|
|
Post by admin on Jan 29, 2010 6:31:22 GMT -5
I have to put on my admin hat and really want to see some feedback here for site participants. Here is the question:
What can I do as an admin to make this site more friendly to elected officials in our town so that their participation is easier?
Let me back up a little bit here and recap some history on this site. Since the sites beginning, we have always had many elected officials reading this site. Beyond that, we have had several participate here as well. Former councilman Marc Le Vine and former BOE member Andrew De Fonzo are two who really participated frequently and for the most part, both did very well. Besides them, Jaye Sims and Sharon Shutzer each posted as unregistered guests. Though never elected, candidates Ted Miller and Joe Liguori also have posted here. On a couple of occasions, the Mayor sent letters to the site via Marc Le Vine. More recently we have had Councilman John Newman and BOE member Dan Xavier both post, though Dan did not do so as a BOE member. George Schnurr was a participant before he was a councilman but for reasons I respect, chose to not participate once he was appointed to council.
SO the history is there that some elected officials are open minded to coming here. That brings us to the next point- it is not easy for them to do so on an open site that is primarily dedicated to giving the residents a voice. I have always made clear that the door is open to all the governing body. That invitation still stands.
Early on I did create a user designation for elected leaders. I gave it to both Marc and Andrew. That designation gave both of them some light moderating abilities. For reasons I do not recall off the top of my head, both of them asked for the designation to be removed, so I did.
Here are some more basic thoughts and questions on the subject.
Should we change the basic site rules changes in rules?
Major changes on the site overall?
Can an elected official be comfortable in this setting without censoring the opinions of people who do follow the site rules?
How about setting up a board that only elected leaders could post on?
How about drafting a list of suggestions for elected leaders as to how they should conduct themselves and not cross lines? ( we did have one get in hot water and don't want a repeat of that!) Any ideas on what those self imposed rules of conduct could be?
What say you readers? Elected officials who may have an interest in participating should also chime in here.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Jan 29, 2010 9:32:07 GMT -5
Brian, this is a really nice thought you have. From my perspective, you could bend over backwards holding gold nuggets aloft on a silver platter and that won't work. Here's why I think this is the case.
Elected officials as well as folks who have influence in the public, such as other civic, community and business leaders all have to be hyperaware of anything they say or write offhand that may be purposefully misconstrued and twisted to serve the purpose of someone who opposes them. Posts on blogs live on forever, and even an "innocent" sentence can be culled, taken out of context, twisted and spotlighted.
I am certainly not speaking for anyone, this is just my thoughts. I do not recall seeing, anywhere, any other town elected leaders posting away on subjects.
If you keep being vigilant against nutjob participants, keep the rules enforced, and provide an open, even playing field, this helps everyone who enjoys reading the site regularly.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 29, 2010 19:39:29 GMT -5
Lisa, you bring up good points and show where the challenges lay. This, too, is another topic I will get back into next week starting with some of your good thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 29, 2010 21:12:55 GMT -5
I have to put on my admin hat and really want to see some feedback here for site participants. Here is the question: What can I do as an admin to make this site more friendly to elected officials in our town so that their participation is easier? Let me back up a little bit here and recap some history on this site. Since the sites beginning, we have always had many elected officials reading this site. Beyond that, we have had several participate here as well. Former councilman Marc Le Vine and former BOE member Andrew De Fonzo are two who really participated frequently and for the most part, both did very well. Besides them, Jaye Sims and Sharon Shutzer each posted as unregistered guests. Though never elected, candidates Ted Miller and Joe Liguori also have posted here. On a couple of occasions, the Mayor sent letters to the site via Marc Le Vine. More recently we have had Councilman John Newman and BOE member Dan Xavier both post, though Dan did not do so as a BOE member. George Schnurr was a participant before he was a councilman but for reasons I respect, chose to not participate once he was appointed to council. SO the history is there that some elected officials are open minded to coming here. That brings us to the next point- it is not easy for them to do so on an open site that is primarily dedicated to giving the residents a voice. I have always made clear that the door is open to all the governing body. That invitation still stands. Early on I did create a user