IMC editorial policy. Look folks, I know you got a full plate in the battle to
keep this site functioning despite the hordes of weasels, and filth that ride on this board to trash honest debate.
Also I’ve noticed that this site goes down for unexplained reasons I suspect are attempts to interfere with physical (DOS etc.) operations but I
don’t know about it except that I get error or ‘ not accepting, try later’
messages. These are to be expected as this forum becomes a threat to the enemy.
However I do have some questions.
Do you have an editorial policy? If so, where is it??
I know IMC SF has initiated a hard line after suffering from similar attacks
and it seems to work even as my own posts have been deleted in the fire
hose effect to damp out vicious assaults upon that site and I understand that judgment at these times cannot be both reasoned and timely during rabid storming of the walls by racist, sexist and porno spam attacks.
But.
Why do you delete certain posts that are merely common stupidity from
say BA yet allow blatant racist, sexist or disgusting porn to remain on
permanently? Can you help me out here with an explanation?
Thank you.

There is no enemy. Only an adversary. An opponent. I don't mean to nitpick but that's the only part of your post I could reply to. It's important. Because what happens when you get punks against punks? (straight edge versus other... hmm?) Anarchists against anarchists?

Oh there is an enemy, alright. The system and its operatives. The ones who would have this country turned into a police state for their own interests. The ones who would sacrifice lives for self enrichment. Small point.
Is there an editorial policy or not?

The editorial policy is that whichever left wing weenie is on duty at the moment has access to the delete button.

error

I said censorship not trash pick up. You monkeys are our
comedy relief.

You know what I am typing about. The adolph spagitti or justin fashnu
type of crap that stays on the boards while BA's silly moronisms are
scooped for unknown reasons at the editors whims. Now, am I mistaken
or did there used to be a posted policy? I thought it pertained to sexism
racism or porn together with advertisement.

the truth about the world's enemy

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

The above post, obviously a diversion, is what my title refers to.

As for the more serious matter of Editorial Policy. I would like to see a clear statement. Preferably one that only rules out crap such as the Hate Spam posted by Adolphus Spasmodeus.

I love BA's posts. Sometimes it's my best laugh of the day.

I think letting the trolls make their lovable little comments adds spice. Also they make great targets.

Oh, Dog - I was looking at the Ruger Catalog - which round do you prefer? The .223 or the 7.62? I'm trying to make up my mind and I bow to your superior knowledge of Fire Arms.

Posted on several threads. I looked at this link and it was
total crap.

You know I prefer a .308 (7.62) too bad you can't pick up a T26 (tanker's M1) they are hot. Perfect for smaller boned
guys with all the advantages of the good ol 30-06 M1.

I watched the post(s) disappear because they were obvious poser posts and i think BA had them ripped because they would ruin his rep.

really good slams on the guy; you missed out.









relax, I'll pour

The inconsistency of things being hidden is based on the fact that we can't see everything all the time, and that different web editors interepret policies differently. You see it right Sheepdog.

BA has been a subject of much discussion- while some appreciate his debate value, others feel like he is not involved in a discursive debate, that he is only here to ruin the wire.

The guideline is essentially that we hide racist/sexist/homophobic posts and direct death-threats. Porn is hidden if it is up as spam. Besides these 5 definites, if editors find questionable posts they think should be hidden, they must have 2 other web-editors to agree with them before hiding it.

More to come soon on the editorial policy.

I look foward to it. Thanks for taking the time to
respond.
-S

it's about time Sheepdog got an answer to his good question. and 'dog is very gracious about it all but....

don't you think it's pretty shameful that the IMC editors are so interested in BA and do all this secret talking about him, arguing about him, censoring him, etc. but can barely bring themselves to talk to the rest of us.

yuck. gross.

classic middle management type behavior. i propose that IMC editors get their asses out from behind their precious curtain and bring some of their hand-wringing into the sunlight where it might not be a TOTAL waste of time.

don't get me wrong oh anarcho-elite.

While I am involved in the IMC and the webitorial group (to the extent that I attend meetings and help with some basic tasks) I write not as an IMC rep but as an individual.

