updating policy... RE: [Imc-web] Trolls Worth Watching

[Mike Lehman]

I agree a update is needed. It hasn't been done since responsibilities 
shifted to Web, so the posted policy is now a mix of how we used to do 
things and how they're done now.
Mike Lehman

Paul Bengt Riismandel wrote:

> I agree, and I'm OK with hiding this type of crap from "Jack" and his
> fans/alter-egos right now.
> 
> However, I do think we should consider making some changes to the
> "acceptable use policy" in order to more formally delegate editing
> duties than they are now. 
> 
> I'd be willing to suggest the changes and bring them steering, with the
> support of the imc-web list. 
> 
> Mostly, I want to guard against any possible charges of "self-appointed"
> editors. While this hasn't been a problem at UCIMC, it has been the
> basis for several deep conflicts at the Portland, SF and NYC IMCs,
> causing enormous rifts. 
> 
> I honestly don't believe we have the same situation here at UCIMC, if
> only because there isn't the same sense of possessiveness over the site
> by anyone here. But all it takes is one person to so closely identify
> the site with her/his personal stake in the IMC to screw it all up.
> 
> --Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: imc-web-admin at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> [mailto:imc-web-admin at lists.cu.groogroo.com] On Behalf Of Mike Lehman
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:21 AM
> To: UCIMC website work
> Subject: Re: [Imc-web] Trolls Worth Watching
> 
> Kevin said it was OK for me to post these comments he sent me to the
> list.
> Mike Lehman
> 
> I know I haven't been around much for meetings and such- but I have been
> visiting the site every day. I think more aggressive action is very a
> good
> idea.
> I don't see why an insult or a personal attack is something that belongs
> 
> on a
> local news discussion board at all. I, personally, would be in favor of 
> hiding
> any post which attacks people or begins with a childish insult. At the 
> least,
> a post which is *nothing but* an insult should be hidden. They'll whine 
> about
> censorship; but it's not "censorship" when someone comes into a bar or
> restaurant and starts abusing the customers, is it? Or if you go into a
> library or community center and start shouting at people?
> 
> And I think it really does inhibit participation from others. Instead of
> intelligent discussion, you can be GUARANTEED to find the discussion
> taken
> over by abusiveness and insults. Visiting the IMC website is much more
> stressful than it needs to be. I often feel like visiting the site is a 
> chore-
> an obligation to support something I believe in. It's hardly ever 
> enjoyable,
> for what it's worth.
> 
> As long as nothing which is NOT an insult or attack is hidden, the IMC 
> will be
> about 10,000 times better than any conservative forum in existence. And
> it
> really isn't all that hard to tell what is an attack and what isn't. The
> 
> few
> gray areas can be left unhidden by default.
> 
> I've been thinking about this for a while- and I really think Mike has
> the
> right idea. If anything, I don't think he's going far enough.
> 
> Again, I know this is the first any of you have heard from me in a long 
> time,
> so I realize I shouldn't be insistent. But that's my two cents.
> 
> -Kevin Heinrich
> 
> Then Kevin added this:
> 
> Mike-
> Go right ahead. I had actually intended to reply to the whole list- I
> think
> the difference between Pine and Webmail confused me.
> It seems to be two or three people, max, but they're doing a good job of
> shouting most everyone else down. And I like the approach you described
> in
> responding to Paul. I don't think banning individuals [will] work- or at
> 
> least
> it will take a lot of effort, since he can always just post under a 
> different
> name. Cracking down on individual posts which are clearly nothing but 
> blatant
> attempts to bully and silence others seems like a better approach.
> -Kevin
>