designation for elected leaders. I gave it to both Marc and Andrew. That designation gave both of them some light moderating abilities. For reasons I do not recall off the top of my head, both of them asked for the designation to be removed, so I did. Here are some more basic thoughts and questions on the subject. Should we change the basic site rules changes in rules? Major changes on the site overall? Can an elected official be comfortable in this setting without censoring the opinions of people who do follow the site rules? How about setting up a board that only elected leaders could post on? How about drafting a list of suggestions for elected leaders as to how they should conduct themselves and not cross lines? ( we did have one get in hot water and don't want a repeat of that!) Any ideas on what those self imposed rules of conduct could be? What say you readers? Elected officials who may have an interest in participating should also chime in here. Brian -- I think the only thing you can do to get input on this site from most elected officials in this town is to die in a fiery car accident, taking me with you. LOL Seriously -- most elected officials don't want to be a part of open sites for legitimate reasons. Containing crazy people is one concern. Look at the issues we have had here with some crazy people. Others become so angry, bitter, agenda driven and self-loathing that they live only to destroy people rather than create discourse. Politicians want to control the message -- they can't do that here. It takes a special type of leader to step up in this type of circumstance -- and there are not many. Those who do, in my opinion, still need to be careful about picking how they participate on any site. Let's face it, the failure to control this site, it's content, and its participants is why some former participants who have or are serving don't participate. The other problem is obvious -- the written word is lifted, taken out of context, and used as a sword. We have people on this site that do that regularly. We had people on this site who still do that every day -- only on different sites now. The flip side of the coin is this -- these people do "participate." They read the site daily. They react to it. They set policy based on it. They work against it, they send minions out to discredit it, and in so doing, they give it the very credit they claim it does not deserve. We remain the only site where responsible citizens can find great info about Freehold, post stories, and have serious, frank, intelligent discussion on issues in town. It is those discussions, that small portion of the site that drives opponents crazy because they can't control it. The truth is -- every opinion is welcome here under our guidelines. It is the manner in which they are expressed and the credibility in which allegations are made that we police. Some people don't like that because debating with intelligence is something many people can't do. You know -- the average American is average. And, 50% of Americans are below average. Yet -- no one thinks they are average or below average. The reality is, substantive debate on complex issues is hard. It is hard in politics, and even harder on politicians who must reach most voters in 30 second, lowest-common denominator sound bites. In my opinion -- you cannot change the rules to satisfy elected officials. Even if we created a board on which they could post messages -- they would likely not participate for 2 reasons. First, whatever they post would then be used in a public board under a new thread and changed or distorted. Second, and this is particular to this site, some council members wouldn't post here under the most favorable of rules because to do so would legitimize the site -- and therefore legitimize the dissent. It's lose/lose for them. (At least -- that is the analysis they would get from virtually every political adviser or legal counsel.) As elected officials, they have so many other means at there collective disposal to channel a message to a broader audience. They can control that message, and be imbued with the credibility of office or the credibility of the particular media used. Here, they have to be just one of us -- subject to the slings and arrows of blogging and dissent. If you are in control, you have no reason to participate where you have no control. That is why most who participate are those looking to get in, or looking to get control. I always gave Marc credit -- he stayed on this site for a long time over the objections of the machine and counsel. Ultimately, he stepped all over himself on this site. Then, as we know, he began to lose the popular control he had as a start-up -- and once he could no longer guide or control the site and message, he was gone. When he left, we became a bigger target -- because his departure had to be explained as our failure. The system of fair, frank, open, honest, civil, political discourse is hard -- which is why machine politics, sound bite politics, and safety politics long ago took the place of the Lincoln-Douglass debates. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 30, 2010 12:38:55 GMT -5
