[CIMC-work] Thank you Ian, well said

[Garth Liebhaber]

Thank you Ian.
I can say that in the recent bout of dealing with the trolls, 
i felt somewhat wayward with the power of the hiding 
button.  corrupting power.

concerning the person whose name begins with an L, I 
think this exchange actually had a decently positive effect.  
while there are differences, we can still be civil.  that is 
important.  the nature of this project is very ecumenical, 
we particularly are put up to that ideal.

separation of collective vs. individual, yes, yes.  we have a 
duty to go beyond ourselves.  and this isn't to say we 
don't have backbones, convictions..

but yes, let me say, i am open to criticism. we owe it to 
each other to keep ourselves in check.

hummly yours,
garth


Chris Kaihatsu wrote:
>     *From: *nessie at sfbg.com
>     I did that. I do a lot of the moderating around here. I 
should have
>     thrown him out long ago. He's a racist. He spams. He 
lies about it.
>     He abused our newswire. He is not welcome.
> 
>     I can't for the life of me understand why *any* IMC 
welcomes someone
>     who has abused any IMC. Is not an injury to one an 
injury to all?
>     Why is this man permitted to post at UC-IMC? If 
someone abused
>     UC-IMC, and was banned, SF-IMC would not permit 
him to post. For
>     Indymedia to hold together as a global network, 
solidarity is
>     essential. No one who abuses any IMC should be 
permitted to post on
>     any IMC.
> 
>     Anyone who abuses our newswire by spamming is 
banned. Period. End of
>     story. No appeal. We also forbid any form of enemy 
propaganda, be it
>     sexist, racist, homophobic, pro-war, pro-
exploitation, pro-nuclear,
>     anti-environmental, anti-labor, or anything like it. 
Trolls are not
>     welcome on SF-IMC. Our site exists for the benefit of 
our friends,
>     our allies and our potential friends and allies. [...]

This is the part that bothered me most in his description.  
While I can 
appreciate the general sentiment behind his editorial 
policy, this 
starts to hint at the policy being essentially a personal 
policy, not a 
collective policy.  That there isn't any formal SF IMC 
editorial policy 
adds to that impression.  Instead it feels like a partisan 
policy -- 
which seems okay at first when you consider yourself 
aligned with 
justice movements etc., but also seems like something 
that may have 
exacerbated the division between sf/sfbay.  The site 
becomes personal -- 
and I think we can all agree that some of the people in the 
SF area have 
shown very bad stewardship of their Indymedia local, 
perhaps because 
they don't appreciate that they have a stewardship role.  
You don't have 
to provide stewardship for something you possess.

I think there's some of the same issues in our collective.  I 
don't 
think they've caused problems so far, but they could have, 
and maybe 
drawing parallels will help us continue in that spirit and 
avoid 
problems.  As we all know, some of the people in our 
collective have 
contentious relationships with people who are also inside 
what would be 
considered within CIMC's general progressive community 
(I use 
"progressive" because I think it's the most appropriately 
inclusive). 
Recently what's-her-name (starts with an L) from the 
what's-its-name 
media group, though it certainly could have happened 
with some of the 
M20 planning or other contentious issues in the 
community.  Since 
Chicago seems to have too many problems with 
cooperation issues in the 
community, it's an important issue in our local even if it 
hasn't caused 
internal conflict.

And it's certainly fine that an individual have a problem 
with some 
other person or group, but it's important that we not 
confuse our 
individuals with our collective.  Certainly it's up to 
individuals to 
decide, say, that they don't want to participate in a panel 
discussion 
with someone they dislike -- we're all volunteers.  But 
that's an 
individual decision, and if that's a motivation for the 
individual and 
no one else wants to speak, it's still not the collective who 
dislikes 
anyone.  Or, if some people don't like UC-IMC, CIMC does 
not dislike 
UC-IMC.  (We could consense to dislike them, but I doubt 
we'd reach 
consensus on that)

To generalize, I'd say that the collective should never 
become partisan 
within the progressive community, for a very inclusive 
definition of 
"progressive community".  No member -- as a volunteer 
-- ever has a duty 
to cover something they are disinterested in, or some 
group they 
dislike, but when it comes to editorial decisions like 
hiding articles 
we should be very careful, and when it comes to things 
like what to 
center panel, we should be aware that we are acting on 
behalf of the 
collective -- and at its most expansive, the collective 
includes not 
just our regular meeting attendees, but also all of our 
posters, 
commenters, and even our readers.

Because of our loose editorial policy (loose compared to 
other news 
sources), I think CIMC can be neutral on issues without 
being watered 
down, because we (*as a collective*, not as individuals) 
host ideas 
rather than synthesizing them.  As individuals we can do 
and say 
whatever the hell we want.  It's a free country, right? ;)

   Ian
_______________________________________________
Imc-chicago-working mailing list
Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-
working


---- End Original Message ----



Protect your right to breathe clean, smoke-free air:
http://www.care2.com/go/z/11238/1043