[Imc-web] UCIMC Editorial Policy

[Mike Lehman]

Do you always talk anonymously about where and who you've seen people 
who don't know you personally while engaging in aggressive conversations 
with them? Do you really think that such behavior is either normal or 
likely to result in a reasonable conversation? You may have fallen off 
the turnip wagon yesterday, but you shouldn't presume that we did. Yours 
is creepy behavior, no matter what circumstances it occurs under. I 
think we can put your tired excuse for that in the same category as your 
revealing refusal to directly address why you chose your screen name.

Our basic editorial policy has been in effect for some time now and has 
remained largely unchanged over the last three years. We are currently 
working on an update/revision of written existing policy, which is 
somewhat out of date as it doesn't go into detail about the current 
interpretations of it as amended since it was last posted. Until then, 
you have the option of showing up to discuss things at a meeting.

As for your assertion that we are violating out existing policy, I can 
assure you we are not. But when you see a kid who was walking home 
through the park from an authorized event at Douglass Center getting 
justly pepper-sprayed as fully justifiable use of force, we mostly see 
unresolved and significant issues of excessive use of force by police. I 
doubt we'll see eye to eye on how our editorial policy is interpreted, 
either. But that is our privilege, not some anonymous troll's. There are 
plenty of other places on the web if you have something you feel you 
need to say, many of whom will welcome your mindless repetition of 
"respect authority without question" -- and won't be in a position to 
call you on your own hypocrisy about that like we are.

I simply don't see where it is at all mysterious that we don't hold 
discussions about our editorial policy on the webpage. This is a very, 
very common understanding on the internet and is typically only violated 
by those who do not want to engage in a serious dialog with the online 
community it represents, but simply wants to remind everyone that there 
are others who disagree, or who just want to make some pretentious claim 
about their "free speech" being violated.

And you've already encountered how we do things and yet you don't seem 
to be internalizing it at all. You don't seem to want to take a lesson 
from these "teachable moments" yet. Instead, you're trying to tell me 
what I should do for you and how wrong I am about what I've been doing 
with our policy for seven years. Pardon me while I chuckle under me 
breathe about your silliness. You may think you get a license to troll 
when you come to UC IMC, but I can assure you that you don't and that 
our policy is designed to specifically address such issues, as they've 
done in your case. If you're really worried about toeing the line of our 
policy, then you need to get off your highhorse and quit telling em I 
don't know WTH I'm doing. But it rapidly got too late for that in your 
case, which demonstrates that you likely never had any intention of 
positively interacting, even if you disagree, with others in the UC IMC 
community.

Besides, from the tone and text of your comments, you sound like you 
have a lot of experience with UC IMC previous to the assumption of your 
latest screen name that you can draw on to determine how our policy is 
interpreted. Your plea of personal ignorance about this is somewhat 
disingenuous.
Mike Lehman

Model Train Lover wrote:
> Death squads and stalking?  This email has confirmed my suspicions
> that upper-level UC-IMC members have substantial mental health
> problems.  Come on, haven't you ever heard of Google?  The first hits
> for "Brian Dolinar" are the one I posted...same thing with your name
> (in fact, most of the info on you comes from UC-IMC's archived
> stories).
>
> There's no implicit threat, and your assertion that there is proves
> that you don't understand the term.
>
> I'm still curious why UC-IMC hides comments while ignoring their
> published editorial policy.  The majority of hidden posts do not fall
> into those enumerated categories.  If you updated the policy, the
> backlash from posters wouldn't be so great, as the hiding policy
> wouldn't seem so arbitrary.
>