I have to put on my admin hat and really want to see some feedback here for site participants. Here is the question: What can I do as an admin to make this site more friendly to elected officials in our town so that their participation is easier? Let me back up a little bit here and recap some history on this site. Since the sites beginning, we have always had many elected officials reading this site. Beyond that, we have had several participate here as well. Former councilman Marc Le Vine and former BOE member Andrew De Fonzo are two who really participated frequently and for the most part, both did very well. Besides them, Jaye Sims and Sharon Shutzer each posted as unregistered guests. Though never elected, candidates Ted Miller and Joe Liguori also have posted here. On a couple of occasions, the Mayor sent letters to the site via Marc Le Vine. More recently we have had Councilman John Newman and BOE member Dan Xavier both post, though Dan did not do so as a BOE member. George Schnurr was a participant before he was a councilman but for reasons I respect, chose to not participate once he was appointed to council. SO the history is there that some elected officials are open minded to coming here. That brings us to the next point- it is not easy for them to do so on an open site that is primarily dedicated to giving the residents a voice. I have always made clear that the door is open to all the governing body. That invitation still stands. Early on I did create a user designation for elected leaders. I gave it to both Marc and Andrew. That designation gave both of them some light moderating abilities. For reasons I do not recall off the top of my head, both of them asked for the designation to be removed, so I did. Here are some more basic thoughts and questions on the subject. Should we change the basic site rules changes in rules? Major changes on the site overall? Can an elected official be comfortable in this setting without censoring the opinions of people who do follow the site rules? How about setting up a board that only elected leaders could post on? How about drafting a list of suggestions for elected leaders as to how they should conduct themselves and not cross lines? ( we did have one get in hot water and don't want a repeat of that!) Any ideas on what those self imposed rules of conduct could be? What say you readers? Elected officials who may have an interest in participating should also chime in here. Brian -- I think the only thing you can do to get input on this site from most elected officials in this town is to die in a fiery car accident, taking me with you. LOL Seriously -- most elected officials don't want to be a part of open sites for legitimate reasons. Containing crazy people is one concern. Look at the issues we have had here with some crazy people. Others become so angry, bitter, agenda driven and self-loathing that they live only to destroy people rather than create discourse. Politicians want to control the message -- they can't do that here. It takes a special type of leader to step up in this type of circumstance -- and there are not many. Those who do, in my opinion, still need to be careful about picking how they participate on any site. Let's face it, the failure to control this site, it's content, and its participants is why some former participants who have or are serving don't participate. The other problem is obvious -- the written word is lifted, taken out of context, and used as a sword. We have people on this site that do that regularly. We had people on this site who still do that every day -- only on different sites now. The flip side of the coin is this -- these people do "participate." They read the site daily. They react to it. They set policy based on it. They work against it, they send minions out to discredit it, and in so doing, they give it the very credit they claim it does not deserve. We remain the only site where responsible citizens can find great info about Freehold, post stories, and have serious, frank, intelligent discussion on issues in town. It is those discussions, that small portion of the site that drives opponents crazy because they can't control it. The truth is -- every opinion is welcome here under our guidelines. It is the manner in which they are expressed and the credibility in which allegations are made that we police. Some people don't like that because debating with intelligence is something many people can't do. You know -- the average American is average. And, 50% of Americans are below average. Yet -- no one thinks they are average or below average. The reality is, substantive debate on complex issues is hard. It is hard in politics, and even harder on politicians who must reach most voters in 30 second, lowest-common denominator sound bites. In my opinion -- you cannot change the rules to satisfy elected officials. Even if we created a board on which they could post messages -- they would likely not participate for 2 reasons. First, whatever they post would then be used in a public board under a new thread and changed or distorted. Second, and this is particular to this site, some council members wouldn't post here under the most favorable of rules because to do so would legitimize the site -- and therefore legitimize the dissent. It's lose/lose for them. (At least -- that is the analysis they would get from virtually every political adviser or legal counsel.) As elected officials, they have so many other means at there collective