[Imc] Robert Meade "Bobby" "Israel" Deaf Messenger

[Brian Hagy]

irritating people, perspectives, and writings are difficult to deal with,
i agree.  however, which person, perspective, or writing doesn't get to
have a public arena?  if we began to say this one is ok, but this one is
not (due to whatever reason or reasons) how are we behaving any
differently than any corporate media source (whose reasons for avoiding
certain people, perspectives, writing are much more stringent than ours, i
admit).  i consider intentionally hiding someone's posting to be
intentionally silencing it (we want it to be there, but for no one to read
it without difficulty).  useful perhaps (maybe even desirable), but
definitely contrary to any open publishing format.

what will happen if conservatives decide to repeatedly post to the site?
do we intentionally hide them too?

an idea (which would require some programming work, i suspect):
a rating system, which people who read the articles can rate the articles
(higher the number, the more interesting someone finds the article, for
example), thus things can be ordered by what the masses find interesting.
a rating system maybe also for writers, in addition to articles.  dunno,
still has that flavor of intentionally hiding something (but at least it's
done by a much larger group, rather than us few folks).

i just get nervous when people start trying to hide or get rid of things
just because they don't like the image that the controversial thing
presents.  (sounds too much like queer bashing to me, amongst other
image-inspired hate activities).

well, my four and a half cents worth.  comments?

brian

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Mike Lehman wrote:

