[Seattle-editorial] Proposal to hide

[Jeremy Kahn]

Jason Reep wrote:

> I agree with the proposal but would amend it to specify the posted 
> names of the posters and make it clear at the same time that we are on 
> the lookout for those posters under new names as well.  In other 
> words, as Jonathan noted below about the bobby/JC situations, posts by 
> these specific people become their own class rather than posts like 
> the ones by these posters.

okay, let's do it. I think enough of us have expressed the concern here.

Do we also post a note to the effect of "this is what we're doing, and 
here's why" ?

or do we just start hiding J the S posts?

--jeremy

>
>
> -Jason
>
>
> jl at u.washington.edu wrote:
>
>>both bobby israel and J.C. actions were based on the "usability" and "safe space" principles, AND were special actions... just like this one. Also, bith of those were "class of posts" rather than by name--while bobby rarely posted under other names, J.C. did often-including intentionally confusing ones.
>>
>>BTW, I disagree with Jeremy that that mp3 he hid is an advertisement. there's no sales pitch, no link to a non-IMC website, just a band logo and a political song posted to the Argentina newswire.
>>
>>ok gotta do some work here
>>jl
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jason Reep wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>ok, so the proposal is to establish a class of posts that we are going 
>>>to henceforth and forthwith ban. and this class falls under the 
>>>safe-space definition of the ed.policy? or is it more accurate to say 
>>>that this proposal is a special circumstance more akin to the JC/Bobby 
>>>decisions?  if it's the latter, then the precedent establshed before is 
>>>to post the proposal (or at least a detailed explanation) to the 
>>>community on the newswire. I'm not quite settled with the question that 
>>>Jeremy raised:
>>>"in past discussions we've found it difficult to word a policy that 
>>>seems to be general enough to handle the cases we hate (like these 
>>>schmucks) but still leaves room to allow "insurrectionary response", to 
>>>use the term of art. "
>>>and the clarification offered by Jonathan:
>>>"...rather, we're deciding to hide a classification of posts."
>>>
>>>It has in fact been easier to hide based on moniker rather than class of 
>>>post.  I can't recall any cases where  we've acted on proposals to hide 
>>>classes, even during times of newswire attack.
>>>
>>>I'm not opposing but this is still not clear.
>>>
>>>-Jason
>>>
>>>Jeremy Kahn wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Lawson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>Clarification: the proposal is not to "ban" a particular user--we 
>>>>>have no
>>>>>mechanism for doing that--rather, we're deciding to hide a 
>>>>>classification
>>>>>of posts. In the unlikely event that "Jake the snake" posted  something
>>>>>that didn't fit into the class defined below, it wouldn't be 
>>>>>automatically
>>>>>hideable according to this decision.
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>Correction accepted. I support the idea of banning this class of 
>>>>posts. (banning by handle, even if we had the mechanism, would just 
>>>>clue "Jake" in even earlier and encourage him to change handles 
>>>>anyway.)  I still think my comments about ego are relevant here -- if 
>>>>he changes handles and/or style sufficiently, then he's not going to 
>>>>be The Troll he wants to be.
>>>>
>>>>--jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>>>>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>>>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>>  
>>