disposal to channel a message to a broader audience. They can control that message, and be imbued with the credibility of office or the credibility of the particular media used. Here, they have to be just one of us -- subject to the slings and arrows of blogging and dissent. If you are in control, you have no reason to participate where you have no control. That is why most who participate are those looking to get in, or looking to get control. I always gave Marc credit -- he stayed on this site for a long time over the objections of the machine and counsel. Ultimately, he stepped all over himself on this site. Then, as we know, he began to lose the popular control he had as a start-up -- and once he could no longer guide or control the site and message, he was gone. When he left, we became a bigger target -- because his departure had to be explained as our failure. The system of fair, frank, open, honest, civil, political discourse is hard -- which is why machine politics, sound bite politics, and safety politics long ago took the place of the Lincoln-Douglass debates. Rich with all do respect I find that post very egotistical! First of, the majority of involved Freehold residents I have spoken to don't even know about this site. Secondly, alot of people feel, whether its wrong or right, this site has an agenda. People, myself included, feel SOMETIMES, certain people get away with things others cant. Sometimes is seems post are orchestrated, alot of questions to Admin, who writes a lot of the information, go unanswered. maybe 50% of America is average or below average! freehold people can smell....a mile away. I like this site but if we want to be real, APP.com is still a fair reporting site too. Also, there are many new outlets out there such as facebook or individual organizations sites to deliver news. maybe politicians would speak more if there was personal accountability here, such as using your real name not a car name or spice or whatever! If my name was miller lite, some people may think I'm Ted, some may think I'm a drunk, so many conclusions can be drawn and that leaves doubt which kills sites credibility |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 30, 2010 18:52:37 GMT -5
Brian -- I think the only thing you can do to get input on this site from most elected officials in this town is to die in a fiery car accident, taking me with you. LOL Seriously -- most elected officials don't want to be a part of open sites for legitimate reasons. Containing crazy people is one concern. Look at the issues we have had here with some crazy people. Others become so angry, bitter, agenda driven and self-loathing that they live only to destroy people rather than create discourse. Politicians want to control the message -- they can't do that here. It takes a special type of leader to step up in this type of circumstance -- and there are not many. Those who do, in my opinion, still need to be careful about picking how they participate on any site. Let's face it, the failure to control this site, it's content, and its participants is why some former participants who have or are serving don't participate. The other problem is obvious -- the written word is lifted, taken out of context, and used as a sword. We have people on this site that do that regularly. We had people on this site who still do that every day -- only on different sites now. The flip side of the coin is this -- these people do "participate." They read the site daily. They react to it. They set policy based on it. They work against it, they send minions out to discredit it, and in so doing, they give it the very credit they claim it does not deserve. We remain the only site where responsible citizens can find great info about Freehold, post stories, and have serious, frank, intelligent discussion on issues in town. It is those discussions, that small portion of the site that drives opponents crazy because they can't control it. The truth is -- every opinion is welcome here under our guidelines. It is the manner in which they are expressed and the credibility in which allegations are made that we police. Some people don't like that because debating with intelligence is something many people can't do. You know -- the average American is average. And, 50% of Americans are below average. Yet -- no one thinks they are average or below average. The reality is, substantive debate on complex issues is hard. It is hard in politics, and even harder on politicians who must reach most voters in 30 second, lowest-common denominator sound bites. In my opinion -- you cannot change the rules to satisfy elected officials. Even if we created a board on which they could post messages -- they would likely not participate for 2 reasons. First, whatever they post would then be used in a public board under a new thread and changed or distorted. Second, and this is particular to this site, some council members wouldn't post here under the most favorable of rules because to do so would legitimize the site -- and therefore legitimize the dissent. It's lose/lose for them. (At least -- that is the analysis they would get from virtually every political adviser or legal counsel.) As elected officials, they have so many other means at there collective disposal to channel a message to a broader audience. They can control