Post in State of the City - New Voices

Mar 26 16:26 UTC

I'd like to agree and disagree with Tom (in that grey/gray area of this
discussion).

Having been with this list since almost the beginning and having taken
absolutely no responsibility for it, my only thought is to destroy a Lincoln
quote
"you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please  all
of the people all of the time," ... or maybe it was Dylan.

In an open forum like this someone's "shooting down someone's ideas," is
another person's voice of reason.

I have no idea how you get the average person to not personalize a debate,
TIM...

(See how easy that works, it happens every time we use someone's name...
think about it once in a while.)

I worry every time we lose someone that someone else considers "hostile"
because I appreciate the debate.

The only way to not have six people dominate the debate is to have more
debate.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

In a message dated 3/26/2008 10:34:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
<email obscured> writes:

Tim:

At the risk of possibly entering a grey (gray?) area of  what's permissible
on SPIF, but assuming the rules are slightly relaxed this  week, I think the
perception shared by the mayor's staffer should be embraced,  especially since
you're reporting that "it's something we hear frequently  about SPIF." I don't
think such comments reflect negatively on those folks,  like yourself, who
brought SPIF into existence, maintain it, do the outreach,  etc.--everybody who
participates in the forum owes a debt of gratitude for  those efforts.

But in examining the data about participation, I don't  think that citing the
number of people who participate is really that accurate  a stat, because one
post by someone, even if it's just a brief rejoinder,  would count as
participation. What I think your stats will tell you is that  while many people
may
post from time to time, there is a very short list of  folks who post
frequently, and thus tend to dominate the forum. I don't know  if that's good
or bad,
but I think it's an arguable point as to whether civic  dialogue has increased,
decreased, or stayed about the same during the years  that SPIF has existed.

Again, this is not meant as criticism of  electronic list servs, the
potential value they offer, or the hard work of the  volunteers who keep it all
going.
But my own perspective is that every medium  has its limits in usefulness,
including this one. At times, I've found SPIF to  be extraordinarily valuable;
in fact, I thought enough of SPIF as a public  medium that it was the first
place that I announced my candidacy for the  school board in 2005 (and it's
also
how I "met" several folks who I was able  to recruit as volunteers in my
campaign). Yet, at other times, I've found the  comments and churlishness of
some
people on SPIF to be extremely  disheartening. I think some great ideas have
been put forward on SPIF, and at  the same time, I've watched people regularly
not only trash those ideas but  trash the person putting forward the ideas. So,
in some ways, SPIF can  unwittingly contribute to uncivil dialogue, because I
doubt very much that  some of these extremely negative statements w
ould ever be offered in a  public forum or face-to-face with someone, yet
it's fair game to do so on this  list.

Unfortunately, every medium is limited or enhanced by the  personalities and
characteristics of those who participate, and ultimately the  "group" drives
the dynamics of the forum. So I understand why the public  perception of SPIF,
or even the perception of public officials, might be what  it is. I'm not sure
that any of this matters, because no medium is perfect,  but it might explain
why you're getting the feedback that you do.

Tom  Goldstein
Hamline-Midway