To Van-

For your information, I know of at least one person who used the email address you recommended, and who eventually received a notice that the question posed was not going to be presented to "the list" and would therefore not be answered. The basic question was the same as mine: what are the criteria for hiding articles? All the other person wanted was an answer, and seemed to get the brush-off, instead: Not good public relations, especially if my acquaintance's story is not an isolated one.

As far as being "desperate for attention," I'm not sure how one responds to that. So I'll pick humor. If IM-SC is not a vehicle for self-publication, driven by the contributors and gently shaped by the editors, then what is it? If IM-SC does not allow those with news and opinions to share that material with a wider readership, then what good is it? If someone posts a spam about yak milk in India, and someone else posts something relevant to Santa Cruz -- a report of local illnesses being blamed on Indian yak milk, for example, or a list of local suppliers, or even a proposal that the Santa Cruz city council enact a resolution declaring the city to be a "yak milk free zone" -- then why require the proponents of the amended article to argue the case for it remaining unhidden? In my earlier comment, I only hoped that censors would use common, er, "cense" in judging local relevance, and would take amended comments into account as well as the original article when making their decisions. As long as that is actually what goes on, I certainly have no beef with IMC. If that is not the case, however, I would respectfully request a reconsideration of the policy. We all know that someone can tack on a "fig leaf" of "local content" to sidestep a well-intended gatekeeping policy -- the old SCTV comedy group used to lampoon Canadian TV's "Canadian content" rules of the day, with over-the-top examples of how that kind of thing was being done routinely in the great white north. Good day, eh! But concentration on the extreme cases in a policy matter often prevents thoughtful and fair disposition of the more typical case, so beware of falling into that trap. Again, I'm just talking about using common sense and fair consideration in enforcing the "local content" policy.

Finally, speaking about common sense, I find it very confusing that you are explaining (for the 28th time, apparently) a policy that has resulted in many of your own comments being hidden along with the original articles they extend. Why would you, the fellow who explains the policy, spend your time to add comments to articles such as "Not One Penny for the War Budget" (item #3754), knowing that there is a strong likelihood (if not a certainty!) that they and the article will soon be hidden, as that article is now? If you can predict future "hidden" status from your knowledge of the policy, then why post provocative material that prompts others to post in response? Why spend your time to compose material that has even less chance of being seen than most articles here? If you cannot predict whether an item will end up being hidden, then how are the rest of us out here to do what you, an insider, cannot? How can we best manage our time and efforts to have the best effect, whether it is to inform, inflame, or persuade our fellow citizens? I don't post here to see my own words in a public forum. I have other means to achieve that satisfaction when I want it. I (and I would think, many others) post here to explore, or at least share, ideas and information with others. If the others aren't there or aren't listening, or if the kinds of ideas and information I have to share aren't permitted in the venue, then there is really no point in participating.

I hope you understand the quandry here. Speaking only for myself of course, I certainly am not disrespectful of the efforts, nor the hopes and intentions, of those who created this space. Thanks to all who got this thing going and keep it going. I do think, however, that inviting those who post well-meaning and sincere inquiries about the rules of THIS space, to use "the tools that are out there" to create their "own space with [their] own rules" is unhelpful. Remember that ~Bradley, in the original article, advised those with a beef to "hit publish, not me." In order for that to be more than the equivalent of "let them eat cake," those who are being invited to publish must have reasonable access, and reasonable expectation that their published words will in fact be seen (and possibly considered) by a fair number of people. Otherwise, publication provides no remedy and no valve to let off steam, does it? Suppose that ~Bradley had instead invited the intimidating individual (or those of similar mood and mind) to go elsewhere and open another website? How inflammatory would THAT have been? I hope you see what I am getting at: an outlet must indeed function as an outlet, or backed-up pressure will find another path. As long as the "comment" feature is being recommended as an alternative to in-person, phyisical confrontation, then comments should probably stay up, and unhidden, as long as they fall within some fairly broad parameters of etiquette, decorum, and topic-relevance. Just a thought.

-Jack

PS: Thanks for the word about the bug, which has indeed eaten several of my attempts to comment in the past few months -- most discouraging. I hope you get it fixed soon.