[Imc-web] Re: [Imc-info] [Imc-mediation] concerned about apparent violation of acceptable use policy

[Sascha Meinrath]

I agree with this concern.  Although it is _incredibly_ tempting to
utilize editorial control over posts, I feel that our job as editors is to
keep the site working smoothly and enforce the Acceptable Use Policy.  I
think it's an understandable action given that this has never been made
explicit to the Web Editorial Group, but we should really adhere to the
protocols we've set forth (as to do otherwise would open up a HUGE can of
worms).  I would say a post like the one Joe mentioned should simply be
hidden.

--Sascha

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Joe Futrelle wrote:

> The post in question is in the following thread.
>
> http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/11088/index.php
>
> I have two concerns about the first comment; a minor concern, and a
> major concern.
>
> 1. minor concern: the post calls me retarded. that's an offensive
> personal attack, but I am relatively unconcerned about it because it
> is so transparently unfounded that I consider it more damaging to the
> poster's credibility than to me.
>
> 2. major concern: the post's title was originally "JOE, YOU ARE A
> STUPID IDIOT".  The title now reads "JOE, I AM A STUPID IDIOT".  The
> post was obviously edited.  I have two concerns about this.  First,
> the post does not meet the criteria for editing posts as specified in
> the appropriate use policy because it does not "pose an immediate
> threat to the welfare of the IMC and the IMC website".  Second, the
> required comment explaining why the post was edited was not posted to
> the thread.
>
> It's gratifying that the post was edited the way it was -- it's funny
> -- but I'm concerned about the apparent failure to adhere to the AUP
> because the AUP is so often invoked by the editors in defending other
> much more important editorial decisions.
>
>