[Imc-uk-features] ram revisited

[andi]

hi phil, 

i agree ram is awfully monopolising the wire, and it's the more
boring as he only ever brings up two arguments: "white pigs",
meaning the west being racist, and "zionism", saying israel being
the tool for the racist west to exert control. in this he has a
point but it's a very simplistic way of arguing. still, before
blocking him i would ask him in several comments to refrain from
commenting on every article, sth like
 "dear ram, we appreciate your opinionatedness and understand
 that you want to bring your point across that the west is being
 racist ("white pigs"). still, we as the features working group
 think that you are monopolising the wire in a disruptive way and
 ask you not to comment to every single article. please refrain
 from posting so much. if we don't see a change in your attitude
 during the next week we will have to hide all the posts coming
 from you. regards, the feats working group"
or similar... 

but a caution: if we decide to block him posting we'll have to hide
him manually as the current system doesn't allow for IP blocking
(the new MIR system does). we would have to be very quick to hide
him in order to make him go away.... 

just for the record, in the past we have only twice blocked
individual posters from posting, that was jean (heinzreport), see
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-features/2002-August/002273 
.html
and Bobby "Boobytrap" Deaf Israel Messenger, see
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-features/2002-February/0015 
41.html 

cheers, andi 

 

philb at redbricks.org.uk wrote on 24/4/03 12:49 pm 

>hi, 
>
>i recently suggested that imc consider blocking postings by ram
>(assuming it is possible to do that).  so far i haven't seen any
>response to my suggestion.  today, looking at the newswire,
>there are postings by ram inresponse to every article, sometimes
>multiple postings, a lot of them immature and inflammatory.
>looking down the admin page ram currently accounts for 40-50 %
>of the postings.  to an occasional or new visitor the site i
>would say rams 'contributions' are very off-putting, and
>generally i would say that they undermine the credibility of the
>site.  so i suggest again that ram postings are blocked (if
>possible) and asap.