Comments
|
This Is Not Censorship |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
09 Apr 2003
|
1. the posts are hidden, not removed.
2. the poster is free to post these comments elsewhere; the IMC does not control the world.
wrt to whether it's a good idea to hide posts using the word "pansy" to personally attack someone, I think (and this is just my opinion, I'm not on any of the IMC committees) that personal attacks are a pointless waste of this resource and they should all be hidden, no matter who is attacking whom. This is apparently not the IMC's policy, but I think it would be easier to enforce than the "off-topic" clause in the use policy, which seems to me to be being used selectively in some cases. I've read personal attacks by JR and on JR, and I would be delighted if these were all hidden. |
|
Violations Of The UCIMC's Webuse Guidelines |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
09 Apr 2003
|
Yes pbrmq, when someone is consistently being abusive, we take into account their ongoing exploitation of the open-publishing system. You failed to mention that the same poster who was verbally attacking a person as a "pansy" was also calling people by denominations like "pussy" and "raghead". You will also find that the reason for hiding these posts was clearly stated:
"posts that are baldly and clearly inappropriate, whose purpose seems clearly to be other than informing,
educating or adding to a public discourse."
You can find the entire text of our web-use policy at:
http://www.ucimc.org/info/display/policy/index.php
If you have specific questions or concerns, you can always contact the web editorial collective at: web (at) ucimc.org |
|
Re: UCIMC's Webuse Guidelines |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
09 Apr 2003
Modified: 11:47:54 AM |
While it would be nice if everyone agreed with each other here and totally refrained from attacks on other posters, the nature of much of the news here can lead to conflicts and heated words. As long as those heated words stay on topic, it is difficult to judge whether it is an argument or an attack. So that is why we don't deal specifically with personal attacks in the UC IMC's Website Abuse Policy.
When the nature of the comments begins to consistently degenerate into the use of perjorative language, that is where the line is crossed into being an off-topic post, as cited when Jack Ryan's posts were hidden. He can disagree, but he has begun crossing this line on a regular basis. This can lead to his posting privileges being revoked, if it continues, but it hasn't been done as of yet.
As Joe pointed out, the word "pansy" and several others used by JR are not, in themselves, banned. They could be used appropriately, and even once in anger, but it is clear from the consistent tone and context of JR's posts that they crossed the line into being "posts that are baldly and clearly inappropriate, whose purpose seems clearly to be other than informing, educating or adding to a public discourse" when he used such language. They will be hidden and, if such behavior continues, they will build a persuasive case that might see him banned. His behavior, not his ideas, govern whether he will continue to enjoy posting privileges here.
BTW, people who feel strongly one way or they other about the implementation of this aspect of UC IMC policy are encouraged to attend the Steering group meeting following notice of such stories being hidden, where these actions are subject to review. Otherwise, what is being done is based solely on the consensed-to policy, not on the basis of the ideological content of the posts in question. |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
10 Apr 2003
|
Anon,
Dude, you have been censored. Too Bad |
|
Just A Thought: |
by Rev Dave
DarkMatter (nospam) Hypocrisy.org (verified) |
Current rating: 3
10 Apr 2003
Modified: 09:32:30 AM |
It seems "Jack Ryan" has insulted and/or attempted to demean women, gays and other minorities, as well as anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with his point of view; all in an effort to seek attention for himself while distracting from the work of the contributors.
I humbly suggest that henceforth that all "Jack Ryan" posts be accompanied by a verifiable e-mail address--that way those who wish to engage him in his "are too, am not, yo mama wears combat boots" exchanges may do so ad infinitum off site. If "Jack Ryan" refuses to include a verifiable e-mail address then perhaps his posts should be hidden. Sound fair?
Thanks for all the good work you IMCistas do.
Peace, Rev Dave |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by pbrmq
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
10 Apr 2003
|
Not censorship, then. Just surveillance.
Wow. |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
10 Apr 2003
|
> Not censorship, then. Just surveillance.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it's to the "verifiable email address" comment, JR is the only person who could add a verifiable email address to his posts. The editors can't, even if they knew what the email address was, because that kind of editing of posts is not permitted under the Appropriate Use Policy unless the post directly threatens the operations of the IMC (this policy appears to be intended primarily for posts containing illegal language like libel or threats against the president).
I want to add one more thing: the rating system allows even people like me who don't totally agree with every part of the Appropriate Use Policy to give negative ratings to posts and set their threshold wherever. My threshold is at 0, so I don't see posts that have been rated below 0. If I don't like posts with personal attacks in them, I can rate them -1 and opine that others should do likewise. |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
10 Apr 2003
|
Gee, Jack, seems like it was your name I saw at the top of the hidden list. Cheers!
|
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
10 Apr 2003
Modified: 10:01:33 PM |
I see, come up with seperate rules for posts that disagree with you. How about a pole tax, or some other way to discriminate against a strong voice of reason?
