All posts in the topic Forum Guideline: Keep it Local (Short link)
Summary
- There are 10 posts — by 5 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Andrew Groom at Jul 31 22:22 UTC
Hi Folks, The focus of this forum is local issues. Please ensure that your posts are directly relevant to Canterbury. Topics like liquor laws, or global biofuel trends, for example, are not in themselves specific to Canterbury. What is locally relevant is what can be done in Canterbury to change or minimise the impact of liquor laws, or to respond to biofuel trends. It's a fine distinction at times. I often notice people steering the conversation towards Canterbury when it has become more global. Thanks for that. cheers, Dan . . . Dan Randow, Forum Manager Canterbury Public Issues Forum http://canterburyissues.org.nz <email obscured> ph 03-377-5377
Hi All, Just a wee reminder that we want to try to keep discussions relevant to Canterbury, as per our charter: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues/charter I understand the need to put local issues into a global context, especially if we can learn from the experiences of others to do things better here in Canterbury. However, it would be more useful to post about local examples of overseas trends, or how we might prepare locally for the impacts of global problems, than simply raise global issues that have no immediate relevance to Cantabrians. Thanks :-)
andrew wrote: > Hi All, > > Just a wee reminder that we want to try to keep discussions relevant to > Canterbury, as per our charter: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues/charter > > I understand the need to put local issues into a global context, > especially if we can learn from the experiences of others to do things > better here in Canterbury. However, it would be more useful to post > about local examples of overseas trends, or how we might prepare locally > for the impacts of global problems, than simply raise global issues that > have no immediate relevance to Cantabrians. > Some Cantabrians are interested in things that are not _immediately_ pressing. I think it was local authority reps held a meeting a few years back on sea level rise. If I remember rightly, it was said sea level rise would add to tsunami inundation effects, and there should perhaps be avoidance of too much building in the low lying areas around the rivers, and a general move away from the coast could be sensible policy. Christchurch must have more housing prone to inundation than other NZ cities. Tomorrow submissions are closing on an application for a resource consent for a 37 apartment complex on Marine Pde New Brighton. When Irinka wrote, "Has anyone else seen that movie that was around about 12 or so years ago called "Stopping the Coming Ice Age" ? The theory was that the heating up of the planet and the green house gases were in fact the engine of a coming Ice Age." I just wanted to be sure that no-one thought that meant we do not have to plan here in Canterbury for sea level rise. We had the iceberg come by the Canterbury coast, and perhaps it cooled the sea a bit and reflected away some incoming heat from the sun, and the Canterbury weather was a bit colder in the summer of 2006 2007, wasn't it? Then it would be easy for the market to take up on that and say global warming - sea level rise is of no immediate concern to Cantabrians, then.
Dan wrote
"The focus of this forum is local issues. Please ensure that your posts
are directly relevant to Canterbury."
As New Zealand is so small there are a lot on national issues that are also
local Canterbury issues.
Some issues, such as the availability and abuse of alcohol, is of national
significance and Canterbury's issues are New Zealand's issues.
I can accept and understand that we may not want this forum used to debate
Auckland's roading problems - thank God we haven't got their problems (yet) -
but surely issues like road safety and planning (for example) that have
national, regional and local significance we should debate the national issues
as well as our local issues because our local solutions may well arises out of
the national solutions.
I hope that our moderators allow us some sensible/reasonable flexibility to be
able to discuss issues of national significance without being restricted to
simply the Canterbury aspects of each issue.
I am (legally) a one-eyed cantabrian but I hope I am able to consider, discuss
and debate issues that have national and regional significance without being
restricted just the Canterbury part of the issue.
For example I went to an excellent IPENZ public seminar of wind power this
week. If we were to debate this issue on this forum it would be a very short
debate if we were to be restricted to Canterbury issues pertaining to wind
power.
Mark Alexander
RD 5 Chch
re: IPENZ public seminar I note that Geoff Henderson made mention of Contracting and Converging. (http://www.gci.org.uk) Perhaps, just perhaps he was hinting that Canterbury (and NZ, opps off topic) could be a bubble of influence!
Mark Alexander wrote:
> Dan wrote
> "The focus of this forum is local issues. Please ensure that your posts
> are directly relevant to Canterbury."
>
> As New Zealand is so small there are a lot on national issues that are also
local Canterbury issues.
>
> Some issues, such as the availability and abuse of alcohol, is of national
significance and Canterbury's issues are New Zealand's issues.
>
> I can accept and understand that we may not want this forum used to debate
Auckland's roading problems - thank God we haven't got their problems (yet) -
but surely issues like road safety and planning (for example) that have
national, regional and local significance we should debate the national issues
as well as our local issues because our local solutions may well arises out of
the national solutions.
>
I suspect the moderator has in the past used the Canterbury focus issue
when they think the emails going out are perhaps starting to get to
value judgements that may never be sorted, and the group may start to
lose readership.
> I hope that our moderators allow us some sensible/reasonable flexibility to
be able to discuss issues of national significance without being restricted to
simply the Canterbury aspects of each issue.
>
> I am (legally) a one-eyed cantabrian but I hope I am able to consider,
discuss and debate issues that have national and regional significance without
being restricted just the Canterbury part of the issue.
>
> For example I went to an excellent IPENZ public seminar of wind power this
week. If we were to debate this issue on this forum it would be a very short
debate if we were to be restricted to Canterbury issues pertaining to wind
power.
>
When the nor'wester blows in Canterbury we may want to pump more water
to preserve some ecosystems.
I am not quite satisfied with myself about the way may eyes get
attracted to wires, pylons, piers, large man-made constructions. They
have something about them.
