At least that's what I thought it was about. There was also a comment about registration to which I would respond with this
:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/181399_comment.php#187925 comment.
Anyway I C&P'ed the relevant comments and here they are minus the curious unnecessary spacing..
***
it's something isn't it ?
by hex Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 at 5:07 PM
what a great way to make the hiding meaningless
or keep everything but the front page even more marginalized than it already is while expending as little effort as possible
only registered patrons should have that ability - but alas that would require some effort too
"Yid and Tia clicking the button"
by abject failure Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 at 5:33 PM
***
The button system doesn't work. It makes it too easy to manipulate lazy editors. Quality editing takes time, effort, consistency, logic, and sound and righteous political analysis. There are no easy shortcuts, no technological quick fixes. Editors have to actually read what has been posted, before they can make a sound decision. If there are links in the post, each link must also be checked out. Yeas, it can be done. No, it cannot be done by a machine. Anyone one who is not willing to put in the work it takes to have an IMC that doesn't advance our enemies' agenda, shouldn't be editors. An IMC with no editing, or worse, half-assed editing, does more harm than good. It is better to have no IMC at all in a particular geographical location, than it is is to have one that is so ill maintained that it can be made to work against the vision we share for the world. Without quality control, Indymedia is simply not credible journalism. Without good politics, IMCistas are not credible activists, the whole effort is meaningless
***
where is the manpower?
by Come on, monster Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 at 7:46 PM
How the hell can you criticize this IMC when there is no cooperation among IMCs to align their resources? I always have remarked that there needs to be a common counsel. No one seems to want to share their labor or discuss these assaults and find methods to deal with them. Am I wrong?I'm shooting in the dark here so please correct me if I am in error.
***
I'd be tickled pink
by hex Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 at 8:13 PM
if I could just register like I am on Arkansas IMC
then the buttons would count for something and people like Tia, etc wouldn't be able to abuse them
***
on alignment
by Hmmmmmm Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 at 9:01 PM
Why is there not a common counsel? To provide a unified series of guide lines and support, and counter the problem of IMCs going rogue? To provide mutual support and editing principles when certain IMCs are under attack? Considering the fact that this idea of an open independent media is so important and is still evolving, I would hope the normal turf and personality conflicts shouldn't outweigh the critical issue of providing information and analysis, in this time of world peril.
This is a deadly war and we are scattered when we need to confederate.
Annihilation awaits us if we don't resolve these petty differences.
***
What are you talking about?
by be specific Monday, Nov. 13, 2006 at 10:56 PM
Define "petty differences"
***
Abject Failure?
by johnk Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 12:45 AM
The anonymous button system works okay if the discussions are not endless flamewars carried out by people who are addicted to fighting with each other.
Most people, of their own accord, will stop discussion after a couple exchanges of words. For the typical situations, the buttons work okay, even if the editors are relatively lazy. Even at the height of the SOS-wars, it didn't take more than an hour to moderate the threads.
The israel/palestine flamewars, however, produce far more text, and even angrier, crazier posts than those that flew between the SOS and the anti-SOS people. I think the people arguing about the editing here care more about the details of the editing than even the people in the collective.
As for other IMCs, most of them just ban y'all.
***
johnk apparently thinks it's all just some kind game
by very bad politics Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 1:46 AM
He thinks he's being neutral. He's not neutral. The minute he provided the racists with a soapbox, he took their side.
He's not neutral. He's collaborating.
Nobody's neutral. You can't be neutral on a moving train. Johnk is consciously and intentionally enabling racists and, by doing so, he is furthering their evil agenda. He's a collaborator. That makes him as guilty as they are.
Indymedia will *never* be an effective activist organization until it rids itself of racists and their enablers.
***
flamewars vs discussion and the value of registration
by hex Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 4:24 AM
> endless flamewars / SOS-wars / israel/palestine flamewars
I'm on another forum where after you register you can post multible pictures, edit your posts or even delete them..
There's a zionist there and *sometimes* we discuss the same things as here (especially since I often promote things from here to there)
but get this -
after a few exchanges of words the discussions end, the thread becomes stale and newer threads bump up to the top
- the discussions end on thier own with no censorship or hiding, no moderation whatsoever
no one writes off these discussions as "flamewars" or abscribes negative emotions to the participants like "angry, crazy"
_at first_ the admin did hide one thread and apply a bit of pressure to a few people to discourage them from posting, but other normally quiet parties stepped in and chewed his ass for doing so.
