List openness policy


  For the record, I generally favor a free speech approach to email
lists except for spam, and so I support you being able to remain on
this list. Even if someone was being personally insulting, obnoxious,
etc., I personally believe 'DELETE' key and the disapproval of other
list members are better responses than censorship to objectionable
postings. While it can certainly be annoying/angering, often a waste
of time, and sometimes outright destructive, letting disputes be
hashed out, and unpleasantness be expressed for all to see, and
thereby allowing everyone a clearer insight into the views and
character of list participants, is also not without value. If list
*volume* gets out of control because of excessive posting by one
person or a few people, my preferred solution is to adopt a rule
limiting people to a certain number of posts per day.

  I run a local cannabis discussion list which recently saw some really
vicious and protracted infighting, and while I encouraged people to be
civil and polite, beyond that I did nothing to actively moderate.
Several people griped about being attacked, and there were numerous
complaints about having to read the ongoing back-and-forth, with some
folks DEMANDING that I remove others from the list. One person went so
far as to unsubscribe and start another list which would be moderated.
After the dust settled as the threads died natural deaths however, I
saw that the list actually had a couple *more* members than there had
been when the fighting started, and does not seem to have lost its
value as a community forum.

  While I can understand Rob's point that the LPSF-activist list is a
county central committee list where we may discuss strategy and such
and so we might not want non-libertarian partisans on it, even there I
tend to feel that the costs of controlling access likely outweigh the
benefits. Certainly any LP member should be welcome to be on the list
as far as I'm concerned.

  All of the above notwithstanding, I do appreciate the viewpoints of
those who have a lower tolerance for criticism or personal attacks
being aired here than I do, many of whom are among our most active
local members. On a practical basis, it would be unfortunate if people
who were locally active in our party got disgusted and left as a
result of accommodating people who are for the most part not local or
active in the LPSF, which given past comments and actions seems a
likely result if the standards favored by Rob, Marcy and others were
to be dropped. And, obviously, the standards being demanded are not
too draconian, as evidenced by the fact that you've been a list member
for quite a while now without running up against them. So I can't say
that pressing for my preferred free speech approach to be followed
here is a top priority for me. On a scale of how objectionable I find
various things, watering down the LP platform might be a 9 or a 10,
the state Executive Committee running a secret email list open only to
committee members and restricting LPC members who don't sit on the
committee from participating (not voting, just sitting at the table,
being able to speak without special permission, etc.) during meetings
might be around a 4-6, and this issue might be around a 1 or 2.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))