[Vision2020] Whither Vision 2020?

Tue Jun 7 10:08:10 PDT 2005

My earlier post included guidelines -- not rules -- that have evolved over the last decade to attempt to create a civil discourse on V2020.
The great strength of V2020 is that there are no rules, no moderating, no Big Brother.
Of course, that is V2020's great weakness as well.
I still enjoy following the dialogue, and have found that the personalized and petty postings are easy to spot and even easier to delete.
BL
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Art Deco 
  To: Vision 2020 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:37 AM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Whither Vision 2020?

  All,

  Mark Seman, Bill London, Burt Sid, et al, have recently posted notes calling notice to the original rules and intentions of Vision 2020 and presenting data showing some of us are not adhering to the original rules.

  Like many other organizations, Vision 2020 has evolved into something not envisioned by its founders.

  In my opinion, freedom of expression is one of the most, if not the most precious freedom we have in this country.  But when you open a forum where freedom of expression is to be practiced, you can expect almost anything to happen, as it has with Vision 2020.

  Pardon me if I state a few obvious things:

  1.    Not everyone is interested in every topic, photo, cartoon, news item, etc that is posted by a long shot.

  2.    Many topics, photos, cartoons, news items, etc are not specifically about local issues.

  3.    Some posts are rancorous, nasty, etc.

  4.    Some people post a lot more than others.

  5.    Some members do not post at all for a variety of reasons.

  V 2020 has become in part a forum for informing its members about news items/reports that may affect their perspectives, and may change their actions on local, national, and global issues.  I know from private emails and conversations that some users appreciate this kind of information.  Not everyone has time to keep up with the many events/issues that affect their lives.  But some people also feel that the posting of non-local news items is a waste of their time and bandwidth.

  Some postings are very rancorous and nasty.  Some of these nasty posts contain useful information.  Some nasty posts are quite creative.  Some V 2020ers also find these nasty entertaining/interesting in a number of ways.  

  Do these nasty posts discourage some from participating in debate?  Perhaps.  But those who are afraid to offer their opinions because they fear the responses they may get are perhaps a little too timid about those opinions.  Some politicians/public figures are also afraid to expose their thinking to their constituents or the public for a number of reasons.  Some people do not like to be shown they are in error.  But all of us make errors.  All of us have limited knowledge. If we were to not do anything where there was a risk of error, nothing would get done.

  It does not bother me if some people post more than others.  From a practical rhetorical point of view, a number of shorter posts are more effective and more likely to be read by a greater number of people than one long post.  It doesn't bother me that snippets of our discussions are posted elsewhere.  That is the nature of public debate.  [It is interesting that some of these external postings are made out of context, leave out crucial statements central to understanding them, or changed to say something different from the original post -- that is a reflection on the cowardice and integrity of the reposters, not the original posters.]

  If anyone reading this far has ever watched the British Parliament debate issues, they know that the rancor of V 2020 threads is several quantum levels politer than the British Parliamentary debates.  You want rancorous debates?  Listen to some of the Nixon tapes!  There are thousands of forums on the internet.  Vision 2020 is not different from many in terms of rancor, topics, and lop-sided participation.

  In my opinion, restricting debate/comment/etc, except for trying to limit libelous material, kills ideas, spontaneity, interest, and makes much debate impotent and uninteresting.

  So the question is:  Whither Vision 2020?

  Should the rules be enforced as originally written or should they be either changed or continued to be ignored and let V 2020 flow naturally along?

  If the rules are to be enforced as currently written:

      1.    Who will enforce them?
      2.    Perhaps it is time to start a new forum, where free-flowing debate/comment, unlimited by topic, tone, timidity, prudishness, or number of posts is allowed and encouraged  (As I believe was the intention of the founding fathers/mothers of our country with respect to debating public issues.)

  If the rules are to be changed, how can this be accomplished so that the majority of V 2020ers can live with the new rules, and the new rules still encourage a frank, unlame exchange of ideas, comments, etc?

  Or will the threads on this topic simply die as they have several times in the past?

  Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
  deco at moscow.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050607/851f32b8/attachment.htm