[Imc-web] Jack Ryan 19 May

[Mike Lehman]

Paul,
If there was any actual content beyond the insults, I would agree with 
you. I think I've been pretty choosy about what of Jack's stuff has 
ended up hidden. In this case, like the others of his that have been 
hidden without any objecting comments in the past month or so, there was 
not even typically been an attempt at anything other than, as Zach 
described it, "a troll and a juvenile masturbation joke. Content-free."

In _many_ other cases, Jack has made at least a weak attempt to make an 
argument or present some content, along with his usual insults. These 
have all been left up.

I have defended his right to use IMC resources to present his views (as 
opposed to engage in behavior that we have an existing policy against.) 
A number of people associated with the IMC have questioned why we 
haven't acted more aggressively in dealing with his rather obvious 
purpose here, which is nothing but trying to be as disruptive as 
possible. The comment from Melodye that we should be even more cautious 
in dealing with his obvious provocations would bear paying attention to, 
except that Jack was already been complaining about censorship before 
his first post was hidden. He is going to cry crocodile tears in any 
case. What we do will have no effect one way or the other on his making 
this ridiculous claim.

I should also note that hiding his posts that "are baldly and clearly 
inappropriate, whose purpose seems clearly to be other than informing, 
educating or adding to a public discourse..." has moderated his behavior 
in the past, resulting in his at least trying to be a little bit 
on-topic, which is the best that can be said about his posting behavior 
in any case. My own feeling is that we gave him far too much rope when 
he first arrived here, in the "Baring Witness" thread, which only 
encouraged him to expand his stock in trade.

The real problem isn't any individual post of his, but the atmosphere 
that tolerating them creates. We have managed to maintain a relatively 
high level of political discourse on our IMC and it is a big reason for 
the respect and credibility that our IMC receives, both locally and 
network-wide. Putting up with Jack when he deals out nothing but 
trolling insults tends to drag us down into the mud and inspire others 
to react in kind. And why should they not, if we put up with him acting 
in this way? I wish to note that I've had to hide only _one_ post from 
anyone else (by Anon) that has descended to Jack's level since we began 
judiciously enforcing this already existing policy. The general level of 
decorum here in regards to his provocations demonstrates that our 
flexible, yet clear-cut, policies have significantly contributed to this 
state of affairs.

I also believe that if we let him freely practice his trolling art here, 
the voices already raised to simply ban him will also increase from the 
membership. I think we would all prefer that we not have to take that 
step or go through the process leading up to it, even if such a proposal 
should fail. I believe that the present comparatively lighht-handed 
application of existing policy addresses the concerns of those who would 
prefer that he be completely gone, while staying strictly within the 
bounds of already established policy.

I also wonder which of his other hidden posts we should not also unhide, 
despite there being no objections rasied to any previous application of 
this policy, if we choose to give him more rope, of which he already has 
plenty? Enforcing this policy forces him to at least make the attempt at 
making an argument, even if it is to simply dismiss the well-reasoned 
arguments of others while peddling his false certitudes. I don't believe 
we should give him the easy out of simply hurling insults when he 
doesn't feel like actually writing anything with content. He has plenty 
of opportunity to work his insults into his content. He takes this route 
most of the time anyway and we let him get away with that. To accept a 
lower standard is too close to "anything goes" for me.
Mike Lehman

Paul Bengt Riismandel wrote:
> I don't know, I think it's pushing it to hide it.  So much of what's on
> the site can be hidden under this clause depending on interpretation,
> and I'm not convinced this post goes far enough.
> 
> Jack's a pain in the ass, but I'm not sure it's worth the time and
> effort to hide his posts unless they're outrageous. 
> 
> --paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mlehman [mailto:mlehman at students.uiuc.edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:13 PM
> To: imc at ucimc.org
> Cc: imc-web at ucimc.org
> Subject: [Imc-web] Jack Ryan 19 May
> 
> Hidden:
> <http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/12036/index.php>
> Comment to:
> <http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/11991/index.php>
> Off-Topic Post: "posts that are baldly and clearly inappropriate, whose 
> purpose seems clearly to be other than informing, educating or adding to
> a 
> public discourse."
> 
> Mike Lehman