The subject of how to administer the newswire has been a matter of much open discussion. The deliberations on this matter are far from secret; they are open to anyone who wishes to attend the general meetings, or to join a working group and engage in “virtual” discussions over the working group e-mail lists. The anonymous poster known as “l-his” is mistaken when he refers to “hand wringing” and “secret talking” behind a “precious curtain.” But I understand that it is easier to throw stones than to actually get involved and be a productive member of an organization. (And I know the simple pleasure of throwing stones from behind the veil of anonymity, and the frustration of working with a decentralized volunteer organization, so I won’t pass judgement there).

While BA may have distinguished himself with his own peculiar brand of commentary, he is not the only person who has levied abuse and vitriol at other newswire users. As such, the collective has decided to put significant time and energy into a comprehensive editorial policy that will be evenhanded, fair and open to a diversity of opinion and ideology while filtering out the puerile doggerel on the newswire that does nothing to further honest debate about the issues of the day.

If anyone has any actual suggestions for this policy, please post them as a comment to this posting and we will do our best to integrate them into the existing working text.

It would be handy if the images were set to left justify, since large images make smaller one scroll out of normal viewing area.

Also it would be good to note deleted posts by
author and reason for deletion. Say, as in
'post by _____________ deleted due to violation of
_______________________ as per IMC editorial policy.'

"The deliberations on this matter are far from secret; they are open to anyone who wishes to attend the general meetings, or to join a working group and engage in ³virtual² discussions over the working group e-mail lists."

are you not listening? answer this question: why not bring some of the "virtual" discussions onto the commentary page and get some feedback? that was proposed.. did you just not notice?

good grief. same blind people in charge everywhere you look: the public has to shout and scream before the kpfk LAB will consent to listen to public comment. the listeners have to form these mad revolts inorder to get programmers to take unscreened calls. the IMC editors needs to be nagged and berated to notice that some of the public wants to interact with them IN PUBLIC. what is this some sort of managerial religion or something?!

"The anonymous poster known as ³l-his² is mistaken when he refers to ³hand wringing² and ³secret talking² behind a ³precious curtain.² "

oh bullshit. you already admitted all this. it was only re-phrased with some FEELINGS. you described how there is a lot of private discussions about BA without a hint of a care in the world. is that part of your role? to not care about anything?

"But I understand that it is easier to throw stones than to actually get involved and be a productive member of an organization."

your tone is so emotionless it's hard to imagine you working up a sweat about anything.... so this is what you believe? people who use the IMC sites and post to them and care about the IMC and work to improve it are not "involved" according to you, unless they got to your meeting right? your meeting.... the notes from which are never posted to the newswire.

and we aren't "productive" either. that is you people who spend your precious time talking about BA without ever posting any of your conversations.

"(And I know the simple pleasure of throwing stones from behind the veil of anonymity, and the frustration of working with a decentralized volunteer organization, so I won¹t pass judgement there)"

how charitable.

"While BA may have distinguished himself with his own peculiar brand of commentary"

eeewwwww..... this is really gross. there is nothing to distinguish BA but the shameful deference he receives from the likes of you. nor is there anything "peculiar". he is a garden variety USA asshole. just because you don't have the inclination to oppose him doesn't make him special.

"he is not the only person who has levied abuse and vitriol at other newswire users. As such, the collective has decided to put significant time and energy into a comprehensive editorial policy that will be evenhanded, fair and open to a diversity of opinion and ideology while filtering out the puerile doggerel on the newswire that does nothing to further honest debate about the issues of the day."

AT LAST.... the first evidence of some real concern about anything. but i have little confidence that you editors are up to the task yourselves. snotty anesthetic words like "puerile doggerel" make it seem even less likely you'll really solve much. you know what you should do? you should explain WHY this even matters to you. do you USE the comments page? that IS where most of the abuse takes place, right? if you don't USE it,, why should we who DO use it listen to you? if you DO use it, why not point out your own experiences with it?

"If anyone has any actual suggestions for this policy, please post them as a comment to this posting and we will do our best to integrate them into the existing working text."

