Talk:Colorado Convention 2021

Ask for sourcing before removing

If another editor feels something needs to be sourced, please ask for sourcing before unilaterally removing. If no sourcing provided after reasonable time (a few days to a week), then remove (see LPedia:Codes of Conduct). Additionally, stating opinions as long as they are clear as opinions is not against LPedia policies nor does LPedia follow Wikipedia-style NPOV standards. We are not neutral, we have an agenda of Libertarianism and perspectives that are voiced within Libertarianism. (see LPedia:LPedia is not Wikipedia) CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2021 (CDT)

@User:AndyCraig That is not an accurate accounting. They did not say they were dissatisfied with RECEIVING the endorsement. They did not like being surprised by being listed on a flyer that started the whole endorsement flurry as the Mises Caucus released their endorsements in response and we never had that kind of dueling caucus endorsement drama in Colorado before and would prefer we not have it in the future. This may be difficult to understand without understanding the full history of past Colorado conventions but we were traumatized by unexpected drama at the 2019 convention and the board was hypersensitive to avoid that in the future. In the past Colorado has been thankfully immune from what seems to plaque other affiliates. What I listed is exactly what I wish to say. If you want to work on wording that is an accurate accounting, I would be happy to.CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2021 (CDT)

@User:JWD3 for admin review.CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2021 (CDT)

An additional question -- a point that makes these two versions different -- is that Caryn Ann's version uses the phrase "expressed dissatisfaction" (and then in parentheses cites Caryn Ann as the source) while Andy's version says "Caryn Ann says that [they] told her that they were dissatisfied". Although these two wordings may seem very similar, they actually can give very different impressions, because the latter suggests that they only complained to one person while the former doesn't give that same impression. I was of course not at the convention, but I got the very strong impression from the discussion during the meeting yesterday that complaints, while not formal or over the microphone, were voiced to multiple people, during the convention -- and if so that makes them much more noteworthy. Caryn Ann could have, but did not, make this explicit -- she could have said "expressed dissatisfaction to multiple people" -- but her phrasing at least allows the interpretation that it was to multiple people while Andy's version strongly suggests that it was only to Caryn Ann. I can see how this relates to the more general difference in approach to what should be included -- I can imagine Andy saying "the only thing we really know is that they complained to Caryn Ann so that's all that we can legitimately mention here". But that's not necessarily the case -- Caryn Ann is playing two different roles here, as (one of) the people to whom they spoke and as (a) reporter of what happened at the convention (including these people having spoken, to whatever number of, people). If they in fact spoke to multiple people, that not only is something that would help the reader understand what happened, but also makes it more significant to mention at all. Assuming that is true, I can see multiple ways of fixing this. Caryn Ann's reversion is one way, but perhaps not the best way. One alternative could be to say more explicitly that it wasn't just Caryn Ann, by changing the "her" in Andy's version to something like "multiple people". Can the two of you somehow work something out, please? JWD3 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2021 (CDT)

Another difference is that Caryn Ann's version specifically includes the point that there is actually no requirement that a candidate give his/her permission before somebody else endorses him/her. It could be argued that there is no reason to mention that here, since it's a fact that people can be expected to know in general, but in this context it interacts with other aspects of how the report is worded so it might be relevant, as a clarification, depending on how the rest is worded. JWD3 (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2021 (CDT)

I included that bit about a caucus not needing permission because Andy seemed to think this was kind of slam against the LPC and it was NOT. I have no beef with the LPC at all. The situation with the flyer is more about Colorado and the culture here and the backdrop of the shitshow of the 2019 convention. A caucus does not need permission. It might be courteous to ask, but I have been endorsed plenty of time without my permission - in 2018 many people thought I was running as a slate with Joshua Smith and Alex Merced since Mises material gave that impression - I don't do slates as a candidate but a caucus can endorse whichever slate it wants. Also my version makes it clear it was being publicly listed that they objected to not to the endorsement itself. I have no idea how they feel about the endorsement itself. I would guess that Steve was fine with being endorsed as I think he would identify with the LPC. It was certainly awkward for Joshua as I think he is a CO coordinator for the Mises Caucus, but I could be wrong on that, he is certainly a visible Mises member here. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2021 (CDT)

