Unit Six: Deliberating

I. Moderator Philosophy Statement II. Deliberation Evaluation II. Online Deliberation

I. Moderator Philosophy Statement

Alex Hudock RCL II Dr. O'Hara 15 March 2013 If You're Not Hands-On, You're Not In Control In dealing with an issue, whether local, national, or international, public officials participate in deliberations to evaluate the proper course of action. These deliberations are not meant to be a debate, but instead foster the development of an ideal solution by discussing all differing views from an unbiased standpoint. Although deliberations are exceptional ways of solving problems, their success is dependent on a moderator. A great moderator guides participants by asking thought-provoking questions, making sure all voices are heard, and ensuring all ideas are fully and thoroughly examined so that nothing is overlooked. As a moderator, I performed these responsibilities well, leading to a successful deliberation. If a moderator doesn't direct a discussion with questions, then the discussion loses organization and productiveness. As a moderator, I was great at developing questions that guided the discussion. By asking the right questions, certain ideas that seemed perfect on the outside were actually filled with flaws upon further dissection. For example, when the group began supporting the proposition of a law to reduce traveling costs by requiring citizens to live in areas of specific population density, I asked about how affected citizens would respond. This opened up a new discussion that touched on how location and economic status affected willingness to move as well as the constitutionality of the proposed law. In the end, the discussion led to the unanimous decision that the proposed law was unfeasible. Without proper direction, the discussion could have ended in support of the poor developed law.

Another huge responsibility of a moderator is ensuring all voices are heard. Having everyone voice his/her opinion increases ideas and creativity. As a whole, I felt like this was my greatest strength. At times when the most talkative people were ranting, I transitioned by asking the opinions of the quieter people about the proposed ideas. This was the case many times with Jack, who loved to be involved in the discussion. While he always had great inputs, his constant control over the conversation kept some quieter people like Grace and Anna from participated. On three separate occasions I asked Grace and Anna directly for their opinions because they had been uninvolved for too long. Keeping speaking equality is a huge part of moderating because it maximizes inputs, letting no ideas go to waste. Just as important as guiding with questions and having everyone participate is fully examining all options. This eliminates the chance of good ideas being overlooked and bad ideas being accepted. Sometimes when an idea initially seems good, people will accept it without considering potential flaws. Evaluating all parts of an idea eliminates this from happening. Take the example of deciding the steps to take when reducing consumption. Each option for reducing consumption must go through an in-depth process. Some potential questions to pose include: Who is affected? Who benefits? Who suffers? Whose voice isn't represented? What are the future impacts of this decision? Asking questions like these challenge people to view an idea from every perspective, not just their own. I, like others, pulled from the paper of sample questions to make sure we addressed all parts of an issue. As a whole, my moderating style was very hands on. I made it a priority to ask proper questions, encourage equal participation, and examine everything completely. I also prioritized focus, which was difficult at times. One time in particular, Grace mentioned how it used to be customary in Korea to throw elderly people off cliffs if their families did not have enough food

to sustain them anymore. Although this comment was related to our discussion about differences between cultures, it set off a chain reaction of comments about the strangeness of the action. Recognizing the loss of control, I quickly brought the group back to focus. Although this was my first time moderating, I thought it was very successful. The only thing I had trouble with was recognizing when the group got off topic. Admittedly, I sometimes became involved in an off-topic discussion without even realizing it. One thing I found interesting, however, was that I was much quicker to recognize the group getting off topic when I was moderating than when I was merely participating. This probably was because I recognized that I had more responsibilities when I was moderator than when I was not. Although I was successful at moderating, I could always improve for future deliberations. Specifically, I would work to identify when the group lost focus faster, so that there would be less frivolous conversations. Aside from this, I felt like I did everything I could to moderate efficiently and effectively, resulting in a successful deliberation.

II. Deliberation Analysis

Alex Hudock RCL II Dr. O'Hara 15 March 2013 The Power of Deliberating When faced with any issue, whether local or international, deliberating is often the best way to find the right solution. Deliberations involve a group of knowledgeable people coming together to share their own ideas, listen to those of others, and then evaluate each idea in an unbiased manner. Having a discussion in a respectful and collaborative manner allows the group to find the best solution. In the past few weeks, I joined seven other students in a Civic Issues Forum on sustainability. Even for our first time deliberating, it was a success. All options were heavily evaluated, every individual voiced his/her opinion, and the group worked together instead of against one another. In addition, each moderator maintained a respectful and professional atmosphere, allowing the deliberation to run smoothly with little to no distractions. Although the issue was too complex for us to pick the best solution, we successfully followed the nine criteria necessary for a deliberative discussion. The criteria to deliberate successfully is divided into two processes, an analytic process and a social process. The analytic process refers to deliberation process itself. According to the book, the analytic process consists of five parts. The first is to create a solid information base. For us, we read the provided packet on sustainability as well as brought in outside articles for extra information. In any deliberation, having all relevant information is a must. Missing even just one key detail alters the entire deliberation, potentially making a bad solution seem like the