He hasn't moderated *at all* since - and the forum requires no effort whatsoever..
imagine that.. (and I'm one of the most active people there too)
> just ban y'all.
perhaps you can explain how this can be done under these conditions :
1.) anonymous rotating proxies with no via field on unusual ports
2.) cookies, urchins and web-bugs blocked or spoofed
3.) user_agent and referer fields filtered/blocked/spoofed
4.) network name, MAC and OS rotated/spoofed
who does it really end up banning then ?
And how much effort is it to keep on top of _that_ compared to having the buttons ?
a polarizing "us vs them" attitude (the crazy angry flamers vs the collective)
So finally why are the people who care enough to engage in dialoque seen as enemies both generally and in this case (suggestions/requests on the moderation issue) ?
the admin on the forum I mentioned above _doesn't see us that way_, we like him and he likes us - *he's one of us* (he used to be just another forum member like the rest of us on another forum)
I try to show the same warmth and friendlyness here but it's difficult (you can drop him a PM at any time for example and he'll reply to you within minutes to a few hours) I obtained his specific permission to post a lot of pictures (over 100 at this point) to be sure he didn't mind before I started so there wouldn't be any problems or friction down the road..
***
Petty differences
by observer Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 9:02 AM
I'm referring to the apparent reluctance of the various IMCs to interact in oversight and concurrence in a common principle of operation and standard. As to my limited (not being able to physically attend the local collective meetings ) observation, there is a kind of proprietary isolationist attitude of my favorite Indymedias. My attitude is that a loss of one IMC of the anti-war, anti corporate ( UC IMC comes to mind ) principle as well as the rogue and infiltrated IMCs is a loss to the entire concept. Where is the mutual assistance and regulation ( as in the idea of a confluence of shared editing and physical support to deal with DOS, spam racist and commercial assaults ) that is possible ( with a secure/ encrypted comm channel to prevent intelligence gathering from our enemy) with this internet tool? I would think these are essential to the survival of this vital project.
Is that too twisted to understand?
***
"where is the manpower?"
by just a suggestion Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 9:39 AM
If there aren't enough men to do the job right, try convincing some women to help. If there aren't enough people to do the job right, shut this IMC down. Not doing the job right creates far more harm than good. We'd be a lot better off with a few good IMCs than we are with a lot that aren't good enough.
Part of the job is not allowing racists to hijack Indymedia bandwidth and reputation. By allowing racists to post here, LA-IMC is making the entire network, and every IMCista, look soft on racism. That's harmful to the network. That's harmful to the world.
To allow racists to posts is to portray them on the same footing as anti-racists, i.e., just another ideology. Racism is not just another ideology. It's among the greatest evils in the world today. To attempt to portray it as being on the same footing as anti-racism, elevates it. LA-IMC is elevating racism, and doing it in the name of Indymedia. It shames us all. No wonder so many people think IMC is a joke.
***
I think you're avoiding
by Another suggestionnnnn Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 10:31 AM
We need local IMC's that are covering local issues and the idea of shutting down, rather that cooperation is an defeatist attitude. You and the other editors need to form a counsel or each and every IMC can be attacked one at a time. Your solution is short sighted. This is a war and surrender is not a viable option. Time to go from a unicellular to a multicellular organism. It's called evolution. tisk,
***
uh, PERSPECTIVE. Helll-lo?
by TW Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 12:03 PM
WTF do you expect? Every IMC is a handful of unpaid volunteers operating on a shoestring. Except, that is, for ones like UC-IMC that are part of the global Hasbasa mind-control effort and so are rolling in blood money. You can't reasonably expect the whole IMC network to operate like the friggin CFR **without** being similarly corrupted. Given the nature of the world your parents shafted you into, expecting otherwise is just completely silly. Good luck.
***
a super collective?
by Ideas Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Look, this doesn't have to be a sinister collaboration of elites. For instance, the Scotts were able to join in a mutual army to drive out the Britts and even challenge the House of London.
Farmers in the times of the robber barons united to confront the rail roads.
History is filled with coalitions of autonomous collectives coming together to fight a common enemy They weren't motivated by gold, but survival..
***
"Time to go from a unicellular to a multicellular organism."
by bad analogy Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Indimedia is a "multicellular organism". What's actually happening on a "cellular" level is that some "cells" are cancerous. They need to be excised for the organism to remain healthy. Tumors can not be allowed to grow, or the'll kill the host.
***
by bad analogy
by maybe Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006 at 1:40 PM
maybe not.
What is more a of an accurate analogy is a patch of weeds as opposed to a bamboo ( I would like to see a. 'runner' rather than a 'clumping' variety ) growth.
And.
In order to discipline a rogue IMC, you *still* need an over sight counsel to retain common principles and certify or detach IMCs according to their actions or lack of same. Either way you have to share the same 'DNA' ( operating principles ) to permit coordination.