Stepping forward on the abuse -- was RE: [Imc-web] Hidden Post

[Paul Bengt Riismandel]

Mike,
 
I think your judgement on this is OK.
 
I think we may want to consider having a publicly announced web meeting to discuss the increase in these types of posts. Since neither the web nor tech groups exists any longer, I think we'd want the OK of steering, with the proviso that we'll bring back any new policy ideas.
 
The reason I think it should be very public is because it allows us to challenge "Jack" and his ilk to put their money where their mouths are -- it's harder to (legitimately) cry censorship when you have the opportunity to come and have a say in the rules yourself.
 
Some ideas that might be integrated into a revised policy:
 
-Make it easier, by policy, to hide posts from non-registered users
-Make it easier, by policy, to ban non-registered users (when they use a consistent screen-name).
-Add a clear complaint procedure, whereby anyone can make a formal complaint about having posts hidden (but they have to folllow up in person)
 
The idea here is that we preserve the right and necessity for people to post anonymously, especially for newsworthy things, where anonymity may be necessary to protect the poster. But gives us greater power to clamp down on abuse of anonymity.
 
The idea is, if you want to post whatever the hell you want, including insults and incitements, then you have to come out into the open and defend your right to do so. Either by registering with Dada or by arguing your case with us.
 
If you want the privilege of only sitting behind your PC, then you give up the right to go nuts anonymously.
 
If there's interest in this, I can write up some suggested language to add to our current website use policy.
 
--Paul
 

________________________________

From: imc-web-bounces at lists.cu.groogroo.com on behalf of Mike Lehman
Sent: Sat 5/1/2004 12:02 AM
To: UCIMC website work
Subject: [Imc-web] Hidden Post



Well, Jack and his buds/alter egos apparently have nothing better to do this afternoon and tonight, as in approximately two dozen rude comments that certainly add nothing to public discourse. More of the same trash talk, but this one went over the limit, IMHO:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/17228/index.php

While this could possinly be the first time this person ever posted, it is at least as likely that Jack's failure to get the attention he craves by being hidden (an all too infrequent occurance, unfortunately) have driven him to assert different nyms, something which I suspect based on a number of recent posts that have the same basic shtick as Jack and have tended to be assoicated with his admitted posts.

While I generally will let anyone say just about anything once, the specific use of Brooke's name and the implied threat of the language used cause me to believe that this specific comment is a violation that is in the nature of a threat or trolling.

Please advise if you wish to dissent from my opinion.

While it is probably too soon to come to a firm conclusion about the source of this much concentrated stupidity, I am tending to think that it is likely to be a much smaller group than the variety of nyms would have you believe at first glance, based on the cookie-cutter nature of the comments and the proliferation of nyms. This is perhaps a sign that this is an escalation of what has been a long-time troublesome phenomenoa.

It may require a looser interpretation of our existing standards temporarily to tamp it down. We'll see, but I would be interested in hearing the oponions of others. The IMC space is getting to be a rather constantly unfriendly space again for legitimate users of the site.
Mike Lehman

_______________________________________________
Imc-web mailing list
Imc-web at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web