[Imc-web] RE: IMC-Web Digest, Vol 33, Issue 13

[Mike Lehman]

Phil,
No, we didn't raise Jack Ryan to mythic heights. We chose to put an end 
to a pattern of posting. We can't effectively ban a person, just their 
behavior, when we use anonymous publishing. While you may not be aware 
of the details of our long history of dealing with abusive posting 
practices at UC IMC's website, we when banned Jack, we clearly banned 
his behavior. This was explained at the time and was part of the consensus.

How are the editors supposed to know whether Jack posted a particular 
anonymous post, other than by its congruence with a pattern of posting? 
It was clear that he was posting multiple nymns, that all of them 
represented behavior we defined as abusive under our editing policies, 
and that it was agreed that for Jack or anyone else, such posts would 
fall under the drive-by-sniping category and those not clearly 
attributable to a known user would be be hidden. Those attributable to a 
particular person would be dealt with under existing policies that allow 
more process, but which also view such behavior as problematic. In sum, 
if anonymous, no appeal. If posted as someone who we could communicate 
with or otherwise identify, then you could invoke IMC process to dispute 
the issue.

You might refer to the gehrig's comment here:
http://www.ucimc.org/node/172#comment-125
for a slightly different take on this same basic principle. In fact, 
discouraging this kind of behavior was behind some of the design 
features on the new website.

I really don't want to get into which anonymous posts of your own you 
feel were unjustly hidden -- that would just be guesswork -- but I do 
know those which fall under this policy when I see them. They apparently 
fell within the category of the above policy. While this is always a 
somewhat subjective way to evaluate, I can tell you that part of the 
reason that Jack got an abusive behavior named after him that we then 
generalized into the existing policy is that such behavior encourages 
similar behavior on the part of others. For many IMC members, we 
tolerated Jack far too long and at this juncture, I tend to agree. The 
site has only returned slowly to the level of posting by legitimate 
users present before Jack began his reign of error.

This brings us to another issue that I think we may fundamentally 
disagree on. Indymedia was founded to give voice to those voices 
suppressed through marginalization and fear and to tie progressive 
activist networks together and to the community. Who are we here to 
serve then? Is it Jack and his habit of discouraging any activism as 
pointless and immoral? Or is it communities that are just beginning to 
find their voices, who we know by experience don't want to put up with 
the same dissing crap they can get by tuning in most of the dominant 
media? It is definitely the latter, rather than the former. Some people 
make the mistake of assuming this is some sort of "free speech forum." 
If you want that, you've got the Internet and no one is stopping anyone 
from setting up their own website, but this collective retains the 
fundamental right to determine an appropriate editorial policy through 
proper process.

And we know for a fact that letting people hang around and make 
systematically off-topic, trolling comments is a sure way to discourage 
the legitimate users of the site from posting freely and engaging in 
discussion that encourages, organizes, and empowers activists seeking 
social justice, i.e fulfills our mission statement and purpose for being 
here in the first place.

I don't want to make this too personal, but I think you may now be able 
to see just how uncomfortable and disconcerting your quoting the Bible 
on homosexuality is to this community. While it may be true that your 
views make you marginalized within the IMC community, it is hardly the 
case that there aren't already plenty of outlets for such points of view 
within the dominant media. You may say it's all about love, but for the 
vast majority of IMC members, you're just quoting the same thing Rev. 
Phelps is -- and you've done very little to distinguish just how your 
views may differ from his.

At just about any other IMC, you simply taking such a position would 
likely result in an immediate proposal to expunge you from the 
organization. There is still that possibility here at UC IMC, but in 
general we are a far more tolerant bunch than that. Are you or your 
minister spreading hate? That is a matter of opinion, but I can tell you 
that there are many, if not most IMC members who would likely agree that 
quoting the same thing as Rev. Phelps is too uncomfortably close to hate 
for their tastes.

Can I refer to another comment in that string that I referenced above, 
as I think it succinctly makes the same point that I'm about to? I'm 
referring to the leisure suit analogy. Are you really ignorant of these 
conflicts or are you well aware that this is an organization 100% more 
likely to sponsor a benefit for same-sex marriage than it is to sponsor 
a a benefit to defend traditional marriage?

Would your church tolerate some clown who stumbled drunkenly through the 
door every Sunday, interrupting the sermon, and soiling the carpet in 
the midst of his foolish behavior? Oh, maybe for a week or two, you'd be 
trying to get him to Prairie Center or whatever. But if he kept coming 
back, doing it again and again, I'm sure there would be a point when you 
figured the Lord wasn't going to help right here, right now, and you'd 
be dialing 911 to lock him up, issue a no trespass notice, and obtain an 
order of protection for the minister and his family.