that message, and be imbued with the credibility of office or the credibility of the particular media used. Here, they have to be just one of us -- subject to the slings and arrows of blogging and dissent. If you are in control, you have no reason to participate where you have no control. That is why most who participate are those looking to get in, or looking to get control. I always gave Marc credit -- he stayed on this site for a long time over the objections of the machine and counsel. Ultimately, he stepped all over himself on this site. Then, as we know, he began to lose the popular control he had as a start-up -- and once he could no longer guide or control the site and message, he was gone. When he left, we became a bigger target -- because his departure had to be explained as our failure. The system of fair, frank, open, honest, civil, political discourse is hard -- which is why machine politics, sound bite politics, and safety politics long ago took the place of the Lincoln-Douglass debates. Rich with all do respect I find that post very egotistical! First of, the majority of involved Freehold residents I have spoken to don't even know about this site. Secondly, alot of people feel, whether its wrong or right, this site has an agenda. People, myself included, feel SOMETIMES, certain people get away with things others cant. Sometimes is seems post are orchestrated, alot of questions to Admin, who writes a lot of the information, go unanswered. maybe 50% of America is average or below average! freehold people can smell....a mile away. I like this site but if we want to be real, APP.com is still a fair reporting site too. Also, there are many new outlets out there such as facebook or individual organizations sites to deliver news. maybe politicians would speak more if there was personal accountability here, such as using your real name not a car name or spice or whatever! If my name was miller lite, some people may think I'm Ted, some may think I'm a drunk, so many conclusions can be drawn and that leaves doubt which kills sites credibility I don't see anything egotistical in the post, but I could be wrong. (Many folks will tell you I often am wrong) As for the suggestion that people Post under their real names -- I have done that since day one. I may be the only poster here ever to do that solely under my own name. (Maybe Marc too though) The problem is, most people who want to bring complaints don't want to do so under their real name. It has a chilling effect -- whether I like it or not. Most people don't want to be targeted for attack, made fun of, misrepresented, or ostracized. That is why they choose screen names. What our site tries to do, is find the middle ground. We will let you post under a screen name -- once we have some verifying info from you -- then we rely on guidelines to try to keep screen names from being veils behind which people can hide when they want to slander and attack. I don't think we can make people use their real names. However, I strongly encourage it. Also -- I think this is critical. We repackage news posted by our posters -- but we are not a news delivery site. Also, unlike facebook or APP, we allow and encourage debate, including starting topics of the choice of posters. In fact, if we didn't do that, the site would be just like all the others. I know that you think we apply rules differently here for different people -- I think I have spoken to those issues. We sure try not to do that. Moderating is not perfect on any site -- and those who are the sharpest critics usually have never been burdened with the responsibility. Look at the new Freehold "group" on FB. i like it. It is called Freehold Live. Seems very nice -- and you can see hundred of people joining. The one rule they have is that "No negative Posting is allowed." Sure enough -- last night we saw two flagrantly negative, misleading, irresponsible posts posted by someone who couldn't follow the one simple rule that 473 people followed. Not surprisingly, it was a person banned not once, but twice from this site. Did Freehold Live ban the posts. No. Maybe they sent a message to the poster. Maybe they are hoping the poster goes away. I understand they issued a warning. Sooner or later, I suspect, they will be faced with the tough issue we have here -- either ban the poster or the posts or both. Picking the right method for each offense and each poster is not as easy as critics like to think -- that is my only point. More later -- I am late for my movie. The real question remains -- do you think their is anything this site can do to get elected officials to post here. I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 30, 2010 22:04:26 GMT -5
Mike:
No offense to you -- but that poster gets no voice here -- even re-posted. That was only one of two posts. We know about whom he was speaking.
The Freehold Live site only has one rule, and no matter who the poster was speaking about -- he violated it.
I haven't looked to see if the other more offensive post was deleted -- but that is Freehold Live's call -- not mine.
I was merely pointing out that how sites are moderated is not an easy task.
One thing on which we agree here -- as moderators -- is that banned members -- twice banned members -- don't get a voice on this site. That's one of our easier calls.