UGH!!! numerous suggestions HAVE been made.... can you not even acknowledge that?! if you really want input, you should show people that their ideas ARE being noticed. the easiest way to do that would be to move some of your private discussions onto the newswire and comments page.... but what am i wasting my fingers for - - you've already said that we won't be "involved" unless we leave this public forum and join your group. oh well.

-------------------------

another point: i notice more and more organizations making efforts to have intense internal one-time sessions to write these structural, procedural, policy documents and so forth. what's with that? what would we say if Congress delared that it was going to have a "retreat" just for them out at some fucked up elitist resort where they would decide once and for all what the RULES ARE. we'd say bullshit. working on our organizational structures and processes and policies and so on and on is an ongoing regular part of our work if we are at all serious about cooperation and communication. this "retreat" trend just means we AREn't serious.

Stray thoughts:

One thing I would like to see is a “Compost Bin” like the one PDX Indy uses (although desultorily) where deleted articles and posts are accumulated for viewing. This sidesteps the Censorship problem by simply pouring all the shit into one hole.

I would also like to see some standard of polite behavior enforced. Debates are always likely to become heated. And that is good - I like the spice. However, I think that they should be, however serious, conducted in something resembling a civilized exchange of views. Defining when something crosses the line is a tricky proposition but anything which is simply a gratuitous ad-hominem attack should make a reasonable test. It is always going to require some degree of judgement and discretion with the benefit of the doubt extended to the Poster.

>>> IMC editors are so interested in BA and do all this secret talking about him, arguing about him, censoring him, etc.

That's flattering. Hero worship is always flattering.

...where does that put self flattery?

Perhaps a ban on repeated identical posts ( more than say,
twice in the same thread) it would cut down on BW use.

Here's an idea for the collective: Voluntary email registration of specific author names (e.g., "ziggy," "Sheepdog," etc.) -- but only if a user decided they didn't mind going through an email-based password verification system (I can explain the logistics of that if desired, but I know the tech folks will get what I mean). Conceptually, it could work like this. Anytime someone posted as "Sheepdog" (assuming Sheepdog chose to make use of the optional registration of the name) they would fill in a form-box with a passcode the database would recognize and permit the post when "Sheepdog" was put in the "your name" box (and if the author wasn't using a reserved name, the passcode box would remain empty)

It isn't an editorial policy issue per se, but people impersonating people happens to one of the more annoying practices of those that intend mostly to just mess with the wire. It could be a cool addition -- to be used by anyone that wanted to use it, and ignored by the rest.

This isn't a simple feature to code. I realize that. But I'm just tossing the idea out here for tech folks to think about. Maybe someday something like this might be of interest.

Thanks for the great service!

ziggy

Thanks all for the feedback. Some of the ideas, like the "compost bin" are already in place, we are creating a policy to govern their use. Some, like voluntary user registration, are under consideration.

While I doubt I'll change anyone's mind, there is nothing closed about the process. The website is only one part of the IMC, and there is a lot of effort that goes into keeping the IMC going. There are no IMC editors, per se, only IMC users who are involved at different levels. There is no boss, no staff, no unilateral authority, and as a result things move very slowly. It is the character of non-hierarchical volunteer organizations that make decisions by consensus.

A note to all: there is nothing holding you back from taking a greater role in the IMC, and there is no cabal of editors. All our discussions occur at a publicily accessible venue and are open to anyone who wants to participate. Alternatively, there are listservs you can join.

The reason that there has been no discussion on the newswire is that the newswire is for news, not for organizational deliberations. Those are saved for other venues, and the bar for participation is low. So if you have suggestions, I suggest you check the Calendar and come to a meeting.

Or you can whine and moan and generally be unconstructive.

sf imc has become a dictatorial regime with absolutely no consideration for dissenting opinion. I, myself, have been a rightwing contributor to sf imc for nearly two years. Recently, they've blocked my IP and deleted every single comment I've made.

And it doesn't stop there. I'm in contact with others to which have been subjected to the same consequences for disagreeing with "the collective". Worse than that, nessie and his ilk have resorted to re-writing and rewording posts of contributing conservatives to suit his purposes.

sf imc has become a forum that the likes of Hitler and the Gestapo would have been proud. It is nothing more than nessie's little psyop in cyberspace, and if you don't believe me, go there and read their bullshit.