If you want to come to the IMC to witness or preach, then you should be 
explicit about it. You'll have to take the slings and arrows. But at 
least we'd know it was one of us, in a way, because otherwise such 
material posted here repeatedly and anonymously is going to fall under 
the rubric of what we consider to be abusive posting practices. We have 
very good reasons why we don't tolerate this material and it reaches far 
beyond the Jack thing. We're here to serve under-served communities and 
we can't do that when we have a persistent pattern of comments on the 
topic of "Why organize? You're just wasting your time. You shouldn't 
raise hell. You should repent."

I don't mean to hurt you or to attack your views. In fact, that is why I 
offered several times to speak with you and explain further when you 
raised concerns previously, but you never followed up. I've done my best 
to summarize here the main issues that I would have discussed with you, 
but there is plenty m,ore that could be said, except I have other 
obligations I must tend to. I can respect you no matter who you are amid 
the fact that we probably see the world in fundamentally different ways. 
I can only hope that you return the favor. I won't expect you to accept 
what I find disconcerting about religion and you shouldn't try to 
convince me that Indymedia is somehow wrong to have these policies, 
based on our principles, history and objectives.
Mike Lehman

Phil Stinard wrote:
> I thought about not saying anything more about the hiding of comments, 
> but I'll write (hopefully) one last time.  I think it's ridiculous to 
> be hiding comments that you think might be by the person you have 
> raised to mythic heights--Jack Ryan.  I've had a disturbing number of 
> my own comments hidden when I've posted anonymously, and when I've 
> complained about that in the past, I've been told, "Oh, we thought you 
> were Jack Ryan."  My reply to that is, who cares about Jacky Ryan?  
> People can make up their own minds about whether a post is legitimate, 
> and choose whether to reply to it or ignore it.  The only Jack Ryan 
> posts I've seen that were worthy of hiding was when he was posting 
> soft-core porn making fun of the Cream City Collective.  Can't you 
> decide whether to hide something based on whether it is pornographic, 
> or whether it advocates violence, or whatever objective criteria you 
> apply in such matters, rather than hiding stuff you think fits the 
> political or stylistic mindset of a person you're turning into a 
> mythic villain/hero?  You're catching too many others in the crossfire.
>
> A second concern I have on hiding comments is your criteria.  When I 
> was posting on what the Bible says on homosexuality, there was a 
> repeat anonymous poster who kept badgering me with lies and false 
> assumptions about me, and they said, among other things, that my 
> Pastor preaches hate.  I know that this person does not know my 
> Pastor.  My Pastor is a civil rights leader, as are many black church 
> leaders, and making such false blanket statements in ignorance is 
> perhaps one reason why some black churches aren't more involved in the 
> types of issues that the IMC supports.  If my Pastor came to me and 
> asked my opinion about whether to become involved in a certain cause, 
> I'd think twice before making a positive recommendation if it were 
> something that involved the IMC.  I don't really think you should be 
> hiding any of these comments, whether written by an anonymous poison 
> pen, or by Jack Ryan, but my point is, you'll hide stuff that you 
> think is from a relatively benign and self-evident troll, but you 
> won't hide stuff that is not only false, but also damaging to 
> community relations.  It makes no sense to me.
>
> --Phil
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:27:24 -0500
>> From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
>> Subject: [Imc-web] Unpublished Comments
>> To: imc-web at ucimc.org
>> Message-ID: <45352E9C.3010608 at earthlink.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Several of the comments I unpublished in the thread about the CIW seem
>> to have become published again. I have agin unpublished them.
>>
>> One of the issues with not having a central list on Drupal, at least for
>> the editors, is that the genealogy of comment strings and timing is
>> unclear to other editors. Thus, when dealing with Jack, as I believe
>> these comments were,  it may not be as obvious as before why I've hidden
>> them.
>>
>> I'd just like to ask that we presume that each other is acting within
>> policy when we come across something that has been unpublished and leave
>> it there. If any of us thinks that a comment should be resurrected,
>> please check in here prior to doing so.
>>
>> Generally, when dealing with such long term, recognizable patterns of
>> anonymous posting -- for instance, Ricky gets this same shit every time
>> he posts -- I don't bother with notices to this list. If we feel this
>> needs to reinstated to deal with the lack of a central page for
>> unpublished comments, that is one option.
>> Mike Lehman