[imc-scotland-discussion] fwd: request for removal of comments

[Anarcho Babe]

Hia,

Jon, the original complaining email to ftp was actually confidential, 
therefore the whole purpose was to discuss just with the editors...would you 
mind if we take your email off the imc-scotland-discussion email list? I'll 
ask the list- management people to do it.

I have taken the email address off now, but otherwise kept discussion intact.

Apparently the Danny guy has been creating a bit of libcom style aggressive 
far-off-topic discussion in the comment section also with other folks. 
Several people have complained about the new hostile and divisive tone now 
occasionally present on Indy Scotland. But hardly anybody uses the 
rating-down function, which is a bit sad, because it enables readers revenge 
towardspostings such as this. 

I don't think we should build a new system from scratch, it would make us too 
dependent on one person. Most efforts of other indymedia techies are going at 
the moment into customizing Drupal for Indymedia websites.

Maybe we should have a meeting soon, but I am not enthusiastic at the moment 
to call for one or for organising it. If anybody else is, I would try my best 
to attend though, but I would like to avoid sitting there all alone as I 
think I did for pretty frequently in aeh - was it 2004?

We are having our five year anniversary at the moment, too! Time for a party?
cheerio Ulla




On Thursday 29 Nov 2007 20:57, Jon wrote:
> Chris, I assume your post was meant for the discussion list?
>
> I agree, very visible guidelines for commenting, including editorial
> policy, our policy of not logging IP's and where to find the hidden
> posts page would be valuable. those pages are currently fairly well
> hidden, and i think it would help to have them more visible, perhaps
> right there in the 'add a comment' box.
>
> Tom is making a new site, so we could think about what changes we want
> to make to comments system for that.
>
> Jon
>
> chris wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure the comments are malevolently posted, but the TP people
> > seem to have done a pretty thorough rebuttal. I tend towards refuting
> > rather than hiding, so as not to encourage paranoia, but it's a
> > minefield and tiring sometimes.
> >
> > Just this afternoon I think I've convinced someone that we log IPs, by
> > saying essentially "what, you again?" Oh well....
> >
> > Better defined commenting guidelines would be useful.
> >
> > Anarcho Babe wrote:
> >> Hia,
> >>
> >> I wondered what your opinion is on this matter. I know none of the
> >> people involved in that dispute. I don't really like removing comments,
> >> I would tend to hide them, or prefer to rate them down.
> >>
> >> bye for now
> >> Ulla
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >>
> >> Hi Ulla
> >>
> >> Richard came into irc asking that these comments (disinfo was the term
> >> he used) be removed from Scotland.
> >>
> >> He doesn't want to post to any open list cos Danny reads them
> >>
> >> I said I'd pass it on
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> ftp
> >>

> >>     Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:15:02 +0000
> >>  Subject: innacurate and defamatory
> >>       To: freethepeeps at aktivix.org
> >>
> >> More lies from Danny Prior aimed at TP:
> >>
> >> http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4457/index.php
> >>
> >>
> >> Re: Ayr Sheriff Acquits Seven Prestwick Protesters
> >> Current rating: 0
> >> 13 Aug 2007
> >> by Anonymous Poster
> >> The Climate Change Camp today said they would not be crossing live
> >> runways as it is too dangerous to third parties. Previously Trident
> >> Ploughshares agreed this could not be defined as Non Violent Direct
> >> Action. Have TP abandoned NVDA or just their previous definitions of
> >> NVDA ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Re: Ayr Sheriff Acquits Seven Prestwick Protesters
> >> Current rating: 0
> >> 13 Aug 2007
> >> by Anonymous Poster
> >> They did cross a live runway after having being warned not to and in
> >> direct contradiction of their groups previous stance towards this issue.
> >> Out of laziness and vaingloriousness too since they had been shown other
> >> routes in that didn't risk other peoples lives.
>
> _______________________________________________