Why Bobby Meade "Fools of Babylon" posts are hidden. Duh! : Miami IMC

Excerpt from the Milwaukee IMC RE: Bobby Meade mega spam
http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/208445.shtml

1) Bobby's posts hold no informational or editorial
value. The closest I've been able to come
understanding him is that he's got a beef with
shit-eating Zionist homosexuals, and is probably
mentally unstable. The examples which come to mind
immediately to support the latter are his delusions that
people are dumping asbestos and sulphur into his
apartment ventilation system, which he has mentioned
in previous articles.

2) Bobby's posts are hateful and offensive. Several
commenters have made comments underneath his
stories expressing this specific sentiment, pleasantly
asking the __LOCAL__ IMC to do something about it.

3) Bobby has been known to "mega-spam" other IMC
newswires. Twice within the last month, he has posted
more than 50 copies of a rant to the Global IMC
newswire, completely filling it with his screed of the day.
The first happened the day the bombs began falling on
Afghanistan, the second was just yesterday - and that
post was about the __LOCAL__ IMC specifically.

Now, I know that folks have been hesitant about
embarking on a course of "censorship" and want to
stay as true to the ideal of open publishing as possible.
However, I personally do not feel that Bobby is
operating in the spirit of what open publishing is really
about - and therefore some corrective action needs to
be taken about his use of our site.

If hiding further Bobby posts is not an option, then I
suggest we begin "tagging" his posts. An easy way to
do this is to go into story admin and add, oh, something
like "(BOBBY SPAM)" to the titles of his posts.

By doing so, not only do his posts remain publicly
viewable (thereby eliminating the censorship
argument), but visitors to the site are informed in
advance what they're in for when they click on one of his
rantings. Those of us who want nothing to do with him
(which I'd guess would be most, if not all of us) can
then easily skip over them and not waste our time. I
have faith in our editorial judgement in this specific
situation - hell, at least WE'RE all (relatively) sane.

IMCs that have taken to hiding Bobby posts completely
upon submission (like ___OTHER IMC___) have seen
a marked drop in abuse from him. If we're not willing to
go that route, "tagging" would seem to be an
acceptable alternative.

I agree that we should continue to hide any duplicate
posts, of course, like we've already done. I have
"tagged" the latest Bobby rants already - if anyone has a
problem with this, feel free to go into story admin and
remove the tags.

But I really feel that with Bobby's record, he is an
exception to all rules, and deserves some kind of
"special treatment." My proposal, I believe, would be a
good compromise between ideology and practicality.

Thoughts?

___LOCAL IMCISTA___

You have found a photo of an individual named Bobby Meade, but you have not provided any evidence that the person in the photo is the same Bobby Meade who has been spamming gibberish to Indymedia and various bulletin boards. To me that seems a bit sloppy.
I see no point in Indymedia wasting time and space agonising over whether or not to hide the Meade gibberish, therefore I have nothing further to add.