[arin-discuss] [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2014.10: CHANGES TO CANDIDATE SPEECHES

[Rob Seastrom]

John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:

> On Jun 6, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
>
>>> The process doesn¹t appear to be broken.  Just a few individuals and their
>>> use of it.
>> 
>> Actually, I disagree.  I'm opposed to any suggestion that a candidate
>> ought to be restricted from talking about whatever he or she cares to
>> during their stump speech.  The electorate is entirely capable of
>> deciding whether a candidate's remarks are appropriate and acting
>> accordingly.
>
> RS - 
>
> (presuming that we continue with the present predominantly live 
> candidate speeches) 
>
> Should candidates be told to briefly state their own qualifications 
> for consideration by the electorate?  Or simply told that they've 
> got 3 minutes, and "go for it?"

A combination of the two; I don't think we need to insult people's
intelligence by telling them what exactly to put in.  I think that
instructions as brief as "You'll be provided 3 minutes to make an
appropriate campaign statement to the plenary." are sufficient.

> If candidates want endorsers to 
> also speak, should they be able/encouraged to enter them as candidates 
> as well so they get a speaking slot?

Able, yes.  Encouraged, no.  I would be inclined to not vote for
someone who felt the need to pull a stunt like that, and tell my
friends and colleagues to do likewise.  I would also think less
professionally of anyone who would be a party to such activity.

Attempting to come up with an exhaustive list of ways in which people
might try to game this system and preemptively forbid them seems like
an enormous waste of time and energy (and ultimately doomed to failure
due to the creative nature of the Community).

-r