right move. As a whole, my group did a great job at bringing in articles that added to the packet, increasing the scope of our discussion. After creating a solid information base, the next step is to prioritize key values at stake, which we referred to in class as our personal stake. Having each person share his/her own personal beliefs and experiences was much more important than I initially thought. While the majority of our group had similar backgrounds, Grace was from South Korea. This brought very interesting information into the discussion. When we tackled transforming our culture (option three), Grace shared her own experiences in South Korea. While Americans are notorious for being wasteful, Koreans are extremely careful to never waste. Grace said that when she visited home, her friends asked her why individual pages in her notebooks weren't completely filled. It may seem silly to never skip lines on a page of notes, but the Korean culture uses everything to its fullest. Grace's explanation of the Korean culture caused us to re-evaluate ourselves and the steps necessary to change our culture. The third step is to identify a broad range of solutions. For this deliberation we were to discuss the three options in the sustainability packet, so we didn't come up with our own individual ideas. However, we did look at potentially combining the options or taking parts of each to create a new, custom option. After brainstorming solutions, the second-to-last step is weighing the pros, cons, and trade-offs between solutions. This was the part of the process where our group really performed. As we dissected the issues, we continually built off of each others' inputs to develop some great ideas. This occurred even since the first day when we discussed taking action to repair and protect crucial resources (option one). At one point Matt was talking about how he thought that a top-down approach was best. "If businesses went greener", he said, "then in time people will as

well." The group was in general agreement with Matt until Jackie brought up how companies won't willingly increase costs to go green. If products can be produced cheaply and quickly by using coal, why would they change? As a group we tackled both the top-down and bottom-up approaches and decided that to truly change, both sides would have to change together. Although the analytic process is the skeleton of a deliberation, its worthless without the social process. Unlike the analytic process, the social process isn't actually a process at all, but a list of necessary social rules. The first is to adequately distribute speaking opportunities. Although moderators are supposed to ensure everyone speaks, it is up to the group to foster an environment that encourages everybody to be involved. During our deliberation, some students talked more than others, but it did not hinder the discussion. Many times, the more social people spoke frequently while quieter people only spoke on occasion. While this technically goes against the criteria, it worked for us. The second part of the social process is to ensure mutual comprehension. If someone isn't completely clear on something being discussed, they can't participate. Surprisingly, this happened to me on the first day. Although I felt stupid stopping the discussion to ask, I didn't know what a top-down or bottom-up approach actually meant. Granted, the group laughed at me, but they had no problem breaking down exactly what each meant and how they worked. As my experience proved, any lapse in understanding is detrimental to being involved in advancing a discussion. Similar to ensuring equal speaking opportunities, the third part of the social process is to consider other ideas and experiences. More specifically, this calls participants to listen to each other carefully, especially when they disagree with what's being said. In fact, understanding someone's point of view can sometimes change your own belief. Surprisingly, my beliefs

changed during our deliberation. Beforehand, I was a big advocate of forcing businesses to become greener with laws. This would decrease pollution, waste, and resource use. Through discussing the various effects of the three options, I realized such a plan just wasn't feasible. Becoming more sustainable isn't as simple as just making a new law. The costs to become greener are too much for companies to do at one time. Instead, doing things progressively is the way to change. Companies changing little by little is the ideal way to produce long-term change. Finally, the social process requires that each participant respects each other, their opinions, and their experiences. Our group had no trouble with this mainly because we all had a genuine interest in making America more sustainable. Because we had a common goal, many of our opinions coincided and made it easy for us to converse. I'd imagine that if we were discussing a topic we all had different feelings about, the deliberation would have been much more difficult. As I reflect on our deliberation as a whole, it's clear that our discussions kept revolving around similar themes. From our discussions, it became apparent that changing must be a group effort. While forcing companies to go green helps reduce resource use, other parts of America need to change too. It is up to each and every American to participate for change to happen. Another big theme is that change must be done gradually. There's no feasible way for us to change overnight. Instead, by taking things step by step, we can work to reduce resource use until we are as green as possible. As we discussed each option, these themes were consistently brought up, forcing us to really evaluate their effectiveness rethink. Participating in this sustainability deliberation was a very interesting experience. Sustainability itself is a hotly-debated topic that we encounter every day. In fact, sustainability is one of the first things I think about every morning as I read the "Tips to Go Green" stickers on

the bathroom mirror while brushing my teeth. Because sustainability affects all of us, it wasn't hard to discuss it. What made things even easier was that my group all had fairly similar views, so no one got into any real arguments or debates. Most importantly, we succeeded because we all held a high level of respect for one another and we followed all nine criteria for a successful deliberation. The experience has made me rethink how I approach an issue as well as understand the importance of approaching problems from every angle, not just my own. As I've learned, deliberating truly is a fantastic tool to solving some of the most complex issues.

