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

[Brian Dolinar]

I agree that I don't want ucimc.org to just be a blog.
I refuse to publish on the Ill Pundit because I don't want to promote their
level of discourse.

BD

On 4/8/07, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-Web mailing list
> IMC-Web at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-web
>



-- 
Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
303 W. Locust St.
Urbana, IL 61801
briandolinar at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/attachments/20070408/372ba57d/attachment.htm