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,
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.