Getting back on topic -- I am intrigued by Brian's question. When I addressed it, I truly meant not just this site -- but any open site. I think elected officials will have a very hard time going into sites they cannot control, particularly since the upside is so little and the downside is so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 31, 2010 9:14:29 GMT -5
Rich I do apologize if posting that wasn't right, my point was that he didnt mention names and was critical with opinions, similiar to post that are here, my own included. I dont mean this in a rude or confrontational way but can you see how people may wonder about this site. That post is bad but making a Mike Vs Ted isnt, or accusations from the admin here about past council members. If you ask me, you want elected officals to come here, let the reporters who were college educated in journalism report on council meetings not admins, let reporters report on the Marcy st block party, not opinions, this site is opinions sprinkled with alittle fact(on local political matters, admin does great reporting on events locally). Im not putting this site down Rich, just asnwering the question of how to get elected people to comment here, fair non-partisan reporting would seem to be the answer to that. You and Brian try to be far but Rich I can produce atleast 10 comments from Brian in the last two weeks which were pro-gop and indictating negativity against our current democrat governing body. Thats isnt right! The Freehold democrats need to be givin credit because they havent treated Newman bad at all and they have been made to look like they have and thats not fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 31, 2010 19:18:57 GMT -5
Rich I do apologize if posting that wasn't right, my point was that he didnt mention names and was critical with opinions, similiar to post that are here, my own included. I dont mean this in a rude or confrontational way but can you see how people may wonder about this site. That post is bad but making a Mike Vs Ted isnt, or accusations from the admin here about past council members. If you ask me, you want elected officals to come here, let the reporters who were college educated in journalism report on council meetings not admins, let reporters report on the Marcy st block party, not opinions, this site is opinions sprinkled with alittle fact(on local political matters, admin does great reporting on events locally). Im not putting this site down Rich, just asnwering the question of how to get elected people to comment here, fair non-partisan reporting would seem to be the answer to that. You and Brian try to be far but Rich I can produce atleast 10 comments from Brian in the last two weeks which were pro-gop and indictating negativity against our current democrat governing body. Thats isnt right! The Freehold democrats need to be givin credit because they havent treated Newman bad at all and they have been made to look like they have and thats not fair. See -- interestingly -- I disagree with you and Brian. I don't think they would post here under any circumstances. (Even if we were universally considered arbiters of good will, taste and bipartisanship) Posting - that is -- engaging in conversation on sites is pure mine-field and very little advantage for them. (Not just Freehold pols -- but all pols.) If I had a candidate to advise, I would advise them never to post on such sites, unless they control the site. Even then, I would advise against it. I always liked Marc's willingness to step out of that and post on this site. Some politicians now have blogs -- but that is media control by them. I don't see them stepping into third party sites and engaging in substantive debate. Though to be sure -- they would be welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Jan 31, 2010 19:35:12 GMT -5
Rich, your probaly right, but someone like newman, who is open to internet access may be the kind of canidate to get the ball rolling!
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Jan 31, 2010 19:55:34 GMT -5
Rich, your probaly right, but someone like newman, who is open to internet access may be the kind of canidate to get the ball rolling! Mike, You are thinking like me, that is just where I am going with this thread. I will be back later in the week to discuss this further. I am going over to your other post in the complaint box to discuss some of your other questions and concerns. ( want to stay on topic) Going off topic for one second. This is in response to a couple of Rich's comments. Because we like accurate info and it is rare that Rich gets corrected, I have to point out a couple of things. Very much to their credit, Rich and Marc did/do post under their names. But, there are several others. Three DeFonzo's Mike Rosseel, and if anyone takes the time to look at the membership list, there are more. We also have many people who use screen names and we know who they are because they do not hide. Again staying off topic and referring to site moderation, "Freehold In New Jersey"stated that people post under their real names as a requirement for participation, yet, there are still screen names being used. It is not easy to truly enforce on an open site. Also, in reference to the angry little man (whose name we do not mention) who was banned, he was banned three times, not twice. It is funny seeing him taking shots at this site, I didn't know he cared. He loves us, he really does. That former participant is a really good look at what moderating on this site is all about. Rich Lisa and I all have distinct styles of our own. What holds us all together is two basic things. None of us are quick with the delete button. We want people here and are more interested in conflict resolution, encouraging healthy discussion, and welcoming people. We all take a hands on approach in working with people to ensure their voices are heard while protecting site integrity. This is what makes us better and unique. On other site people will see one of two things. First, no moderator where everything and anything goes. Those sites are real trash. Second, some sites have mods that are too heavy handed with the delete button. That chases people away, we don't do that. We recognize the value that each unique individual brings and would rather not lose anyone, especially those who bring a different flavor to the table. When we banned that preson for the final time, it was a loss and shame. There does come a point when there is no choice. |
|