III. Online Deliberation

Deliberation on gun control, taken from Facebook

Jared Wood On the item of gun control, many claim AR-15's are being blamed for a problem they don't create and one they can't solve. It seems like people blame assault weapons because they look dangerous but a true assault weapon isn't really defined. Just because something aesthetically looks like an M16 doesn't make it an M16. The problem is what to do next because no one can argue the fact that gun violence is no good. Background checks are a good step but anything else, I believe, is an infringement on our rights. I say instead of dumping all this money into legislation and fighting back and forth, lets put that money into the police force who can help get the truly dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and off the streets. What do you guys think? Is there a better alternative that both parties can agree on to avoid pointless arguing and actually get something done?
Like Unfollow Post March 11 at 7:50pm

Seen by 95

Alex Hudock On the topic of banning certain types of guns, I feel like there should be limitations to what people can buy/own. Certain assault weapons, such as M16s or Ak-47s, should be banned from public use. In certain areas, such as cities, if only small arms were legal, then the damage one could cause would be decreased. For those who live in the country, the limitations would obviously be lighter because so many people hunt. But for cities and other highly-populated areas, I feel like stronger restrictions should be put in place. People could be allowed to own assault rifles but if they wanted to use them to hunt they'd need to check them out of gun banks outside of the city. When they'd return home, they'd have to check them into banks so that they aren't available for use when they are in the city itself. This would allow people to still own what they want but they wouldn't be able to use the guns whenever/wherever they wanted. March 11 at 8:15pm Like

Jared Wood I see where you are coming from there but at the same time the issue could be raised that what is an "assault weapon." You can't even buy a true assault weapon, just some that look like assault weapons. To single out an AR15 because it looks like an M16 doesn't do much good when someone could to just as much damage if not more with a .30-06 with an extended clip. So wouldn't it be easier to put the money into a stronger police force and getting the true assault weapons (that are already illegal) off the streets? March 11 at 8:22pm Like

Alex Hudock A stronger police force isn't necessarily the answer, in my opinion, because better/more cops won't be enough to stop the 30 seconds it takes for someone to slaughter 20 people. Instead, maybe positioning police officers in more public areas could help a threat be taken down faster. If more police officers aren't the answer, then upping the security at certain public areas could help. An example of this could be adding new security to malls, movie theaters, schools, etc. If there is security in these areas with the proper training, anyone who pulls a gun could be taken down before a 911 call is even sent out. March 11 at 8:35pm Like


Nick Andreyko It is too bad that we cannot find a moderate solution to the problem instead of rushing to ban many firearms that "look" scary. I believe that there should be a median approach such as increased background check requirements and a waiting period on all firearm purchases. As far as the magazine restriction and "assault weapons" ban, it is unfortunate but criminals will always have these types of weapons because they are not deterred by laws. That being said, I believe law abiding gun owners have a right to protect themselves, their families, and country with modern semiautomatic weapons. I don't think anyone who was ever in a gunfight, looked back and said, "I really wish I had less rounds in my firearm". Also this needs to be kept in check. Automatic weapons have been illegal since 1968 and I believe this should continue. March 11 at 8:37pm Like

Jared Wood I agree Alex that the answer is not in a bigger force but just making sure the police out there can do their jobs. Many are being affected by budget cuts and they are understaffed and under-equipped to protect citizens. They do what they can, but if we let them do their job, there is no need for unnecessary gun laws. And Nick I completely agree that the criminals will not be deterred by these laws that only law abiding citizens will follow. I think that background checks are a must as well as a waiting period. And as you said, everyone has the right to protect themselves, their household, and their country. This shouldn't change because a few crazies and criminals are misusing firearms. March 11 at 8:45pm Like

Alex Hudock I absolutely agree with Nick's idea of a median approach. Because of the recent Newtown shooting, people were jumping for an immediate and drastic change to laws we have in place that have done a great job keeping tragedies to a minimum for years. Something should be done to increase our own protection from murderers, but that something should in no way completely change what we already have set up. The 2nd amendment is something we should never have taken from us, not matter how scared people are. March 11 at 8:50pm Like 2

Nick Andreyko I definately think that analysis is correct, and happens most times when a major national tragedy hits. First and foremost my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families from any of these disturbing crimes, but I think we need to sometimes take a step back when considering major national legislation. We need a healthy dose of facts and statistics before making a decision based solely on emotion.

