internal party office are offered the chance to post
>>>>>>>> on our Facebook page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think some of our Facebook posts cross the line into personal
>>>>>>>> promotion of people who intend to run for internal party office at the next
>>>>>>>> convention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was a time in the past when staff established criteria to try
>>>>>>>> to manage application of this policy, with criteria for what constituted
>>>>>>>> "news" or "earned media" that involved a candidate, etc. I don't believe
>>>>>>>> there is any such attention to his policy right now for our social media.
>>>>>>>> Some candidates have already declared. The closer we get to a national
>>>>>>>> convention, the more these posts will be perceived as self-promotion that
>>>>>>>> unfairly isn't available to their opponents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm asking for co-sponsors for this motion, to return final
>>>>>>>> decision power to our staff, who are expected to know and follow our
>>>>>>>> policies, and who are accountable to the LNC. The volunteer groups can
>>>>>>>> continue to generate material just like they do now, but staff would
>>>>>>>> schedule the actual posts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the Social Media Process Review Committee comes back to us with
>>>>>>>> suggestions for reasonable ways to manage this later, we can amend this
>>>>>>>> policy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>>>
>>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> *We defend your rights*
>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170525/abdcc026/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list