And try to publish something positive supporting Bush and the war effort. It will be deleted within 15 minutes.

Maybe it was the poorly writen prose and megelomania.
I did like your analysis of the Redding murder of that
police officer, however.
I have to admit that they do play fast and loose with
author's posts. But hey, you can come over here and join
Simple Simon in his uberrant.

SF Indymedia sends me a friendly greeting:

"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server."

I don't think Nessie likes me or anyone else who's rational.

When any of the so-called free media sites decide to squelch opposing viewpoints then they lose ALL moral authority. Sure it would be nice if we could all just preach to the choir, but part of communicating and understanding is to hear both sides of the story, even if you disagree with someones opinion.

I may think so-called right-wingers are wrong headed and they would think the same about me, but if we don't talk then we just end up fighting and isn't that what we are here to hopefully prevent. Communication and understanding are a major tool for solving problems and both require that you hear and think about dissenting opinions.

I was blocked by Portland because of dissenting opinions focused at Christianity and the Vatican. Now there's a bastion of free speech for you. Glad to see there's some more of you out there that see the connections. Why would anyone think a Church could be a good protector of Truth and free speech when they actively suppress free thought, as a rule.

Free speech means free speech for all, not just for your friends and viewpoints.

I see a pattern
IMC LA
IMC Portland
IMC SF
But here you are, Whining again!

Larson - I fully agree with that.

One reason the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News is the top rated show on cable TV is his strongly opinionated and forceful personality.

The other equally important reason for his high ratings, would be the fact that he constantly invites the opposing point of view.

For example, Bill will look the audience in the eye and tell them bluntly that he thinks Michael Jackson is a disgusting pedophile. He'll also invite Jackson to come on the program or send a spokesman to tell his side of the story.

You don't get that from an Amy Goodman or a Nessie. They don't have the ability to defend their opinions and debate them with a knowledgeable opponent.

He's trying to pretend there are 3 of them.
Would still not have been enough to win the election.
Next time don't get an appointed president.
** Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever
he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow
him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his
power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If
to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to
prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say
to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say
to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't." **

From The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, volume II.
http://kinkade.ws/cwt_alt/resources/e-texts/lincoln/02.htm

"There are no IMC editors, per se, only IMC users who are involved at different levels."

yeah. and there are no "employees" or "bosses" at Wal Mart either, only "team members" who are involved at "different levels".

of course the IMC is leagues beyond Wal Mart when it comes to democratizing and decentralizing the organization of work. but, you see, democratization, decentralization, and opposition to illegitimate authority in general, are projects that are never finished.

now a lot of sort of managerial type people drift into "progressive" organizations and think "oh the IMC is SOOOO radical", or "KPFK is SOOOO radical", or "the Bus Riders Union is SSOOOO radical", or "the International Action Center is SOOO radical" or for that matter, "the North Eastern Federation of Anarcho - Communists" is so0oo radical!!" and on the one hand they are right.

these are very important groups that are doing very valuable, even crucial work. but on the other hand, we have to try to look forward. Eric Mann is still the "Director" down at Bus Riders Union HQ.... they DO have a hierarchy.... but.... the B.R.U. IS genuinely committed to tri-lingualism. meetings, literature, etc. are all in English, Spanish, and Korean. the L.A. - IMC's meetings are NOT like that. Nor are the LA-IMC meetings as black brown and yellow as the more hierarchical B.R.U.

ever since the "gag rule", KPFK and Pacifica administrators and advisory boards have routinely acquiesced to popular demands that they broadcast iPNB meetings, broadcast shows ABOUT internal issues, etc. Sometimes, like at today's KPFK LAB meeting, they vote unanimously in favor of this kind of thing.

it used to be that the decision makers would rend their clothing and howl about how radio broadcasts ABOUT radio would ruin the stations and the world probably, etc. it's taken time for people to see the value in having radio ABOUT radio.

the IMC newswires and other spaces on the website should be devoted to outreach, discussion, education, and planning about LA-IMC for the exact same reason that Pacifica is bringing it's own processes onto their airwaves.