Hiding Behind a Screen: Deliberating Online Participating in an online deliberation is like entering a whole new world, separate of physical interaction, proper identity, and rules. This changes the entire dynamic of deliberations. In fact, online deliberations don't even have a moderator. Without a moderator, discussions can get out of control or off-topic with no hope of refocusing. Although there is no moderator, online deliberations can still occur. However, the successfulness of these deliberations changes from site to site, with some being much better at facilitating deliberations than others. Besides not having a moderator, online deliberations have some other potential problems. For example, some sites require usernames that hide peoples' identities. This gives participants freedom to anonymously say whatever they please, in any tone, and with any language. The problem with these sites is "trolls", which are people who comment specifically to frustrate other users. Even in the most professional discussion forums trolls exist, inhibiting a respectful, intellectual, and productive deliberation. Another problem with online deliberation is that not everyone involved is well-educated on what is being discussed. Because online forums are open to everyone, someone with absolutely no knowledge on a topic can participate in a discussion on it. This takes away from a productive deliberation because those with knowledge can't have an intellectual conversation with someone uneducated. While these problems can and do occur, online deliberation is still a great way for people from around the world to come together and discuss issues. When I was choosing a site to use, I took into consideration the threat of trolls and uneducated people. While I had a few sites in mind, I decided that the best place to participate in a productive online deliberation would be the "English 138T Deliberation" Facebook group created by Michelle Hart. The group consisted of only RCL II students, giving us an exclusive

open forum to discuss whatever topics we wanted. It was perfect because everyone wanted to have a successful deliberation and no one had to worry about trolls. In addition, most of the topics discussed were topics we were educated on, allowing us to have an intellectual discussion. Although there were a ton of different topics being discussed, I found myself in a great discussion on gun control. In the discussion we focused on whether more or less restrictions is the answer to gun-related violence. In his initial post, Jared Wood brought up misconceptions about assault rifles. He believed that the problem wasn't assault rifles, it's a police force that is too weak. If the police force was strengthened, then gun violence would be decreased. Although I saw where Jared was coming from, I believe that there should be restrictions on what guns people can own depending on where they live. Cities have a much denser population than rural areas, so I believe that only small arms should be legal. This would limit damage if an incident would occur. Jared saw where I was coming from, but thought that the obscurity around what an "assault weapon" really is made things too complicated. If the police force was stronger, then assault weapons could be removed from the streets more efficiently. I responded with the idea of placing public safety officials or more police in public areas so that response to an emergency would be faster. It only takes 30 seconds for someone to slaughter 20-30 people, around the same time it takes to put in a call to 911. If there were more police officers in public areas, they could respond immediately and save a lot of lives. Although I initially didn't like the idea of a stronger police force, discussing our separate ideas allowed Jared and I to agree. Instead of shutting me down, Jared led to me to agree with him by pointing out potential flaws in my idea. Our exchange was respectful and equal, with each of us submitting our own ideas and respectfully responding to them. For topics like gun

control, discussions often turn into heated debates. Our discussion didn't fall into this trap, but instead was a successful and productive deliberative exchange. After our initial discussion, Nick Andreyko, an avid hunter and strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, added his own ideas. Nick believed that a moderate approach should be taken towards the issue instead of doing something as drastic as banning firearms that "look scary." He proposed increased background checks or increased waiting periods when purchasing firearms. In addition, he believed that there shouldn't be restrictions on magazine size. He made a good point too, saying that no one who was ever in a gunfight looked back and said "I really wish I had less rounds in my firearm." Although Nick's idea was far different than ours, both of us agreed that it was a good idea. Basic gun right laws have been a part of this country since we were founded and those rights shouldn't be taken from good Americans because of a few crazy people misusing them. Although Nick jumped into our deliberation after we agreed on a potential solution, he helped us further our own ideas. His proposal challenged the American people who have been up in arms since the recent shootings, criticizing making a change to a system that has worked for centuries. Deliberations are more successful with more people, as Nick showed. Nick brought new ideas to the table that expanded our own ideas. This allowed us to agree on a solution that was a combination of all our ideas, which was ultimately better than any of ours alone. While the deliberation between Jared, Nick, and I was successful, it could have been improved. For one, our discussion was online, so we weren't able to talk face to face. Physical interaction is always better when having any kind of discussion. Second, we discussed a very complex issue with only a few people. For issues like gun control, an ideal deliberation includes people from various backgrounds. Jared and Nick both grew up in rural Pennsylvania and have

grown up hunting and owning guns. I'm from a suburb of Philadelphia and have never shot one. Collectively our backgrounds aren't very diverse, which would be necessary when making a decision like this that affects all kinds of people. In the future, having a more diverse collection of people would improve our deliberation and possibly even change our favored decision. Regardless of these potential improvements, Jared, Nick, and I held a respectful, intellectual, and productive deliberation.