Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs - thanks for the analysis!
Thank you, Karen, for your analysis of the frequent communications regarding the Campus Inn proposal that had appeared on this list - a response to those who would question the role and value of this listserv. It was my impression that the list had been instrumental in the hotel protest, but thanks to your efforts, it's clear that it's a fact that the list was indeed an important part of keeping neighbors informed and involved in that vital issue. I think it is significant that the recent article in the Inquirer about efforts to put a private prison and day-reporting center on Greys Avenue appeared weeks after it was reported on this list. One of the neighbors near the proposed site even commented on how they had only had a day's warning of a meeting on the proposal and that this was only communicated to the neighbors through some scattered posters and flyers. Even though computers may be unevenly distributed throughout the city's population, they are still a vital means of communication. Anyone who thinks a listserv can have no influence should consider the fate of the Campus Inn. This is not a claim, of course, that the listserv was as important as all the time, money and effort put into defeating the hotel project, but in a fight like that, every little bit helps. I don't think one can underestimate the magnitude of that victory, where a group of neighbors defeated a proposal backed, not only by a major university, but also by a realtor whose company had just been the recipient of a $300 million dollar investment by the government of Singapore. The powers that be would like nothing better than to conduct all their business behind closed doors, keeping the rest of us in the dark until they lower the boom. It is one of the critical roles of community organizations, that is, community groups, newspapers and listservs, to counteract this tendency by keeping us informed, not ignorant. My own experience has suggested to me that there are some people who are afraid of the listserv. In the past, during the brief attempt to stop the demolition of 4224-26 Baltimore Avenue, I was advised off-list by one person to refrain from posting on this topic, as Councilwoman Blackwell was working behind the scenes and that discussions on the list would be counterproductive (yeah, right). Someone else mailed me off-list on the same topic in a message that was both patronizing and insulting. I have also had a message hijacked from this list to the other, God only knows why. The overall impression I get from this is that some people do not like the open and free exchange of information and ideas that this list represents. Does that mean they think the list, when the chips are down, can actually have an impact? Mary -Original Message- From: Karen Allen kallena...@msn.com To: UnivCity Listserv univcity@list.purple.com Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 2010 11:49 am Subject: [UC] Dueling Listservs Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation: The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience. None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there. I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 because there had been some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 2009). I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12 pages (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. Overall the consistent topics were: missing pets, recycling, home repair and contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the Kingsessing branch library. Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. By contrast, UC Listserv talks
Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs - thanks for the analysis!
I reported it on UCNeighbors on 3/2/10, the very night I attended a public meeting on the subject that was held on Woodland Ave. I had not noticed any mention of it on Purple prior to that night. Perhaps some word of it later drifted over to Purple. Any public medium can have an impact on public policy. People who only read one list may fall into the trap of believing only their list has an impact on public policy. But people who track community opinion for a living typically monitor many sources of discussion. This prison/reentry proposal has been intensely controversial amongst Philadelphia politicos and community leaders in S.W. Philadelphia for at least two months now. None of them needed either UC-list or UCNeighbors to arouse them. Perhaps an Inquirer writer woke up after reading about it on one of our neighborhood listserves; perhaps she too had other sources, however. -- Tony West On 4/27/2010 6:20 PM, mcget...@aol.com wrote: I think it is significant that the recent article in the Inquirer about efforts to put a private prison and day-reporting center on Greys Avenue appeared weeks after it was reported on this list.
Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs
I'm also sure that were it not for this listserv, things would be very different today in UC, precisely because neighborhood controversies could have flown beneath the radar, and backroom deals could have remained in the back room. But luckily for the neighbors living in the 40th and Pine teapot, they were spared the tempest that the Campus Inn would have brought down upon them. You are so right! Remember how the SHCA pulled out of the UCCC when the school boundary controversy was raging? When I joined the list, I also remember people discussing unsubscribing from the list by powerful players during that controversy. It seems to be a pattern! It seems some power brokers do not like the ranting public on open public forums. But they also don't allow access and open communication when they have control of secret meetings! How convenient? This list and the independent paper, UCReview, are lifelines against ongoing back room deals and people know that! Thanks for standing up to Tony's continuing use of straw man. He's been able to abuse his power over communication at FOCP for years, because the other Board members will not stand up to him. His ongoing attacks with fallacious tactics are intimidating to lots of people. It seems extraordinary that he would simultaneously try to redirect people to the civil social site your analysis has shown. Mr. West's arrogance, while trying to destroy public discourse, is understandable after watching his success at FOCP for many years! Best, Glenn On 4/13/2010 10:22 PM, Karen Allen wrote: In my original post, I sought to be as objective as possible so that readers could draw their own conclusions. Since words are being put in my mouth, I'll comment: I found it odd that the UCNeighbors list, which Kyle created as a civilized alternative to UC List, did not address the Campus Inn issue AT ALL. There was no civilized dialogue about the pros and cons of a ten-story hotel in a 3 story residential neighborhood; there was no dialogue AT ALL! There were no alternate-universe Karen Allens or Glenn Moyers or Melani Lamonds politely taking turns debating his or her point; IT WAS IGNORED, as if none of it was happening. *So I'd agree with you that UCNeighbors readers want controversy and conflict to get somewhere, arrive at a point* Please don't put words in my mouth; I never said that. That is your opinion, not mine. Plus, as far as anyone would tell by reading UC Neighbors during that period, no controversy existed, so there was never any point to be reached. *As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously are ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who are capable of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they hash out a controversy and both sides have made their points, they let it drop. * Where is the evidence of that? First of all, I can't recall any controversies being discussed there, and in the case of Campus Inn, no one ever even acknowledged there was an issue, much less discussed it, made a point and then let anything drop. In my post, I stated imperical evidence that would lead a person to conclude that controversies were ignored on UC Neighbors, but personally, I don't see that as a good thing if the point is to be an alternate forum for civilized discussion. Ignoring controversy is fine if the subscribers want to maintain the listserv as a medium for socializing, which UCNeighbors seems to be. There's nothing wrong with having a purely social network, if that's what they acknowledge it to be. But if UCNeighbors is supposed to be a community listserv that discusses community issues, it falls very short of that mark. I was on the front lines of the Campus Inn battle and I saw how that project was being manipulated and rubberstamped through the system via backroom deals, and how people who were supposed to be representing the community were actually representing and advocating for the developer. I'm sure that the people who were behind that are extremely unhappy that a communications medium that they do not control shined an unwanted light upon them, and was successful in defeating their plans. I'm sure that they would not be sorry to see that medium die. I'm sure they would be happy if an unconfrontational medium took its place. I'm also sure that were it not for this listserv, things would be very different today in UC, precisely because neighborhood controversies could have flown beneath the radar, and backroom deals could have remained in the back room. But luckily for the neighbors living in the 40th and Pine teapot, they were spared the tempest that the Campus Inn would have brought down upon them. Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:48:08 -0400 From: anthony_w...@earthlink.net To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Dueling
Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs
I do recall some posts on the subject of the Campus Inn. I agree that there was little strident side-taking in that controversy. As you were on one side and Melani, e.g., was on the other, it could have taken place. However, that subject had already been opened, and thoroughly hashed out, on UC-list. At the time, I sense, there was little market demand among controversialists for a second site to discuss that controversy on. It had been done to death, in the opinion of many others. A brief neighborhood controversy flared up a year or so ago around the demolition of the old school at Baltimore Regent. Again, I believe it was raised on both listserves. There was a round of contention on two different subjects on UCNeighbors during the first week of April. It died down after a few days. During the snows, there was furious discussion of parking-space claiming. -- Tony West Karen wrote: I found it odd that the UCNeighbors list, which Kyle created as a civilized alternative to UC List, did not address the Campus Inn issue AT ALL. Please don't put words in my mouth; I never said that. That is your opinion, not mine. Plus, as far as anyone would tell by reading UC Neighbors during that period, no controversy existed, so there was never any point to be reached. *As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously are ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who are capable of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they hash out a controversy and both sides have made their points, they let it drop. * Where is the evidence of that? First of all, I can't recall any controversies being discussed there,
Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs
Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. Good analysis! Record abstraction was a very good way to look at this data. Your report of your methods is also perfect. My interpretation of your data suggests that we should consider the chilling effect of censorship at the neighborhood level. I've seen increasing reports about moderation and how it discourages anything approaching discourse. It is a tool for exclusive clubs or deceptive spin. As soon as Penn drops UC Neighbors without continuing any links, I could also wish their club well! Cassidy and Tony can moderate a club on google or many other places. But using the massive Penn network to set up censorship of controversial UC neighborhood topics was very problematic. It was hard to believe that any university would promote a closed censored list as a public list, for such a long time. The implications of censorship over the adjacent neighborhood, at the time the university was ostensibly partnering with the neighborhood, are extraordinary. Wilma raised that alarm as soon as Cassidy/Melani made the announcement. Penn employees need to be trained on the open expression policies that most responsible universities put in place! Good analysis, Glenn On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote: Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation: The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience. None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there. I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 because there had been some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 2009). I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12 pages (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. Overall the consistent topics were: missing pets, recycling, home repair and contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the Kingsessing branch library. Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side, who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there is no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in large measure to the existance of this list. I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv have different audiences and fill different niches. Neither one is better than the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other. From *Franklyn Haiman */_The American Prospect _/*| */June 23, 1991:/ As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous /Whitney v. California/ opinion in 1927, If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2808 - Release Date: 04/13/10 02:32:00
Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs
Well done, Karen. I agree with you about one not being superior to the other, such as one listserv is rife with crazies and the other just talks swap meets, boat races and riding to hounds. There is room for both listservs and people can choose one or the other or both. On 4/13/10 2:49 PM, Karen Allen kallena...@msn.com wrote: Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation: The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience. None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there. I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 because there had been some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 2009). I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12 pages (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. Overall the consistent topics were: missing pets, recycling, home repair and contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the Kingsessing branch library. Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side, who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there is no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in large measure to the existance of this list. I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv have different audiences and fill different niches. Neither one is better than the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other. From Franklyn Haiman The American Prospect | June 23, 1991: As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs
Glenn, I raised the alarm because my fear was that UCNeighbors was formed to disparage and discredit the purple listserv because the people who started it disagreed with some of the positions expressed here and they had the backing of UPenn to lend legitimacy to their clarion call for people to abandon this listserv. As long as people do not seek to disparage those of us who still post here instead of UCNeighbors I say fine. On 4/13/10 3:51 PM, Glenn glen...@earthlink.net wrote: Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. Good analysis! Record abstraction was a very good way to look at this data. Your report of your methods is also perfect. My interpretation of your data suggests that we should consider the chilling effect of censorship at the neighborhood level. I've seen increasing reports about moderation and how it discourages anything approaching discourse. It is a tool for exclusive clubs or deceptive spin. As soon as Penn drops UC Neighbors without continuing any links, I could also wish their club well! Cassidy and Tony can moderate a club on google or many other places. But using the massive Penn network to set up censorship of controversial UC neighborhood topics was very problematic. It was hard to believe that any university would promote a closed censored list as a public list, for such a long time. The implications of censorship over the adjacent neighborhood, at the time the university was ostensibly partnering with the neighborhood, are extraordinary. Wilma raised that alarm as soon as Cassidy/Melani made the announcement. Penn employees need to be trained on the open expression policies that most responsible universities put in place! Good analysis, Glenn On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote: Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation: The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience. None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there. I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 because there had been some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 2009). I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12 pages (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. Overall the consistent topics were: missing pets, recycling, home repair and contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the Kingsessing branch library. Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side, who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there is no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in large measure to the existance of this list. I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC Listserv have different audiences and fill different niches. Neither one is better than the other, and neither one is a substitute for the other. From Franklyn Haiman The American Prospect | June 23, 1991: As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v.