the fact that Matt Olson has bothered to respond to the posts here is a (very small) first or second step in the right direction. some version of the notes from your IMC meetings SHOULD be posted to the newswire. your meetings may not yet be news, but they COULD be. that is part of the point of democratizing media: to make us realize the power of us little people.

the point of democratizing media is NOT to join a club of hip politicos who have email listserv discussions about "Bush Admirer" without letting us know what's going on. and don't even pretend it isn't happening - i get forwards of some of the emails from your workgroup listservs from time to time. i won't join because i'm too busy (posting here, for example).

rule #1 (or is it #2?) of hierarchical society is that if you want to rise to the next level you must break solidarity with the level you're in. i resent being asked to do so.

so yes, the IMC is better than WAL MART, but be forthcoming about your shortcomings, not defensive. and take note of this suggestion: post some of your meeting notes to the wire!

"There is no boss, no staff, no unilateral authority, and as a result things move very slowly. It is the character of non-hierarchical volunteer organizations that make decisions by consensus."

"slow" can be okay if it means "slow enough to do things properly". but slowness is also a real serious problem in many organizations. there is no reason why non-heirarchical volunteer organizations cannot run effectively and efficiently, even with extreme speed if necessary. if you are too accepting of inefficiency, you are in effect holding our alternative organizations of opposition to a lower standard. that would be consistent with my guess that you see yourself descending (or should i say condescending) to the grassroots underworld from the sunlighted world of "greater efficiency" above us.

excessive slowness often occurs when particpation increases and the goals of the organization don't rise to meet the increased participation. you see.... when the organization grows, 1) your own role can become LESS CENTRAL.... or 2) you can have MORE UNDERLINGS. if you tend towards number 2) things can get very slow - especially in "non-hierarchical" organizations, where there is bound to be resistance. this is consistent with my guess that your daydreams are managerial as are other IMC-ers.

"A note to all: there is nothing holding you back from taking a greater role in the IMC, and there is no cabal of editors. All our discussions occur at a publicily accessible venue and are open to anyone who wants to participate. Alternatively, there are listservs you can join."

.... all you have to do to find out our Editorial Policy, or what we think about BA for that matter, is stop clamoring for us to tell EVERYONE ELSE.

i've always wondered: why do shy people flock to media work?

"The reason that there has been no discussion on the newswire is that the newswire is for news, not for organizational deliberations."

i believe that you are newsworthy. i must be nuts, but i do.

"Those are saved for other venues, and the bar for participation is low. So if you have suggestions, I suggest you check the Calendar and come to a meeting. Or you can whine and moan and generally be unconstructive."

well.... maybe someday i'll be a big courageous man and have email discussions about BA, but for now i'd rather be "unconstructive" and throw my time away on the much scorned LA-IMc commentary page....

Sheepdog, there's a reason you liked that analysis so much. It's because it was purely a work of fiction that I concocted merely in an attempt to entertain you.

The truth is that that McRae character is a whacked out idealist that killed a policeman because of idealistic dementia. And furthermore, his idealism was obviously exacerbated by the crap that he read on these ridiculous imc forums.

Now try to go to sf imc and post something about why indybay continues to advocate violence against police officers even though Officer David Mobilio’s body is barely cold. Just the other day, nessie was on the rampage over at sf imc, posting under one of his many names, about how the sf police dept. should have their heads placed on pikes for display outside of the sf Civic Center.

I commented about this advocating violence against police officers, and how that may have contributed to Mobilio’s murder. Nessie cut loose with a rant about freedom of speech, and immediately deleted all of my posts.

In my opinion, those idiots have David Mobilio’s blood on their hands. They know it too. That’s why they delete any comments mentioning or even inferring this fact.

You see, my time in the military taught me a lot about the way people think. I certainly know how to “feed” people psychologically. And while you’re probably correct in stating that my prose is often lacking fluidity, I think you’ll agree that it often addresses the deeper “needs” of the individual to which directed.

In short I supply a venue, and fill a void.

Of course, even though sf imc has blocked my IP, anonymous proxy servers work wonders.

