[Imc-aotearoa-ed] Re: dk hidden + proposal

[finn c.]

Hi,

> The first one, the hiding of the 'off-topic' post,
> this seems to be the start of it here with the scanned note
> http://www.indymedia.org.nz/display.php3?article_id=13462&group=webcast
> who hid it?
> no one note the list that it was being hidden, I know clare has hidden a
> bunch of stuff after then but #13480 seems to be the first (smallest number)
> that clare acknowledged hidding.
> So who hid the earlier dk stuff without notifing the list, and if it was
> off-topic then it DID require discussion by the list as the Ed policy
> states. I think we have not followed our own policy in this situation and it
> has blown all out of portion, and further posts were noted to the list as
> being hidden for being off-topic, yet prior to that , the list should have
> been informed that the post had been identified as off-toipc and the list
> allowed to respond.

DK is a spammer. All people have to do is notify the list that they have
hidden the post.

> I know its easy to be casual about this, ive been pull up for it too, and it
> would be good if we get get some others involved so we could rotate these
> duties such as moderation, because the moderators now are the same people
> who have been doing since the start of AIMC, a few of us, like myself , have
> been doing it since the conference.
> This is another important point but best not raised here.
> Was dk emailed that his post had been hidden? Im not so sure about just
> reling on on-line discussion to inform people as to why a post has been
> hidden. I dont think he posts his email does he, so it may not of been
> possible.

dsarten at ihug.co.nz - although again, dk is a spammer and we don't have
to notify him if we hide one of his articles.

> As far as being abbusive, well theres really no argument there. He is the
> most abusive person on the site at the moment, and with a history of it as
> well. he has recently returned to the site with the same verve as he use to
> , and I do think some of his frustration at the moment is the confusion
> surround the recent hidding as it doesn't sit accuratly with our ed policy.
> 
> The scaned note is incomprehensible,  I would of seconded it being hidden as
> off-topic, it makes no sense to me.
> 
> I dont think I would of seconded the article
> http://indymedia.org.nz/display.php3?article_id=13465&group=webcast , as
> although i think dk is his own worst enemy (though he would maybe disagree)
> on term of site usage, I dont totally discount his passion and energy for
> the issues which he says confronts him daily. I would nominate this be
> returned to the site with the offending comments hidden.

You may find some 'background' here:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/NEWSTALK_frm.htm

The best I can come up with is that Placemakers have a 300% markup. This
is pretty standard . . . .

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/_NEWSTALK/00001541.htm

As usual, he posts a whole bunch of random information along the lines
of 'we received your correspondence' without providing any actual
information or proof that he was ripped off. As proof of NZITS
corruption, he posts emails from them asking why he hasn't met with
his creditors. The only obvious thing is that he has totally abused [wow
thats a suprise] his contact at the NZITS, to the point where NZITS
don't want to know about him. Yep, they are obviously evil.

The article was hidden as offtopic, which is a pretty large catchall for
all the stuff thats totally random, imcomprehensible or just *not news*.

So what did he post? It looks like it's correspondence from NZITS,
although we don't actually know. It's also been heavily altered by dk.
Note it only repeats what dk has told the NZITS, and nothing of the
NZITS's opinion. So how is this news? It doesn't tell us anything, aside
from dk thinks he's been ripped off. It doesn't tell us how he has been
ripped off or anything.

The most I can guage is that dk and placemakers had a contract dispute
in 2000, and dk blames that for making him bankrupt. So what? How is
this news? 

I guess you could say that if the article was up, then people could ask
him about it and he could provide further evidence. Well take a look at
investigatemagazine.com again, note the total lack of any evidence. Why
didnt he post up old contracts? All he can do is insult people, and then
claim they are conspiring against him when they are unwilling to help
him.

> By the way he has acted in the last few day would be sufficent to have his
> posts hidden from the site from here to kingdom come three dozen times over,
> but has his behaviour been in response to our inconsistant moderating.

No it hasn't. Thats how he behaves when we hide his articles generally.

> I read one hidden post in which he asked strypy to help (mildly abusive in
> tone compared) and no indication of a reply
> 
> There is quite a debate raging no online which needs to sorted out, aaron
> posted a piece here which I think needs to be responded to, at least read
> and considered
> http://www.indymedia.org.nz/front.php3?article_id=13635&group=webcast

Yeah alright, I'll respond to that later on today.

> Im not making excuses for him, Im not appologing for him, I too find a great
> deal of what he writes offensive, but we must be accountable and act as we
> say we will. I do not support at all the personal abuse the clare is copping
> from dk, it would make me want to not turn on the computer and deal with it,
> his abuse seems to have no bounds and fuckwit is the first thing that
> springs to my mind when reading them , negating anything else that he may
> post which is important. I feel for you clare and am sorry that he has
> targeted you with his obsesions and hope we can put this mess to rest.

This is bullshit. Tell me why clare should have to put up with it? Do
you seriously think that if we write him a letter he'll reform? How long
for? Till Clare hides the next post? 

> I propose that once we have this sorted out we pen a personal letter to dk,
> written and endorsed by ALL of the ed collective so no individual can be
> targeted(but this still may not stop him) maybe stating something like
> there are no more last chances, any further abuse will have his arse out of
> the site faster than he can blink for good..
> any disputes to be discussed via this email loop..
> if he wants to remain using the site we have a minimum expectation as
> outlined in the ed policy..
> maybe we acknowledge the error and REexplain the volunteery basis of
> AIMC..for examples

Can you please propose something we haven't tried before?

seeya,
finn