RE: [UC] Dueling Listservs
Unon reflection, I guess this information does leave open to question why UC Neighbors never discussed controversial issues... Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:15:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs From: wil.p...@comcast.net To: glen...@earthlink.net; kallena...@msn.com CC: univcity@list.purple.com Glenn, I raised the alarm because my fear was that UCNeighbors was formed to disparage and discredit the purple listserv because the people who started it disagreed with some of the positions expressed here and they had the backing of UPenn to lend legitimacy to their clarion call for people to abandon this listserv. As long as people do not seek to disparage those of us who still post here instead of UCNeighbors I say fine. On 4/13/10 3:51 PM, Glenn glen...@earthlink.net wrote: Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. Good analysis! Record abstraction was a very good way to look at this data. Your report of your methods is also perfect. My interpretation of your data suggests that we should consider the chilling effect of censorship at the neighborhood level. I've seen increasing reports about moderation and how it discourages anything approaching discourse. It is a tool for exclusive clubs or deceptive spin. As soon as Penn drops UC Neighbors without continuing any links, I could also wish their club well! Cassidy and Tony can moderate a club on google or many other places. But using the massive Penn network to set up censorship of controversial UC neighborhood topics was very problematic. It was hard to believe that any university would promote a closed censored list as a public list, for such a long time. The implications of censorship over the adjacent neighborhood, at the time the university was ostensibly partnering with the neighborhood, are extraordinary. Wilma raised that alarm as soon as Cassidy/Melani made the announcement. Penn employees need to be trained on the open expression policies that most responsible universities put in place! Good analysis, Glenn On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote: Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation: The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience. None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there. I remember that UCNeighbors was spawned by Kyle Cassidy in (I think) 2006 because there had been some really nasty exchanges going back and forth on UC list over UCD's BID proposal. UCNeighbors was definitely around during the Campus Inn fight (that controversy first arose when an article appeared in the October 12, 2007 edition of UCReview, and was finally resolved in early June, 2009). I did a search of my undeleted email with the term ucneighbors, and found 12 pages (over 400 emails) of UC Neighbors posts dating back to August 2007. Overall the consistent topics were: missing pets, recycling, home repair and contractor recommendations, meet-ups, clean-ups, crime alerts, schools, cultural events and general announcements; basically the same things that appear on the UC list. There were no posts mentioning Campus Inn. The only somewhat controversial discussion there had to do with the closing of the Kingsessing branch library. Since I was actively involved in fighting the hotel, I intentionally saved all emails on that topic for reference. A similar email search using the term campus inn produced the first 400 emails, dating from April 28, 2008 until June 8, 2009. All of the list-generated posts came from UC List; not one of the 400 emails had UCNeighbors in the from heading. By contrast, UC Listserv talks about controversial issues, which in turn have aroused passionate, angry, hostile, exchanges from the people, on either side, who care about an issue. I regret having lost friendships over some of the things that have been fought out on this listserv. But the reason that there is no homeless shelter, UCD tax, or ten-story hotel in this neighborhood is due in large measure to the existance of this list. I don't intend this to be an attack on the UCNeighbors listserv, because they serve an audience. I'm merely pointing out that UC Neighbors and UC
Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs
Sharp and clear observations, Karen (most of which I clipped). It's not that controversy doesn't erupt on UCNeighbors. Last week saw a flurry of intense discussion that meandered from a community-garden conflict to carshare parking -- both big UC lifestyle issues. I learned a great deal. But it ENDED. Information was exchanged and the discussion arrived at its destination. So I'd agree with you that UCNeighbors readers want controversy and conflict to get somewhere, arrive at a point. On UC-list, controversies tend to be repetitive because arguers don't acknowledge points by the opposition, don't apologize for mistakes, and don't develop their thought before their readers' eyes. It is, as Brian noted, rather like Glennbeckistan in rules of engagement, if not in political bias. On UC-list, conflict is eternal and has to stay eternal, to have meaning for the combatants. As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously are ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who are capable of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they hash out a controversy and both sides have made their points, they let it drop. On UC-list, attack mode is always de rigueur. Every pleader pleads he is being attacked or persecuted or dissed, while ignoring the attacks and persecutions and disses that he himself launches in turn. At the time the new list seceded from the old, many University Citizens found the hysterical abuse about UCD, or Campus Inn, or Spruce Hill Civic Association unending, monotonous and unbalanced. But they couldn't get a word in edgewise, as frantic hyperpartisanship overwhelmed this listserve. Any poster who dared to say merely, Well, on the one hand X, on the other hand Y, risked being flamed by secretive, unseen neighbors over trivia. Over tempests in teapots. So a space was created in which this can't happen. I like that space, and many other neighbors do as well, because it gets more posts than UC-list. So it serves the neighborhood well. But I'm still here too. -- Tony West On 4/13/2010 2:49 PM, Karen Allen wrote: Since we're discussing the relative merits of the two primary neighborhood listservs, I'd like to make one observation: The actual reason UC Neighbors doesn't have rancor or hostility on its list is basically because they rarely talk about anything controversial there that would arouse rancor or hostility. They created that list with that in mind, and serves a defined audience. None or very few of the controversial issues that burned hot on UC List were even mentioned on UC Neighbors. I observed that once in a while someone would cross-post a response to a UC discussion to UCNeighbors, but usually no further discussion took place there.
