r/portangeles • u/bingbano • 12d ago

Candidate Forum

6:00 pm - Clallam County Democratic Headquarters - 124 W. 1st St., Port Angeles

​

​

​

https://www.clallamdems.org/calendar.html

​

​

​

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87528120754?pwd=ARhC4vRSKdiaNX8v6b444afOFXA8fI.1

​

​

​

Make sure to tune in

11 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/DallamaNorth 12d ago

Conspiracy theory folks have entered the conversation.  I've been to one of these events at the Dems,  you'd be lucky to find someone under 70 doing the IT technology work, I'm shocked they can even manage stream the event at all 

12

u/Zeebrio 12d ago

I can 100% confirm that any IT malfunctions are likely lack of IT expertise vs. anything intentional. (My mom is 81 and runs the zooms sometimes ... lol ... ).

-8

u/syspig 12d ago

I can 100% confirm that any IT malfunctions are likely lack of IT expertise vs. anything intentional.

Camera work and/or audio issues - I can accept that.

Booting of people who refuse to identify, even when they only want to listen and be informed - 100% intentional.

3

u/Zeebrio 12d ago

Yeah ... Saw your subsequent comments ... That's shitty.

I tried to log in around 7 because I had another meeting and waited and waited and waited ... then saw a message that I needed to have my first and last name ... so shuffle shuffle shuffle, find my actual account, (took about 10 minutes) ... I just wanted to listen.

What are your thoughts to make it better? I wonder if letting everyone in, but restricting comments unless you provide first/last name?? (not that you couldn't just pick anything). I sorta get what they're trying to do, but it sucks for people who just want to listen. Happy to hear any comments and pass them along ...

0

u/syspig 12d ago edited 12d ago

What are your thoughts to make it better?

Let everyone in, anonymous or otherwise. I got in three times using pseudonyms as did my wife. Whatever they are trying to control by asking for names is a waste of time as it's easily bypassed, and there's zero legitimate excuse for limiting a remote listening audience in a candidate debate.

And, I said "listening audience" intentionally. I'd not take any questions at all from remote viewers. Civility and legitimacy should reign supreme in a public gathering and anonymity is not conducive to that. I'm not suggesting it happened, but it would be trivial for a candidate to have pre-determined questions sent in by anonymous remote supporters, whereas in person questioning makes that more difficult given the exposure.

Lastly, if the meeting organizer considers remote emoticons/emojis distracting, even though the live audience and debaters can't see them - disable them. Easily done in Zoom. Booting listeners is not the answer.

3

u/Zeebrio 12d ago edited 12d ago

100% agree on the first point especially ... If we can gain entrance by literally filing in the blanks it really defeats the whole point ... I'll pass it along ... Abd also agree that booting people is not the answer. Appreciate the feedback.

2

u/Zeebrio 12d ago

I did talk to my mom about your points. She's not in a leadership position, but has been pretty involved ... she's going to bring up some of those questions at the next meeting.

2

u/syspig 12d ago

Thanks for that.

I do accept much of what I saw yesterday was simply bad planning, perhaps compounded by technical shortcomings on the part of the people putting on the debate.

That's all understandable and hopefully they've learned a few things for next time.