[IMC-bristol] Re: decision

[Jamie Lokier]

john serpico wrote:
> For what it's worth, just take my word on this.

This email is a response to the recent emails on the list.  If any of
you are tempted to call it "more of Gosling's shit" then you are just
name-calling -- it's a response to the shit that appears to be thrown back.

As a fairly uninvolved bystander, who has been to a couple of meetings
a long time ago (more than a year) but not gotten involved, I can
honestly say that the impression from reading the mails on the mailing
list is that Tony has been treated inappropriately.

I'm sure there is much that has not been said onlist, bat that is the
impression based solely on what's appeared on this list.

It doesn't look good, and leaves me, as a bystander, with very little
trust in the B-IMC process or its overseers.

If the decision is justified, the reasons given for it so far indicate
an "unwritten agenda": chucking someone out because they draw
attention to right-wing sites, not liking the things that person says,
not finding things said in private emails acceptable, and not liking
that person's attitude or personality or something.

(Fwiw, I personally consider occasional links to right-wing sites
essential to any healthy anarchist or socialist debate, provided they
are framed with an appropriate invitation to read them critically.
Sound opinions aren't formed in a vacuum.  So that bothers me if it's
been a reason for chucking him out).

Those reasons are all important.  But if they are to be reasons for
making someone leave the group, that needs to stated much more clearly
up-front than it has been.  Because so far that is contrary to B-IMC's
formal, stated agenda, as indicated in the editorial policy and the
invitation to every reader to participate.

If there has been a breach of the stated editorial policy, such as
inciting to violence or personal threats, that needs to be highlighted
and presented as evidence whether before or after a decision is made
to chuck someone out.  That means writing stuff down and copying parts
of emails or articles, if that's where the abuse has occurred, into an
article explaining the reasoning behind the decision.

Otherwise the group smacks of being a clique of friends who are
hostile to those with the "wrong attitude", and I wouldn't trust you,
at this time and in good conscience, to look after a site which was
critical to people's lives until you were able to be more mature in
your decision making and presentation process.  Fortunately B-IMC is
not yet such a site.

If folk care to clean up the image, you should post a clear
explanation of what has been decided, and why *with facts* and
supporting evidence.  Hearsay and name-calling are not facts, btw.
Clips of articles, emails and links to things he wrote, are facts.
People's testimony to things which occurred to them *personally*, such
as a flood of abusive private emails, are also adequate as facts: but
give examples of the abuse: show the abusive parts.

If it's because you just don't like the things he says and does, state
*plainly* what they are so that other people know where they stand
with respect to what you do and don't accept.  If people don't know
what you stand for, they cannot trust you.  If you know that won't
please everyone, well at least you'll have shown integrity in being
honest about what you don't accept.

-- Jamie