Sure we need to think really hard about natural landscapes, keeping them
as well as ecosystems, which may however start to disappear with global
warming.
Thousands and thousands of starlings also like the power wires in South
Brighton. I don't think they exclude other birds the way magpies, even
seagulls may do, or do they? It is quite awe-inspiring seeing and
hearing those starlings coming home to roost.
If instead of http:// you put in your browser news:// then your server
name you may come across some other discussion groups. nz.general is
one. nz.reg.canterbury.general is another but because people do not have
to use their real names the value of the discussion may not be so good.
Hi Mark,
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 09:21 +1200, Mark Alexander wrote:
> I can accept and understand that we may not want this forum used to
> debate Auckland's roading problems - thank God we haven't got their
> problems (yet) - but surely issues like road safety and planning (for
> example) that have national, regional and local significance we should
> debate the national issues as well as our local issues because our
> local solutions may well arises out of the national solutions.
Personally, I feel that the major benefit of keeping this forum focussed
strictly on issues specific to Canterbury, or global issues that have an
impact in Canterbury, is that there's a better chance that we can
actually *do* something about the things we're discussing rather than
just talk about them.
So, yes, there's probably not much Cantabrians could do (or would want
to do :-) about Auckland's roading problems, but there might be lessons
to be learned from their mistakes or successes that we can apply here,
or things we could teach them. Alternatively, Indonesia threatening not
to buy NZ beef is a non-local issue that probably does have an impact
(real or potential) on the Canterbury economy.
> I hope that our moderators allow us some sensible/reasonable
> flexibility to be able to discuss issues of national significance
> without being restricted to simply the Canterbury aspects of each
> issue.
I think we've had some discussions here in the past that have started
with some global issue as the context for a local problem, but then just
lose all local significance as the participants focus on the global or
generic aspects of the problem. I, for one, switch off at that point
because I can see the discussion has no benefit for me, academically
interesting though it might be.
My guiding principles for reading any post on this forum are:
1. How does this affect me as a Cantabrian ?
2. If it affects me negatively, what can I do about it ?
If you can weave answers to these questions into your posts, then you've
got my attention :-)
> For example I went to an excellent IPENZ public seminar of wind power
> this week. If we were to debate this issue on this forum it would be a
> very short debate if we were to be restricted to Canterbury issues
> pertaining to wind power.
I'd be very surprised if it was a short debate, Mark - why don't you
kick it off and we'll see what happens ? :-) I'd say wind power is very
pertinent to Canterbury's future. Perhaps you could start with the
outcomes from the seminar and the significance for Canterbury ?
Cheers, Andrew.
andrew wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 09:21 +1200, Mark Alexander wrote:
>
>> I can accept and understand that we may not want this forum used to
>> debate Auckland's roading problems - thank God we haven't got their
>> problems (yet) - but surely issues like road safety and planning (for
>> example) that have national, regional and local significance we should
>> debate the national issues as well as our local issues because our
>> local solutions may well arises out of the national solutions.
>>
>
> Personally, I feel that the major benefit of keeping this forum focussed
> strictly on issues specific to Canterbury, or global issues that have an
> impact in Canterbury, is that there's a better chance that we can
> actually *do* something about the things we're discussing rather than
> just talk about them.
>
From the rules:
"The Goals of Canterbury Public Issues Forum are:
to have active conversations about a wide range of topics that are
relevant to Canterbury and Christchurch, and
to reflect a wide range of points of view."
So perhaps these rules should have added, `with a view to possible change'.
the newsgroup nz.reg.canterbury.general has very little but spam on it
at the moment, and an occasional notice. It is supposed to be about
Canterbury matters. We voted years ago to take Christchurch out of its
name because it was bringing in lots of overseas Christian messages &c.
On nz.general no-one complains if you just want to chat with others,
even if it is not specific to nz. It is really just a nz chat group.
nz.reg.canterbury.general evolved from chch.chat where chch people could
chat with one another, and perhaps there is a gap for that now.
On some mailing lists there is a technique where you put [Off Topic] in
the title if you just want to chat with the people you have been
conversing for a while but not on the intended subject of the list.
It's probably only a national issue impinging on this locality, but I noticed
extensions going on to the Corrections Service Centre in Pages Rd.
How do Canterbury people feel about that?
I believe nationally the people asked the Government for tougher sentencing,
and I suppose it could be part of it.
For me I don't feel happier or safer seeing a corrections facility being
extended.
When some people don't fit the system is it the people or the system that are
wrong?
Currently our system is often taking both parents to work. It's been happening
for quite a while with teachers, politicians, various professional people. They
can have troublesome kids can't they?
If we treasure in our system having both parents at work then I believe we need
to find other sorts of family structure for kids. Gangs may be doing that.
I would like to see big gardens around corrections facilities, so that if we
have to have this ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-cliff mentality then at least we
would be equipping people with knowledge for looking after themselves, and
others in a sort of family way, in this time when the food banks are in
increasing need.
&c &c CCC & Community Gardens
Hi Katherine, On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:12 +1200, Katherine Johnson wrote: > I just wanted to let you know about a new user generated news website > that has been started in Whitstable. It's a website which empowers the > public to write news that's relevant to them and the community. I've > read your posts about boy racers and it's clearly something you feel > very strongly about. I wondered if you might be interested in writing > something for the site. It's free to sign up and I think there are > more people in the community that would be really interested in > hearing about this problem. > > If you are interested, please take a look at the website > www.indiconews.com It looks to me like Whitstable is somewhere in the UK, so I assume you've simply got the wrong country ? This forum is about issues specific to Canterbury, New Zealand, as per our charter: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues/charter Cheers, Andrew. Forum Manager