Way to go Oyster River Voters. Our majority has proven to be sheep amongst the vendetta bent, obsessive compulsive, disgruntled, former board member, David Taylor. You only looked at the surface of his claims and rants. It's embarrassing. It's to bad Mr. Taylor couldn't have used all that energy for something more positive. It seems all he did was wasted 3 years to blow $60,000 of the community's tax dollars. All to just get the community to not vote for Mr. Brackett. AND WE FELL FOR IT.
Great job Mr. Taylor. Way to influence the community to going back 5-10 years to the status quo. You can rest easy now. You have slain the budget cutting, superintendent replacing, principle and director hiring, fiscally responsible board.
Tom and Seth, can you delete posts that are not signed with real names? It really is time to get past this stuff. This is what will keep the district frozen in time. I thought the exchanges on this website have been becoming more and more productive - even if still critical - and I would hate to see it revert to this kind of anonymous, spiteful diatribe.
Substantively, in contrast to what this poster says, what the election results show me is not that the voters are sheep, but that they expressed their sentiments about the conduct of the board while also sending a message through the Article #7 vote that both fiscal and educational change will remain priorities. This actually suggests that the voters were pretty thoughtful this time around in how they approached all the issues at stake.
Jayson: We share your concern, and have wrestled repeatedly over the years with how best to encourage civil debate while discouraging, as you aptly put it, spiteful diatribe.
The problem, as I see it, is two-fold: on the one hand you have technological limitations; on the other, human ones. People act differently online; the anonymity of the Internet can both enable and encourage bad behavior. And as a practical matter, there is no definitive way of positively identifying someone on the Internet, either.
Perhaps a look back may help us understand where we are. In 2008, when we first started the blog, we allowed completely anonymous comments; after some time, it became apparent that wasn't going to work, as the site began to be overrun with vitriolic flame wars. After a brief period when we shut down comments entirely, we settled on the current system, where someone has to provide an email address to register, but can use a pseudonym. That seems to have moderated things to some degree, as people seem less willing to go all-out, knowing that if they abuse the system they can be called to account by the blog administrators (us).
On the other extreme, we could go the route that FORE has gone with their blog, which is to moderate all comments. However promising that may seem; it too has problems--for one thing, it's a lot of work, especially for those of us with day jobs; for another the blog administrators end up making decisions about what should be posted based on content (and believe me, FORE will not post your comment if they disagree with your position, no matter how politely expressed; they will also delete your post from their Facebook page). We are committed to facilitating dialogue, not hampering it, so we don't much like that option, either.
For the moment at least, we are stuck with a relatively limited range of options, and we believe that while the current situation is not perfect, it's the best we can do. As you saw earlier, we can and will use our discretion to pull content that is gratuitously offensive (thanks, Brian!), and we do our best to monitor the site constantly; but we also do not want to preempt conversation, so occasionally things we may not like do end up on the site.
I guess the best thing I can say to you is this: while I want to encourage civil, intelligent debate from all participants, the only person whom I can compel to act that way is...myself. I sign (and take full responsibility for) everything I write on this site, but I can't make everyone act they way I think they should. Kind of like a miniature version of the ORCSD, no?
Hi john jacob: My aim is certainly not to silence people, in fact quite the opposite. I just hope we can start to focus on the district's educational and financial future and not dwell on the past. (And to defend myself for a second, I'm hardly a partisan in the way you imply.)
By the way, I'm signing off after this response. I don't want to be party to renewing the climate of divisiveness. You're right - the website managers can keep this exchange up if they like, it is fine with me. I am happy to have your voice, in whatever form it takes, up here in the public space. I am sorry to have suggested otherwise. Jayson
I removed the third comment in this thread. It was rude, mocking and did not substantially contribute to the conversation regarding the election results.
I'm a little confused by the first poster's reference to "our majority." It sure looks like, judging from the turnout and margins in this election compared to the last few, that there actually might be a majority of folks who would like to see a move towards a forward thinking open and informed board. I for one am delighted for the town to move on from cronyism (hiring lawyers who are friends as opposed to competent professionals), racism (yes, that's what it is regardless of what was claimed once he was caught), and lies disguised as "reform."
Maybe it took those things to jolt those on the sidelines to see what's been going on, but to blame David Taylor for this is silly. It seems pretty clear that now that people are paying attention, maybe we can get back to doing some things that are more meaningful for the town and our students.
