Q&A with Steve Donnelly, TD

DeVore

Full disclosure: Steve and I have many common friends and have known each other for years. I only comment on that so its in the open. Any TD who is willing to engage with us can avail of this platform, please let any TD's you know know about this.


So, that red haired, intelligent bloke who is near single-handedly providing credible opposition in our country (along with Shane Ross).... well, thats my mate that is!

(this bloke)


So I asked him if he would consent to commit approximately 48 hours here and answer a few Q&A's (ala Paul Gogarty) and he has agreed. This will happen sometime in the next 2 weeks.


So, this time I dunno if we will restrict the conversation or not. I dont like the idea of restricting conversations, but for PG we felt it would become a bloodsport. With Steve, well I dont think the same anger exists.

On the other hand, will we lose the Q&A'ness of the event if we allow everyone to just bail in and ask/answer questions? There might be a lot of "noise" in the conversation.

Should we have it in a sub forum or in the main forum with prefixes on the threads??

General thoughts and suggestions/comments?

DeV.

Nodin

Seen him on VB. Seems an intelligent lad.

Given the career he's in, theres always the chance of it becoming a bit of a blood bath, so some restrictions would be the wiser course, I'd reckon.

later12

Restricted would seem to make more sense; that way you'd be avoiding the opportunists who aren't bothered enough to apply to join, but would happily throw cheap shots from the ditch in a public forum.


Sorry, I'm feeling a bit bitter today!

DeVore

So we do the same as before, "elect" reps from the forum to question him and maybe throw a free for all Q&A thread in the main forum for one-shot-questions?

The guy was never a politician and I would like to know what its like to walk from the "real world" into the Dail with no warning or political training

DeV.

Nodin

Same as before, I suppose.

Wolfe Tone

I think that it should be a free for all to ask questions.


The entire point, as far as I can see, is to have politicians on here to make them more accessible to the ordinary Joe so he can ask questions.

Having an elitist set up where only "the chosen few" get to ask questions, in my opinion, defeats the purpose.

He should be offered no added protection. If he wants to engage with the people on boards.ie he should do so, in its entirety, and not be hidden away behind layers of protection.

Just make it clear that if people are abusive they get banned.

Black Swan

DeVore wrote: »

So we do the same as before, "elect" reps from the forum to question him and maybe throw a free for all Q&A thread in the main forum for one-shot-questions?

I would recommend that posters be reminded that during the "free-for-all" they are still subject to the Politics charter and boards.ie Terms of Use guidelines. They can ask challenging questions with meaningful content, but this is not AH, TCN, or the Thunderdome.

beeftotheheels

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think that it should be a free for all to ask questions.


The entire point, as far as I can see, is to have politicians on here to make them more accessible to the ordinary Joe so he can ask questions.

Having an elitist set up where only "the chosen few" get to ask questions, in my opinion, defeats the purpose.

He should be offered no added protection. If he wants to engage with the people on boards.ie he should do so, in its entirety, and not be hidden away behind layers of protection.

Just make it clear that if people are abusive they get banned.

I don't know, I think this is as much about protecting the value of the process as protecting Stephen.

Certainly on the forums I post on we tend to (not always) retreat pretty quickly to our preassigned trenches seating and proceed from there. So I can see the merits of one poster per trench. Not least because this might prevent/ mitigate any internecine fighting breaking out and allow us to concentrate on getting the most out of discussions with Stephen.

Wolfe Tone

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I don't know, I think this is as much about protecting the value of the process as protecting Stephen.

Certainly on the forums I post on we tend to (not always) retreat pretty quickly to our preassigned trenches seating and proceed from there. So I can see the merits of one poster per trench. Not least because this might prevent/ mitigate any internecine fighting breaking out and allow us to concentrate on getting the most out of discussions with Stephen.

If you want to do that we may as well just get together some questions, give them to Darragh along with a camera and do an interview.

beeftotheheels

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If you want to do that we may as well just get together some questions, give them to Darragh along with a camera and do an interview.

I'm not suggesting that at all. But have you never been involved in a thread where someone comments on something being red and then immediately you have three responses from the opposition benches, one defining the color red in a manner that excludes the original post, one rejecting the premise that we can assign colors to things, and another, color blind poster, claiming discrimination.

You then end up with three different issues coming out of one because three different posters are coming at the same problem from three slightly different view points, and not all have taken the opportunity to take a deep breath first.

If you had one poster collate all three issues together it might make for a more meaningful discussion while only losing a little of the dynamic nature of the forums.

take everything

He's always struck me as impressive, from what i've seen.

sollar

I've been very impressed by him so far.

DeVore

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that at all. But have you never been involved in a thread where someone comments on something being red and then immediately you have three responses from the opposition benches, one defining the color red in a manner that excludes the original post, one rejecting the premise that we can assign colors to things, and another, color blind poster, claiming discrimination.

You then end up with three different issues coming out of one because three different posters are coming at the same problem from three slightly different view points, and not all have taken the opportunity to take a deep breath first.

If you had one poster collate all three issues together it might make for a more meaningful discussion while only losing a little of the dynamic nature of the forums.

This.

Everyone asked questions of Paul Gogarty and they were conveyed en masse so to speak by 8 or so posters from the forum. I do understand the desire for an open session but it requires some more thought to avoid the issue highlighted above. Maybe one can only pose a question, not argue with other posters?

DeV.

beeftotheheels

DeVore wrote: »

This.

Everyone asked questions of Paul Gogarty and they were conveyed en masse so to speak by 8 or so posters from the forum. I do understand the desire for an open session but it requires some more thought to avoid the issue highlighted above. Maybe one can only pose a question, not argue with other posters?

DeV.

