[Imc-web] Please take this lightly...

[Mike Lehman]

Dan,
There are several reasons. First, the hidden comments fit a longstanding 
pattern of abusive anonymous posting here. This is a fairly well-defined 
pattern and I've been sending such postings to File 13 for the last 
three years, while inviting whoever it is to discuss the issue here on 
imc-web, so far without any effect other than the persistence of this 
person. Perhaps it is time for Steering to consider if this pattern 
justifies authorization to get this person's IP and block them. I 
personally prefer that the behavior itself simply go away, so putting 
such crap into Hidden also serves as a guide to other users about how 
our editorial policy is enforced. I am far less concerned with 
identifying a particular person, which brings up the touchy issue of 
anonymity. Despite the extra work this causes, I'd rather hide this crap 
than identify the person generating it. But at this point, I would 
support an IP id and block in this particular case, as we're clearly 
dealing with someone whose compulsion to do this can't be discouraged.

Second, because this continues a pattern of BD having his own personal 
troll. It's time this ended. It's fine to argue with Brian and his 
reporting, but the constant drumbeat of negativity and cheap shots is 
not contributing to the impression that this somehow is what is the 
expected level of discourse on UC IMC. It sure sounds like a blog 
though, but we're not a blog.

And they simply are off-topic. The article is about police behavior, not 
about the fact that some troll doesn't like BD. No one "compared" BD to 
Martin Luther King. It was merely noted that activists have always been 
criticized and attacked in such ways by those who prefer the status quo 
remain unchanged. This sort of ridiculous exaggeration is also part of 
the pattern I've been dealing with. Is it worth anyone's time to answer 
this crap? Generally not and you'll rarely see anyone responding to it, 
even when I haven't had the chance to deal with it promptly, because our 
users have a lot of experience with not feeding the trolls.

BTW, if we can get a consensus that we want UC IMC to basically look and 
read like blog, like Illini Pundit, then we can just simplify the whole 
thing and turn the keys over to those folks. Because that's what it will 
be in no time and I want nothing to do with such a thing. Remember, 
they're the dominant opinion and will quickly dominate and discourage 
the communities we are here to serve. That is why for all the patience 
we had with "Jack Ryan" we had to eventually bite the bullet and kick 
him and his associated discourse off the site, resulting in the current 
editorial policy. It simply discouraged legitimate users from the site. 
I would not be surprised if that was the intention from the first place.

I didn't spend the time I have editing to end up in such an eventuality, 
despite the best efforts of a few trolls to make UC IMC into such a 
community. And past discussions of our policy, while they included no 
one except me who is presently involved in these discussions, have 
always rejected such an concept. If people think that UC IMC really 
needs a blog and the style of "discussion" that goes on with such a 
thing, then we should set one up and let people go wild over there. It 
might draw off some of the crappy trolling comments. But why would any 
of us want to write for such a thing, just to be troll target? I know I 
won't.

Now, if people who populate IP want to come here and engage with us in a 
constructive and forthright manner, like I see most of the liberals with 
thick enough skin to put up with the average IP knuckle-dragger doing, 
that would be fine. In fact, they already do so here, if they treat our 
website with the respectful discussion that I mostly see from liberals 
engaging with IP. There is such material here, in fact material I deeply 
disagree with and I even just now responded to, but which remains posted 
here, despite the constant allegations of the resident troll that 
nothing that I disagree with is allowed to be posted at UC IMC.

But, no, the whole point of being a conservative crank is to attack 
sites like UC IMC and for the most part, those folks don't think 
turnaround is fair play. They expect that we should paint a big target 
on our foreheads, hand them a baseball bat, and for us to tell them to 
bang away to their heart's content under the banner of giving them "free 
speech." I don't see what other message such discourse has, but I really 
do not think it is what people who support UC IMC want, expect, or will 
support, based on the past discussions that went onto shaping our 
existing editorial policy.

For people who want to engage constructively with the topic at hand, 
there has never been any problem saying what they'd like to say, unless 
they slide into blatantly racist constructions. The dirty stream of 
non-sequitirs, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and constant 
reminders that activists are just wasting everyone's time is nothing 
new. It has been around since we first kicked "Jack Ryan" off the 
website. It is at most one or two people, otherwise the problem would be 
lots bigger than it is. The timing and topics suggest a simple obsession 
with constantly reminding users that not everyone agrees with UC IMC. 
But heck, all one needs to do is read the posts and comments of others 
to see that isn't true anyway and that we actually have made very little 
effort to define what is abusive by means of a political line that needs 
to be followed. I much prefer dealing with people's behavior than with 
their politics.

Since the last meeting, I have been working on writing down editorial 
policy as it is, as it was modified from the last written policy (still 
posted on the old website) and how it has been interpreted for the last 
three years in practice. I gave David G. an earlier draft for comments, 
because he is the other person with the most familiarity with editing as 
it has been done, but I haven't heard back from him on it yet. I've done 
a bit more work on it and will post it as an attachment to a separate 
email and welcome your comments.
Mike Lehman

dan blah wrote:
> not knowing anything about editing precedent outside of my lurking
> around the last few months, despite my feeling of moderation generally
> being done well, mike i am curious why this as been hidden?
> ...
> Remember, Martin Luther King was frequently accused of exactly the
> same thing that BD is being accused of -- stirring up folks who'd
> otherwise be happy in their misery and oppression if only those pesky
> activists would go home. That wasn't true in the past and it's not any
> more true now. Thank god for outside agitators in this country -- or
> we'd likely still be discussing the finer points of humanitarian
> treatment of slaves. And thank god for independent journalists who do
> more than copy from police press releases.
> anonymous – April 7, 2007 – 1:38pm
> delete – edit – reply
> This comment has been hidden.
> I don't think you should
>
> [off topic, trolling - ML]
>
> I don't think you should make a habit of comparing BD to Dr. Martin
> Luther King. It's wrong on many levels.
> anonymous – April 7, 2007 – 1:48pm
> delete – edit – reply
>
> This comment has been hidden.
> How is stating that Dolinar
>
> [even more off topic and still trolling away - ML]
>
> How is stating that Dolinar is no MLK Jr. trolling and off-topic? Some
> moron is comparing BD to a great civil rights leader and you let that
> stand, but when somebody points this out all of the sudden you swoop
> in and start deleting posts. Really, whoever else sits on the board at
> IMC needs to look at ML's liberal use of the delete button and take
> his priveleges away. This is simply ridiculous and really gives IMC a
> black eye. Do it for free speech.
> anonymous – April 7, 2007 – 2:50pm
> delete – edit – reply
>
>