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

[dan blah]

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
> >
> >
>
>
Thank you for the clarification Mike.  My purpose was just that.  As a
new user on this list it is hard to find out this information without
prodding.  I don't think i disagree on any points or how ucimc.org is
generally run.

I agree we do not want to be of the blog fashion but am still slightly
concerned on how we handle the comments on the grey line.  Is it the
original commenter, who's comment was part off topic and part on
topic, who's at fault or the commenter who commented on the 50% that
was off topic?

Point is, that it takes as much effort to hide a comment for being off
topic as it does to comment on an off topic comment being off topic.
This also informs the rest of the community as to our guidelines.

-- 
Daniel