[Winona Online Democracy] If this is a forum limitations are not democratic. In a free market everyone gets a chance to say what they want and write as long a dissertation as they want. Even without limits those who write long dissertations are seldom listened to by the masses. Therefore limit themselves. The same would be true of those who write often if they have something to say people will read it if not it will be ignored.
THIS NEEDS TO BE A FREE FORUM WHY SHOULD WE CONTROL THIS DIALOG AND LIMIT ITS EFFECTIVENESS. Tom Severson -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:08 AM To: Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Winona] Concerning my study [Winona Online Democracy] On Jul 28, 2005, at 22:06, Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy wrote: [snip] > First, a question: Has anyone read the study? If not, maybe people > should read it before they analyze or criticize it. Well Steve, I have read it... three times... further an investigation of the website logs would answer that question better than asking it on WOD. > Second, Mr. Schenkat in his letter and Duane Peterson in a WOD posting > are wrong when they write that I have not made any suggestions as to > how WOD can improve. In a May 12, 2004, column in the Winona Daily > News summarizing survey research I did of WOD "lurkers," I included > this URL: http://av.smumn.edu/schild. Anyone who went to that site and > read that study would know that I devoted about a page to suggestions > about how WOD might address some of the shortcomings and concerns that > had been brought up by its subscribers—not by me. Those suggestions > include: In my not so humble my opinion, your suggestions are nonstarters. > o imposing stricter limits on the frequency with which subscribers > could post messages; A two-post per day limit is not strict enough? This is a nonstarter. I find it odd that you spend 40 pages talking about views being silenced and the way you suggest solving that problem of silencing is by discouraging others from participating by creating more barriers to participation. How you ask? Supply Side Economics explains that reasonably. Major supporters of Supply Side Economics contend the Laffer Curve (for more information: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve>) is useful for tax policy and economics. I see a correlation with their talk of the Laffer Curve and your suggestion for this list. While an interesting conversation for economics, the Laffer Curve concept certainly would also apply this circumstance. Your suggestion would only cause less participation from regulars and irregulars. Further, it would devalue evangelism of the list thus impairing the ability to attract new members by the lack of conversations and value to the conversation. The Laffer Curve contends that when government taxes or regulation exceed a specific threshold it is devalued to work or invest for the future because taxation removes any gain; thus, the reason labor or investment was made. This suggestion would definitely be the equivalent of a massive tax hike or regulatory burden. First, regulars post's would become burdened with the consideration of whether their thoughts were valuable enough to spend their one post on versus the potential of something else worthy of their one post. Rather than prompt discussions, discussions would be delayed for the consideration of post value. Regulars now only have to consider this after they have made one post. This consideration process would yield fewer posts for the list and conversations would become stifled and then begin to occur in private messages rather than in the open. Ideas, like money supply, work best when circulated rather than stored in a bank. When list members are not allowed to converse twice, they then cannot converse in a natural dialogue between regulars or irregulars. Second, when regulars converse, a regular may bring a thought that an irregular or regular may comment on. If the thoughts of the regulars or irregulars are restricted then the thoughts or posts that would have occurred because of conversing would cease. The biggest value to a discussion list is the discussion capability that is changing topics and differing angles of discussion. Third, once the discussion slows to a halt then there is no reason to join. No reason to join creates a one way trip to oblivion for WOD. > o managing the list more actively to promote more balance in > ideological or partisan opinion; and Using the previous Laffer Curve comments I contend that any effort to institutionalize balance would cause an imbalance, fewer posts, no posts, or posts that are devoid of any value beyond a simple, "yes, I like this" or "no, I do not like this". This burden would devalue posts like this one where I put a reasonable amount of research and fact verification and a greater amount of typing, to the point where WOD would become worthless. Using your comments, how would the list management balance the views I have outlined here? > o experimenting with an "equal time" feature in which the "other > opinion" could be more actively sought out or presented. Equal time is probably the biggest failing with US politics in the fact that it makes the assumption that only two sides exist. [big snip] David Dittmann Winona _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005 _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