Then you could all get on your site and tell each other how smart you all are and there would never be any controversy. Imagine all the people living life in Peace, Whoo wohh, and People say theirs no heaven.
Me and Rev Dave would humbly disagree.
My work is almost done here. I have, in my own way, made my point. I was clearly right on the war as we were right on the Cold War and virtually every other use of force since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Censor me if you will, it only makes my power grow.
Your Good Friend,
Jack |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
10 Apr 2003
|
ML and the speech police,
Go back and look at the Naked Protest Site. Notice ML's comments after my third or fourth post. I am paraphrasing but it said something like " If you notice, the two "Dick Heads have not verified their email addresses".
I guess if you control the media format, you can write whatever crosses your mind. Right ML. Is this hypocrisy or what?
ML, you continue to make this too easy.
Jack |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
11 Apr 2003
Modified: 12:40:19 AM |
> I see, come up with seperate rules for posts that disagree with you.
For my part, I was suggesting that people rate posts with personal attacks -1, regardless of the opinion of the posters. That seems fair to me if you don't want to read people's personal battles but still want a range of opinions. Of course, rating is collaborative so no one person or committee can control it.
And JR, I'm glad your work is done here. I don't think you've really accomplished much except epitomize ignorance, disrespect, and self-importance.
You complain that we think we're smart. I personally don't give a shit how smart anyone is when it comes to politics, what's important to me is are they going to support the policies that I want. You've made it crystal clear that you don't support the policies I want and are completely inflexible, so I have no use for your posts and I would not be missing out if I had some way of filtering them out. Whether or not you're smart is completely irrelevant. There's nothing controversial about your posts, because your positions are predictable, poorly articulated, and will do little to encourage anyone in any cause that will make any difference, since all the policies you want are already being enacted by the most powerful people in the world. To bring about what you want, all you have to do is shut up, sit back, and let Bush & Co. do it for you. Any other political activity on your part, short of changing your mind and opposing Bush, would be a pointless waste of your and everyone's time.
Which I have to assume is what you're trying to do. |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by waldo
waldo (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Apr 2003
|
I want to add one more thing: the rating system allows even people like me who don't totally agree with every part of the Appropriate Use Policy to give negative ratings to posts and set their threshold wherever. My threshold is at 0, so I don't see posts that have been rated below 0. If I don't like posts with personal attacks in them, I can rate them -1 and opine that others should do likewise.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I don't at all agree with "Jack Ryan," but it does seem you're censoring anybody who doesn't agree with you. This "rating system" is nothing but a highschoolish popularity contest. Anyone who deviates from the standard line here gets a negative rating. Real thinkers benefit from hearing other points of view.
It's funny, this is supposed to be the INDEPENDENT media center, but orthodoxy is enforced pretty damn well |
|
Check Your Definition |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Apr 2003
|
Waldo,
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Censorship is about preventing someone from having their say.
It has nothing to do with demanding a right to impose your views on others, which is what you seem to imply is your view.
If people want to use the system in place to determine what they want to read, it has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the freedom to read what you want to. |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Apr 2003
|
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I don't at all agree with "Jack Ryan," but it does seem you're censoring anybody who doesn't agree with you.
That's exactly *not* what I was saying. I was suggesting that people use the rating system to downrate posts based on whether the posts contain personal attacks -- *not* based on the opinions of the poster.
Just to be crystal clear here: if some lefty calls a right-winger an "asshole", I am proposing downrating that post. By the exact same token, if some right-winger calls a left-winger an "asshole", I am suggesting the exact same rating strategy.
I've clarified that twice now on this thread, I think that's enough. |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by waldo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Apr 2003
|
It is in fact censorship. I note in this very thread that "jack ryan" gets -2 comment when he was not using profanity or personal attack, but reporting something he alleges ML wrote.
Anyway, I don't want to argue, either. I find this site less useful all the time, since it's mostly cheerleading and squabbling, and very little news or analysis. I won't be troubling you any more |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Apr 2003
Modified: 05:10:32 PM |
> It is in fact censorship. I note in this very thread that "jack ryan" gets -2 comment when he was not using profanity or personal attack, but reporting something he alleges ML wrote.
I agree that JR's post that got a -2 does not contain a personal attack, and I agree with JR's claim in that post that ML has engaged in personal attacks.
But since no one is going to take my suggestion of using the rating system against posts that contain personal attacks, I might as well address the problem at the root cause:
People should not use this site to personally attack each other. Everyone should cut it out. It's annoying, egocentric, and fails to inform anyone about any important issues in the community or the world, and as such is a waste of this valuable resource.