But why should I hang out where I’m not wanted? LA IMC seems to have more “personality” anyway.

La-imc has some level of tolerance for opposing opinion, sf-imc has none. They will delete opinions they don't agree with in a heart beat and will block senders with a bogus message about system being down while excepting those they want. The ranters will post a lot of messages about their free speech being stifled in the main streamed media, but the biggest offender is sf-mc.

Eric, I did like the conclusion about him not being alone in the murder if
in fact he did do it. We don't know anything yet (as I stated then) because
we haven’t had a trial or investigation. Let’s set that aside.
I’ve no doubt that nessie has issues with the police and even so, has
stated that “the police aren’t the enemy’ on numerous occasions, as
he also states, ‘it’s the system’. Upon this premiss I agree.
Also, since you are not (maybe you do) privy to the IP origin of the
many posters you really don’t know the identify of any of the posters.
Posers are common, as you know, stealing others nicks
Also don’t try to give us the ‘cops are the good guys’ mantra because
there are numerous examples disproving this all inclusive statement.
There ARE bad cops and the honest brave law enforcement personal
no doubt would like to see a dept., purged of gun happy power crazed
‘brothers in blue’ which make their lives far more dangerous having to
carry the same association labeling the badge as a ‘goon with a gun’..

The system works better than any in the world. Better than any in history for that matter. I challenge you or anyone else to attempt to prove that any previous system has functioned better than that which we as Americans enjoy.

Granted, it's not perfect. Not even remotely. It's just the best in all of recorded history. That's all. It could be better. But regardless, name one that's better.

I'm not privy to anything that you're not privy to, Sheepdog. But trust me, I know the stench of nessie when I smell it.

And I'm not going to say that "cops are the good guys". I will say that David Mobilio didn't deserve to die. And the idiot that killed him cited imc as his communications network in his manifesto. It will definately be interesting to see how that trial plays out. Why do you suppose nessie wouldn't want to cover that trial on sf imc? I mean, they were so vigiliante with the Judi Bari trial over there. If they've been wrongly accused here, I don't know why they wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Wouldn't you? If someone accused you of being involved in something you didn't advocate (like the murder of police officers) wouldn't you attempt to vindicate yourself and make a big stink about it?

I know I would. I'd only be quiet about it if there was an element of truth to it. And if there were a lot of truth to it, and it were in my power, I'd shut anyone and everyone up that even mentioned it in my presence. Sort of cover things up and smooth things over. In the criminal world they call it "laying low when the heat is on".

Well, Eric you know I disagree with your analysis of this “system” as it
runs today for a number of reasons. It serves the interests of the few at the expense of the majority. We could dance with that one for awhile but you have heard all this before and if you have your mind made up I
doubt that I could convince you otherwise.
As to the murder of this particular policeman it doesn’t make any sense unless it was another incident to promote public backlash and I hold to that theory How could someone supposed to be progressive and
intelligent, if he was acting out by his professed ideals would shoot such a wound into the very ideals he posted (at numerous sites I may add, not just IMC SF) by such an outrageous act of random (or as I suspect specific targeting) violence? There was nothing to gain from it.
These provocateur adventures are part and parcel to the snakes that
run amok to incite public opinion. Don’t tell me you never heard of
cointelpro,
I still want to see the trial transcripts before judgment. So should you for the sake of justice.

I would rather converse with someone with a brain.
No offence, but you're far too stupid.

marching thru Beverly Hills is a good idea....

we could bring big buckets and signs that say "NO FAIR" and "GIVE US YOU MONEY!!!!"

and we should aim to actually get some of the money, even if it's only a couple thousand bucks. and we can distribute it amongst the neediest among us. just think how many people would come out to the NEXT march thru Beverly Hills!!!! and we could do it every other month. ha ha ha ha....

just think of the panoramic coalition that could be assembled to demand the money of the super rich. can't get much more basic and direct than that.

we should do it.

Democracy Now seems to have been "pre-empted" from KPFK. deafening silence from the protest movement. LA-IMC voluntarily adopts self-gag rule. Are the USA radicals finally GOOD STUDENTS or what?!