[Imc-uk-features] Re: Why were these hidden?

[zcat at ametrika.com]

Firstly if the comment is removed it makes guys comment look idiotic cause 
it has no context by refering to somthing that isnt there, and as far as I 
know there has never been cocencous on that type of thing apart from leaving 
them. (shit if its there before anyone has replied and rubbished it by all 
means remove it)
if we remove all offending comments when others have already rightly replied 
and rubbished what they say and come up with facts or good arguments then 
those people who defend imcuk or the original articles will stop putting 
their input into the pages because their comments will look stupid if not in 
context, what then? 

secondly Im not running a vendetta againt anyone that would be a waste of 
time!
BUT I do think that some take the editorial guidlines too literally. 

The definition of guideline is "A guideline is any document that aims to 
streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, 
following a guideline is never mandatory" 

and as such imo this unbending policy goes toward excluding people from the 
site or at least not encoureging more people to come to it as ive said 
before its great to preach to the converted but dosnt it make sense to try 
and get our various messages across to people (the large majority of 
society) who dont know what we are on about and who just might see our point 
of view?
Andrew 

http://zcat.blagblagblag.org
blag server http://blagblagblag.org/
wordpress blog http://wordpress.org/
G2 gallery http://codex.gallery2.org 

Roy Bard writes: 

> It isn't difficult to make Concerned look like an idiot - possibly
> because he is a rabid right wing troll. There are thousands orf bulletin
> boards where rabid neo-cons are made to look like idiots all the time -
> however Indymedia is not designed to be one of those sites............... 
> 
> zcat - do you intend to run a vendetta against me forever - or are you
> thinking about acting like a mature adult sometime in the near future? 
> 
> have a nice grump 
> 
> ftp 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> zcat at ametrika.com wrote: 
> 
>> it may be inacurate and offensive but Guys responce makes the comment
>> look like an idiots writing. but hey that dosnt matter
>> Its upholding the guidlines that really matters and there is to be NO
>> compromise and NO exceptions and definitly NO thinking outside of the
>> box (or activist ghetto if you like).
>> But why bother trying to argue with the 'chiseled into granite minded
>> editorial guidlines' part of the collective?
>> Lets just keep indy for the 0.0005% of the population who know what
>> activism actually is and NOT try and broaden anyone elses mind maybe
>> we should keep it puritanical and within the confines of a very small
>> number of people. In fact maybe we should make it a closed site where
>> noone gets to see it or post to it unless they have uploaded their
>> activist credentials which have been vetted by an imc soviet.
>> Andrew
>> http://zcat.blagblagblag.org
>> blag server http://blagblagblag.org/
>> wordpress blog http://wordpress.org/
>> G2 gallery http://codex.gallery2.org
>> ftp wrote:
>> I refer the honourable gentleman to the consensually agreed  editorial
>> guidelines which state clearly that comments are subject to the same
>> criteria as articles.
>> Would concerned's comment have lasted as an article? I see no reason why
>> it should - its inaccurate and offensive.......
>> To the best of my knowledge, Indymedia was not set up as a re-education
>> service for Sun readers ..........
>> As to the article being unhidden - which guidelines did it NOT
>> contravene?
>> *sigh*
>> ftp 
>>
>> -- 
>> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features 
>>
>