RE: [UC] Dueling Listservs
In my original post, I sought to be as objective as possible so that readers could draw their own conclusions. Since words are being put in my mouth, I'll comment: I found it odd that the UCNeighbors list, which Kyle created as a civilized alternative to UC List, did not address the Campus Inn issue AT ALL. There was no civilized dialogue about the pros and cons of a ten-story hotel in a 3 story residential neighborhood; there was no dialogue AT ALL! There were no alternate-universe Karen Allens or Glenn Moyers or Melani Lamonds politely taking turns debating his or her point; IT WAS IGNORED, as if none of it was happening. So I'd agree with you that UCNeighbors readers want controversy and conflict to get somewhere, arrive at a point Please don't put words in my mouth; I never said that. That is your opinion, not mine. Plus, as far as anyone would tell by reading UC Neighbors during that period, no controversy existed, so there was never any point to be reached. As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously are ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who are capable of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they hash out a controversy and both sides have made their points, they let it drop. Where is the evidence of that? First of all, I can't recall any controversies being discussed there, and in the case of Campus Inn, no one ever even acknowledged there was an issue, much less discussed it, made a point and then let anything drop. In my post, I stated imperical evidence that would lead a person to conclude that controversies were ignored on UC Neighbors, but personally, I don't see that as a good thing if the point is to be an alternate forum for civilized discussion. Ignoring controversy is fine if the subscribers want to maintain the listserv as a medium for socializing, which UCNeighbors seems to be. There's nothing wrong with having a purely social network, if that's what they acknowledge it to be. But if UCNeighbors is supposed to be a community listserv that discusses community issues, it falls very short of that mark. I was on the front lines of the Campus Inn battle and I saw how that project was being manipulated and rubberstamped through the system via backroom deals, and how people who were supposed to be representing the community were actually representing and advocating for the developer. I'm sure that the people who were behind that are extremely unhappy that a communications medium that they do not control shined an unwanted light upon them, and was successful in defeating their plans. I'm sure that they would not be sorry to see that medium die. I'm sure they would be happy if an unconfrontational medium took its place. I'm also sure that were it not for this listserv, things would be very different today in UC, precisely because neighborhood controversies could have flown beneath the radar, and backroom deals could have remained in the back room. But luckily for the neighbors living in the 40th and Pine teapot, they were spared the tempest that the Campus Inn would have brought down upon them. Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:48:08 -0400 From: anthony_w...@earthlink.net To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Dueling Listservs Sharp and clear observations, Karen (most of which I clipped). It's not that controversy doesn't erupt on UCNeighbors. Last week saw a flurry of intense discussion that meandered from a community-garden conflict to carshare parking -- both big UC lifestyle issues. I learned a great deal. But it ENDED. Information was exchanged and the discussion arrived at its destination. So I'd agree with you that UCNeighbors readers want controversy and conflict to get somewhere, arrive at a point. On UC-list, controversies tend to be repetitive because arguers don't acknowledge points by the opposition, don't apologize for mistakes, and don't develop their thought before their readers' eyes. It is, as Brian noted, rather like Glennbeckistan in rules of engagement, if not in political bias. On UC-list, conflict is eternal and has to stay eternal, to have meaning for the combatants. As Karen noted, most of the controversies UC-list once took so seriously are ignored on UCNeighbors. That is a list better suited to people who are capable of seeing both sides of an issue. As a result, when they hash out a controversy and both sides have made their points, they let it drop. On UC-list, attack mode is always de rigueur. Every pleader pleads he is being attacked or persecuted or dissed, while ignoring the attacks and persecutions and disses that he himself launches in turn. At the time the new list seceded from the old, many University Citizens found the hysterical abuse about UCD, or Campus Inn, or Spruce Hill Civic Association unending, monotonous and unbalanced. But they couldn't get a word in edgewise