> Comments below.
> Mike
>
> Paul Riismandel wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Mike for bringing this up.  I agree with you completely, and while I
> > find him mostly harmless, it is clear that his intent is really not
> > constructive nor cooperative, and does threaten to taint our website,
> > despite our disclaimer.
>
> I neglected to mention my conclusion about his aim in my original
> message. I think he wants to have at least one entry from himself to be
> constantly visible on the Newswire. I would have no objection to any
> person who had even a modicum of news (especially local) writing ability
> being rather constantly present there, but I think he is the exception
> that makes the rule. I don't think our IMC exists for the purpose of
> feeding anyone's ego, particularly with material like his. His posts are
> totally irrelevant to our community and their frequency only makes this
> issue all the more apparent.
>
> > As the de facto website "editor" I think that this issue brings to the fore
> > our need to develop some sort of editorial policy for the website that
> > addresses the issue of weeding the Newswire along with choosing the
> > Features.  I have an ad hoc features "procedure" that I use and would be
> > glad to share.
> >
> > Believe it or not, I enjoy doing the weekly features update, but I also
> > recognize that my role as website "editor" is basically by default, and
> > therefore not really by consensus by anyone.  I take the lack of complaints
> > or other comments about the website features to indicate that I do a good
> > enough job and exert reasonable judgement in doing so, but that does not
> > mean that a more consistent and explicit method shouldn't be put in place.
>
> I think the fair and excellent job that you've done with the available
> material is precisely why there has been little if any complaint and the
> corresponding lack of desire to come up with official policy regarding
> such matters. I also think it's an excellent example of delegating
> authority to people and, as long as they are doing competant work,
> letting them do it without a lot of second-guessing and
> sidewalk-supervising. I have no problem with this and wonder why anyone
> else would either, assuming satisfaction on the part of those concerned.
>
> > Other IMC's have editorial collectives that work on the front page
> > features--I know at least Portland and Maidson do--though those IMC's also
> > exclusively publish via their webpages.  We may want to have a collective,
> > or maybe just a coordinator (which basically is what I do), or may want to
> > put in into the purview of a working group--I'm agnostic on this
> > question.  But we should at least decide our approach explicitly and
> > actively--at least for the fact that it will withstand outside scrutiny
> > better.
>
> I think our method of dealing with problems on an individual basis as
> they occur actually is a more even-handed course to pursue than trying
> to write a one-size-fits-all policy. As for the transparency of the
> process, we should simply make it clear that the policy that we've
> already come up with, which puts the Steering Group at the center of the
> process, applies to editorial decisions in the absence of an editorial
> collective. No bigger than we are, with the Steering Group meeting
> weekly and being open to all, I think the process if clear enough.
>
> I think we should make permanent action regarding anyone to be dependent
> on consensus of the Steering Group, with the subject of the issue having
> a chance to respond, but I am comfortable with the temporary decision to
> hide the story until Sunday. I am willing to entertain leaving him a
> note to find (since he surely will, as he regularly recheck's them to
> find them hidden at other IMCs that he's troubled and then issues
> complaints about it) since the lack of e-mail makes contact difficult. I
> see no point in responding to his snailmail addy, even if it isn't
> bogus.
>
> What do we ask for? Maybe we should offer to tolerate one Bobby rant a
> week. On the other hand, his track record leads me to assume, based on
> the abundant evidence Sascha has mentioned, that we are simply wasting
> our time trying to dialogue with him. I think it would be ridiculous to
> waste any large amount of time on this issue, as his reputation proceeds
> him and there is no hope for rehabilitation based on other IMC's
> attempts to engage him in dialogue.
>
> > (I will note that the relative paucity of locally written stories published
> > to the newswire doesn't exactly make the website update a terribly time
> > consuming job.  At this point, I think updating more than weekly would be
> > pointless, since we're lucky to get a total of 3 locally originated stories
> > published in any given week.)
>
> That's the only weakness in the Features now and it has nothing to do
> with you, as you have done your part to write local news, along with
> your other duties. Come on people, once again we know there's lots of
> stuff being written and even more being thought about that never gets
> posted on the Newswire, which is a shame.
>
> > As far as dealing with Mr. Deaf Messenger, I think we need to write a clear
> > purpose statement for the newswire, and develop a simple and unambiguous
> > method for deciding that a post or posts are inappropriate.  I would like
> > to see something built in that is similar in spirit to our personnel
> > policy, whereby we at least attempt to reason with someone who becomes a
> > nuisance.  This, of course, requires that the person leave a valid e-mail
> > address, but I'm comfortable with the fact that one of the risks of
> > anonymous posting is the loss of the ability to be reasoned with.
>
> As for a purpose statement, I think simply asking for it to be NEWS is
> good enough, although maybe making a little more clear what IS NOT news
> might help the conceptually challenged to understand what we are asking
> for when we say news.
> Sure people are bad writers at times, they forget to check for obvious
> misspellings and errors (my own personal weakness), sometimes they even
> have lousy reasoning, bad logic, or are just plain strange, with way too
> much of their own, unsupported opinion. I think we can live with all
> that on a case-by-case basis. But a REPETITIVE poster who makes little
> sense other than to prove you can post any sort of BS, at least at
> first, is asking to be an object of concern. So those are my two
> criteria (lack of news content and repetitive abuse of the system),
> which taken together, make a reasonably strong case that a problem needs
> attention.
>
> The only exception I can think of to this rule is the occasional "wacko
> death threat against the Prez" or other character of significance, which
> may require dealing with the issue of an individual post, as we have
> done before. Otherwise, my approach deals with the totality of conduct,
> at least electronically, and also addresses the issue of how to deal
> with those who really don't want to engage in a dialogue of any kind.
>
> I should note that we've had some other "interesting" posters that have
> responded to the suggestion that Newspoetry or some other forum might be
> a more appropriate place for their type of writing, so it is possible
> that a reasonable approach can persuade the persuade-able. I think Bobby
> is probably NOT in this category.
>
> Mike Lehman
>
> > At 05:26 PM 8/21/2001 -0500, Mike Lehman wrote:
> > >I think this is a subject we need to bring up at the next Steering Group
> > >meeting as it may take several discussions to come up with a solution to
> > >the problem.
> > >
> > >Mr. R.M."B.""I."D.M. has been a plague on many IMC sites. His rambling
> > >dissertations on vaguely religious subjects that constantly and only
> > >refer back to his previous posts (and his daddy) create the impression
> > >that the IMC is little more than a crackpot bulletin board.
> > >
> > >I was especially disturbed to encounter another of his posts, new on the
> > >website, just after coming home from handing out 300 public-i's on the
> > >Quad while urging the recipient to "be sure check out our website." If
> > >folks on the Quad want to listen to that stuff, there's plenty to choose
> > >from there. Reading Bobby's rants might be the primary impression that
> > >someone might have of IMC if they read it today.
> > >
> > >I will note right here, for those that might consider taking any action
> > >to be unacceptable censorship, that his posts generally violate the IMC
> > >policy that is right there on the Publish page, i.e. they actually are
> > >not news. I quote from that page, "please post news items only, leave
> > >your comments for discussion areas".
> > >
> > >What prompts me to call for action now are two things:
> > >1) His posts are hidden regularly at many IMCs, due to exactly the
> > >problems I've mentioned with his posts simply not being news in any real
> > >sense. We, who do not take this action at the present, are where he's
> > >found to hang out. Like our own infamous brick & mortar hanger-out, I
> > >believe we should act because Mr. R.M."B.""I."D.M.'s targeting of our
> > >IMC now makes action necessary to avoid a damaging impact on the mission
> > >and image of the U-C IMC. I wish to invoke the process that we developed
> > >in our previous experience with intolerable conduct at the IMC. Now we
> > >have an electronic version of squatting (not that I'm against justified,
> > >sane squats, don't take me wrong) going on, so we will have to proceed
> > >in a different manner.
> > >
> > >2) His posts now contain comments that indicate that Mr.
> > >R.M."B.""I."D.M.'s only purpose is to see his story on the front page. I
> > >quote him here:
> > >"front page or bust"
> > >"by bob 10:17am Tue Aug 21 '01  address: nn phone: na na nn na"
> > >He has taken to appending this comment to every post he makes, an act
> > >which seems to me rather revelatory of his intentions and motivations,
> > >which are surely not to contribute to the IMC news effort.
> > >Hiding his posts may be enough to discourage him and he may just go
> > >away, as it seems that seeing his name up in lights is his primary
> > >motivation.
> _______________________________________________
> Imc mailing list
> Imc at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>