Procedural authorship seems to almost be synonymous to rhetoric, but is it? I can't quite tell.

This presents another huge factor in rhetoric - audience. If a rhetor tries hard to persuade a co-ed audience, success will vary depending on what gender each person is. Then how can you craft a message that is equally persuasive for both when the very essence of the message is more persuasive for one gender over the other?

Are citizens and digital rhetors the ONLY ones who should be making the shift towards computational procedures? I would argue that in this day and age, being fluent in computational procedures with a rhetorical background would be much more beneficial for users and receivers of rhetoric.

Do arguments absolutely have to be explicit? Sometimes I feel as though arguments that are implicit or indirect can play mind games on he who receives it, which jumbles his mind and looks like he doesn't know what he's doing. This seems like a malicious type of rhetoric, but the text seems to be saying that it's not a good thing, especially in political campaigns.

An obvious flaw of procedural arguments. Contradictory arguments have no place anywhere.

I wonder if the word "actors" here refers to someone who acts upon something, or someone who is just acting like he/she is doing something but really isn't. There's a big difference between the two, especially in the context of political strategies and actions.

This single, short sentence summarizes how this reading is relatable to the scope of this class. If the very essence of something is persuading, then it is more than welcome into a class centered on the discussion of rhetoric and how it permeates into modern society's affairs.

This reminds me of our discussion on mediums from the Vygotsky reading - mediums really are important and what's better is that this sentence mentions computational mediums, which directly relates to the scope of the course (in particular, the fact that it deals with technology and the internet).

This very loosely relates to what we previously read about how rhetoric and all of its components is far from simple. An example that comes to mind is when Roundtree says that language cannot be stripped down simply into syntax, grammar, etc. It is more complicated than that, just like how the complex power dynamics of networks add complexity to the whole issue.

I thought everyone was paid! This is interesting because I wonder if there was a significant difference in the effort exerted/success achieved between those who were paid and those who were not. Which begs the question, can one's practice/use of rhetoric be influenced by external factors such as money/motivation? Or is rhetoric more natural than that?

I wonder if this is something that is exclusive to political campaigns or if it can be applied to any rhetorical situation.