To bring this about, I think the editors should make a policy against personal attacks and enforce it fairly by hiding all posts with personal attacks in them. Kind of a "zero-tolerance" policy. I don't think that's censorship, but I respect people who think it is, because they have a point. But it's what I want. |
|
Just For The Record |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Apr 2003
Modified: 06:32:50 PM |
I don't have time to recapitulate all the circumstances that Ryan's fantastical reading of my comment that he quoted were related to right now. I do wish to point out that the word was actually the contraction "dick/head" based on addressing rather rude comments made by two separate posters who used these words separtely in a crude manner. I simply called both of them to account at the same time by using a contraction of their nymns.
Perhaps Ryan has no sense of humor, but he chose to interpret this as an insult when it actually was a response to several others like him who were making gratuitous comments under assumed names that were part of their rude taxonomy of speech.
Actually, a lot like Ryan, whom I suspect may actually have been either or both of the "gentlemen" I am speaking of. That may be why he felt it was an insult and took it personally, but not seriously enough to drag it up until weeeks later.
I will admit to, at times, being harsh to people who act like assholes for no good reason, like Ryan. I don't like people who, like him, mainly engage in a litany of veiled and not so veiled insults as their primary means of communication. And that may lead to insults being occasionally thrown certain people's way. But but it isn't without extensive provocation first and it is not my primary interaction with otehrs here, unlike Ryan.
While it would be nice to have a definition of insults that draws a bright line between insult and argument, so far we haven't seen one. If one does appear, it would be considered, but it would also have to be something that doesn't abridge one's right to comments that may occasionally be provoked. The policy now pretty much applies to those that make a _habit_ of communicating in such a manner, but it is only applied to specific posts that are triggered once that line is crossed. My minor and very infrequent transgressions on civilty come nowhere close to qualifying under the present standard.
As an editor, I don't want to have to keep score, either, but abusive patterns like Ryans's stick out like a sore thumb and clearly violate present policy, especially more so of late in his case. And still he acts like we're the Cheka when it gets to the point that maybe 10% of his posts were hidden. People can judge for themselves by looking at them what level of propriety is expected in order not to become subject to invocation of rules all of us would rather not have to impose. It is really easy to stay within the bonds of present policy and you must go to a great deal of intentional effort to find yourself in the position Ryan did. I can see how Joe wishes that it was easier to reach the point Ryan did, but there are plenty of reasons to also leave slack for the occasional times when something needs to be said. |
|
Re: UCIMC Censorship Guidelines |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
20 Apr 2003
Modified: 11:24:14 PM |
Joe and ML,
Once again I have upset you. I have been out of town for a while. Sorry about leaving you in the lurch. Hey, Where's Waldo? He made sense.
ML said:
"The policy now pretty much applies to those that make a _habit_ of communicating in such a manner, but it is only applied to specific posts that are triggered once that line is crossed. My minor and very infrequent transgressions on civilty come nowhere close to qualifying under the present standard."
Under the present Standard??? I see, it changes when it starts to bug you. ML, do not change your standard or impose the Jack Ryan rule on everyone. I merely pointed out, that after two or three of my posts I was referred to as a Dick/Head. As a conservative and a frequent participant on this site, I have come to expect that you do not live under the same rules for which you place upon everyone else. Some of your more honest posters agree with me.
However, I do see that my insults, which I think are just harmless fun and at times add to the entertainment value, can and do get in the way of serious debate. Can I, at least, from time to time, continue to nail Anon? He seems to take it particularly hard?
What amazes me most after the last three weeks, and what we have all seen, is that Bush was clearly right and you and your gang were clearly wrong. Virtually no one admits that thousands were not killed on both sides. Civilians were not slaughtered. A tyrant was indeed overthrown and not one drop of Iraqi oil has, so far, gone to they Cheney or the Bush family.
You chose to refight a battle which took place in the 60's and early 70's based on entirely different strategic situation. You no longer own the media and no longer have the support of the American People. Your ideology is nothing more than an outdated museum piece covered with dust. The longer you each fail to realize this, the more time will be wasted. This does not mean, that you or your true believers should stay silent. On the contrary, I wish your site was printed in every periodical in the country.
The danger in censorship is that it gets easier each time you do it. Pretty soon, you are merely, censoring dissent. Look at how many of your readers tell me to leave the site based on nothing more than disagreeing with my words. Is that intelligent? Look at the word Troll. Your readers are taught to identify and then ignore them. Fine, how will they learn what the opposition is thinking? From YOU??? If someone calls me an asshole, dick/head or whatever term they wish, it's okay with me as long as children are not routinely exposed to this site. I would hope not since the first thing I saw on this site was nudity.
Are your ideas and comments not subject to challenge and even ridicule. Mine our. I could give a _______ about it. What really bothers you, is that slowly but surely, I have won a few over. That, you can not stand.
I will keep in touch,
Jack
|
|