I am in discussions with both parties who are now being put in a petty tug of war and don't want to be in the middle of it. I am removing the comment to give them peace - they said it - I don't care who believes it or not. Now they are getting pestered and we don't want that drama here. It is being represented that I said they were unhappy with the endorsement. That is not what I said and in fact said I believe at least one of them was probably very happy with the endorsement, I said they were surprised and not thrilled about being on the flyer without being asked. But I am not going to have my friends hounded. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2021 (CDT)

OK - removing that note will hopefully calm things down here for now. I was not looking forward to having to do all the additional work that would have been involved in trying to sort out the competing perspectives. It shouldn't have to be the job of HPC members to be doing the research for individual articles -- our job should be on the policy level, which if it comes to the point of having to resolve a dispute will sometimes necessarily involve understanding the source material, but we have to rely on other people to bring that material to us. Again, since I was not at this convention I have no way to check any of these claims myself, or even really any good idea of who to ask for help with that. This case does, however, serve as an example of some policy issues that we may want to consider further to be able to better handle future cases of a similar nature. JWD3 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2021 (CDT)

All that said, I do think there are some additional ways in which this article could use some work -- not necessarily directly a matter of dispute but things that I noticed in trying to sort out what was in dispute, and since I had to spend that time I might as well note what I found in case somebody wants to work on it some more. The concern was expressed that the note in dispute could be seen as a complaint about the action of a particular caucus, highlighting something that there was no need to highlight either because there was nothing unusual or because it was just the subject of a private conversation. The impression I got from the discussion in the HPC meeting two days ago was that it was more than a private conversation -- but subsequent e-mail discussion has made me wonder how much more. That aside, I do see a more subtle way in which it could be seen that there is still a highlighting of the behavior of one caucus -- the fact that their endorsement flyer is posted but the other one mentioned is not posted. I'm not saying that, by itself, was intended to make a point, but it does make it harder to understand the situation -- for example, there is no way to know if there might have been somebody who was endorsed by both caucuses. I think it would be better in cases like this that if more than one caucus is distributing flyers or announcing endorsements that they be given comparable treatment, to the degree that formats and such make that possible. Also looking at the Pragmatist flyer alone (I have no idea whether there might be a similar issue with the other since I haven't seen it), I notice that several of the candidates they endorsed do not appear in the table earlier in the article of people competing for the various offices. Which then, in turn, makes me wonder what that table actually represents -- people who "announced" in some way, people formally nominated, or what. For some convention articles there are separate tables or paragraphs giving the actual vote totals, which makes clear who was "on the ballot", but since this article doesn't include that level of detail the significance of the heading "Other Candidates (if applicable)" isn't really clear. JWD3 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2021 (CDT)

The Table refers to candidates who were nominated and voted for on the convention floor, not everyone who was a candidate was endorsed by either caucus giving out endorsements. Not every candidate who was voted for at convention was declared prior to convention either. Once the official convention minutes are out, a citation will be used with a link to those minutes to verify these people were voted on at the convention. Eric Mulder 23:52, 4 June 2021 (MDT)

I also forgot a few because I can't remember everyone who ran, I can include a more complete list once the convention minutes are uploaded. Eric Mulder 23:55, 4 June 2021 (MDT). I remember a few now that I thought about it, added the names I did remember Eric Mulder 23:57, 4 June 2021 (MDT).

The LPC caucus was already available in digital form. I have a stack of things from various conventions to scan and the Mises flyer is in there. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, and absolutely do not agree that posting one and not the other until I can find and scan it makes a whit of difference. Yes, one candidate was endorsed by both and that raised some eyebrows and caused people to ask about it. No, I am not J Edgar Hoover taking down names of people in casual conversations and making this like that makes me not want to contribute at all and of all people to feel that way, it is pretty bad if I am. It is exactly as I said at that meeting - it was the subject of conversation. Priority should be given to those who were actually AT THE CONVENTION. I am not going to be taking names of people who engaged in casual conversations now or ever. I am not going to be posting screenshots of DMs. I think we need better wisdom when drama is being created over something that isn't that dramatic. I am completely unmotivated to add anything else to this article for my own Party when non-LPCO members who were not even present can be so disruptive. My view. Take it for what it is worth. But I have better things to do. And that is not the culture I want to see here. And the personal attack in the edit summary was completely out of bounds. Reading this whole thing again makes me regret adding any information to this article. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2021 (CDT)

Thank you @User:Eric.mulder, you are an officer and a gentleman