Or one can argue with other posters offline on a sub thread (in a sense offline, online in another sense) and then agree a position. Stephen should be able to view the sub threads if he wishes.

Personally, given what I have posted this evening, I found myself in agreement with permabear (who I normally don't agree with - ever). But I would be okay with the notion of having to dispute the issue with permabear before it was put to Stephen. If I couldn't convince the gatekeeper, what chance would I have of convincing Stephen?

Agent Smith

Are there any plans to have Any Mainstream Party reps here?

edanto

I think it would be a great idea to have this, but of course the time constraints on Stephen's side are massive.

For one person to try and reply to posts from everyone would be just physically impossible, and I don't think that Wolfe Tone above has really acknowledged that.

I'm a big supporter of Stephen and was volunteering during his election campaign. I think that he would want to be answering all of the questions that are put to him, and engaging in every discussion thread, it's just that doing all of that on top of his work commitments would be extremely difficult if it's a free-for-all in the Q&A forum.

hinault

I never heard of the guy until this recent general election.

I did hear his interview on East Coast FM and the controversy about the interview with Declan Meehan and the issue of Slattery Communications.

Donnelly comes across with very plausible and practical views especially on matters economic in the interviews he's done since he's been elected.

edanto

Sure he wasn't in politics until this recent election, he only decided before Christmas to stand for election.

I was really surprised at how much effort one guy spent trying to whip up a 'controversy' about the Slattery Communications. So one of his volunteers is a director of a communications company and gave help in PR. So what?! Seemed like sour grapes to me. I've no doubt that the volunteer helped in getting the attention of researchers on the various shows, but after that it was Stephen's own professionalism that got him the media attention. I doubt he puts out more press releases than anyone else, his are just more news worthy and reportable.

Interesting post giving a lot of details about the campaign here - http://marketingful.com/?p=280 The Stephen Donnelly “Randomer’s guide to getting elected in just 4 weeks…”

DeVore

I'd have all the party leaders on here if I could! The offer is open to all.

As I said, maybe a few of the Presidential campaigners would be happy to talk to us (their future subjects ).


Finally, as regards Steve, I might also gather some questions and try to sit down with him for a few minutes with a camera too. Not sure on that yet. I'll decide all of this over the weekend, my heads a mess today




DeV.

southsiderosie

I think restricted access makes sense, but I don't think there needs to be "representatives" from posters. Instead, what if people just had to ask for access ahead of time? Those who have a history of muppetry on the forum or who have less than 100 posts would be blocked, but everyone else who was interested could participate (and would be subject to the rules of the forum).

I also think that it would be useful to limit the number of posts per participant, since last time there were a lot of repeat questions. This way, people would have to think a bit more carefully about what they wanted to ask, and also pay attention to what other people were asking. So maybe one original question and one follow-up (to anything, not just your question) per participant?

I'm not sure how much of a pain this would be for mods, but it seems like a way to both broaden participation and maintain a manageable stream of questions.

beeftotheheels

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think restricted access makes sense, but I don't think there needs to be "representatives" from posters. Instead, what if people just had to ask for access ahead of time? Those who have a history of muppetry on the forum or who have less than 100 posts would be blocked, but everyone else who was interested could participate (and would be subject to the rules of the forum).

I also think that it would be useful to limit the number of posts per participant, since last time there were a lot of repeat questions. This way, people would have to think a bit more carefully about what they wanted to ask, and also pay attention to what other people were asking. So maybe one original question and one follow-up (to anything, not just your question) per participant?

I'm not sure how much of a pain this would be for mods, but it seems like a way to both broaden participation and maintain a manageable stream of questions.

If your question is valid does it matter (in the slightest) who asks the question? The question I want to ask of Stephen is that in his [borrowed] analysis of the markets having no memory, has anyone produced a model to price unilateral default into risk premia, and if so, what were the parameters of that study.

I don't care who asks the question, or if someone else comes up with it before me. All that is important to me is the answer.

When we're being told to default I want to know if the pricing of default has been considered and what they were.

DeVore

Ok, This is my decision as to how we are going to do it.

1. People toss their hats into the ring to be "questioneers". If you DONT want to be a questioneer you simply thank the poster(s) who you DO think represents your point of view. This is not a "vote" as such, but it will certainly assist in selecting interviewers.


2. We will host the Q&A in a sub forum and give those selected posting access. Everyone gets reading access.


3. We create thread in the main forum where anyone can drop a question they would like to see asked.

I agree with Beef above, the important thing is that you get to ask questions... who actually POSES those questions isnt particularly important. This system seems to combine the various approaches with the benefits of each. Its not perfect but then again, neither are you



DeV.

Wolfe Tone

Dev wold it not be handier all round and basically the same to simply get a list of questions and interview him?

DeVore

Yes and no...

The issue is that then things start to be "negotiated" with the politicians beforehand. Certain promises have to be made to them before they will agree to an interview (I'm certainly not referencing Steve here, but many other politicians do). Its absolutely standard now in both print and video media and I'm absolutely DAMNED if I will stand by and watch the internet go the same way.

So, faced with questions from the public without much prior vetting, some politicians are going to bolt and run. Thats ok. Some will brace themselves and then find, like Gogarty did that its not all that terrible.

I want to reward the latter with publicity and a platform, and the former will suffer a lack of exposure.

Long term, this is a much healthier and direct way of doing things.

DeV.

DeVore

ps: I'm not saying a mix of the two might not also be good... thats a possibility.

DeV.

Nancenet70

I just want to know how he has time to do his job here AND be in Hollywood for the Modern Family tapings...

DeVore

The "hats in the ring" thread is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056254324

I'll create a thread for questions tomorrow.

DeV.