Way to go Oyster River Voters. Our majority has proven to be sheep amongst the vendetta bent, obsessive compulsive, disgruntled, former board member, David Taylor. You only looked at the surface of his claims and rants. It's embarrassing. It's to bad Mr. Taylor couldn't have used all that energy for something more positive. It seems all he did was wasted 3 years to blow $60,000 of the community's tax dollars. All to just get the community to not vote for Mr. Brackett. AND WE FELL FOR IT.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Mr. Taylor. Way to influence the community to going back 5-10 years to the status quo. You can rest easy now. You have slain the budget cutting, superintendent replacing, principle and director hiring, fiscally responsible board.
The good guys lose the battle, but won the war.
Tom and Seth, can you delete posts that are not signed with real names? It really is time to get past this stuff. This is what will keep the district frozen in time. I thought the exchanges on this website have been becoming more and more productive - even if still critical - and I would hate to see it revert to this kind of anonymous, spiteful diatribe.
ReplyDeleteSubstantively, in contrast to what this poster says, what the election results show me is not that the voters are sheep, but that they expressed their sentiments about the conduct of the board while also sending a message through the Article #7 vote that both fiscal and educational change will remain priorities. This actually suggests that the voters were pretty thoughtful this time around in how they approached all the issues at stake.
Thanks for considering!
Jayson Seaman
Jayson: We share your concern, and have wrestled repeatedly over the years with how best to encourage civil debate while discouraging, as you aptly put it, spiteful diatribe.
DeleteThe problem, as I see it, is two-fold: on the one hand you have technological limitations; on the other, human ones. People act differently online; the anonymity of the Internet can both enable and encourage bad behavior. And as a practical matter, there is no definitive way of positively identifying someone on the Internet, either.
Perhaps a look back may help us understand where we are. In 2008, when we first started the blog, we allowed completely anonymous comments; after some time, it became apparent that wasn't going to work, as the site began to be overrun with vitriolic flame wars. After a brief period when we shut down comments entirely, we settled on the current system, where someone has to provide an email address to register, but can use a pseudonym. That seems to have moderated things to some degree, as people seem less willing to go all-out, knowing that if they abuse the system they can be called to account by the blog administrators (us).
On the other extreme, we could go the route that FORE has gone with their blog, which is to moderate all comments. However promising that may seem; it too has problems--for one thing, it's a lot of work, especially for those of us with day jobs; for another the blog administrators end up making decisions about what should be posted based on content (and believe me, FORE will not post your comment if they disagree with your position, no matter how politely expressed; they will also delete your post from their Facebook page). We are committed to facilitating dialogue, not hampering it, so we don't much like that option, either.
For the moment at least, we are stuck with a relatively limited range of options, and we believe that while the current situation is not perfect, it's the best we can do. As you saw earlier, we can and will use our discretion to pull content that is gratuitously offensive (thanks, Brian!), and we do our best to monitor the site constantly; but we also do not want to preempt conversation, so occasionally things we may not like do end up on the site.
I guess the best thing I can say to you is this: while I want to encourage civil, intelligent debate from all participants, the only person whom I can compel to act that way is...myself. I sign (and take full responsibility for) everything I write on this site, but I can't make everyone act they way I think they should. Kind of like a miniature version of the ORCSD, no?
--Tom Bebbington
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHi john jacob:
ReplyDeleteMy aim is certainly not to silence people, in fact quite the opposite. I just hope we can start to focus on the district's educational and financial future and not dwell on the past. (And to defend myself for a second, I'm hardly a partisan in the way you imply.)
By the way, I'm signing off after this response. I don't want to be party to renewing the climate of divisiveness. You're right - the website managers can keep this exchange up if they like, it is fine with me. I am happy to have your voice, in whatever form it takes, up here in the public space. I am sorry to have suggested otherwise.
Jayson
I removed the third comment in this thread. It was rude, mocking and did not substantially contribute to the conversation regarding the election results.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused by the first poster's reference to "our majority." It sure looks like, judging from the turnout and margins in this election compared to the last few, that there actually might be a majority of folks who would like to see a move towards a forward thinking open and informed board. I for one am delighted for the town to move on from cronyism (hiring lawyers who are friends as opposed to competent professionals), racism (yes, that's what it is regardless of what was claimed once he was caught), and lies disguised as "reform."
ReplyDeleteMaybe it took those things to jolt those on the sidelines to see what's been going on, but to blame David Taylor for this is silly. It seems pretty clear that now that people are paying attention, maybe we can get back to doing some things that are more meaningful for the town and our students.