Well, Xander - you have the rules of conduct pretty well figured out. More or less, we follow exactly what you propose. The rules are all posted on the FAQ. One you missed is that we do not allow personal attacks. Martin Gibson got away with them for a long time because so many people helped him by taking his bait - and deleting his countless abusive message would destroy the flow of threads to the point where they would be unintelligible. But it is at the point where Martin Gibson can be tolerated no longer. His posts will be under 100 percent review until he cleans up his act, and anything of his that even smells of combativeness will be deleted.

You're new to Mudcat, and perhaps you don't know Martin's history. I'm sure others can explain to you that it is time to bring him under control.

There is no need for a specific set of rules to describe in detail what is prohibited here. The rules are clearly stated in the FAQ, and we do our best to enforce them sparingly. We do our best to delete or edit things only when it is quite obvious that they need to be dealt with.

As for administration of Mudcat, that is handled by Max, Jeff, and Joe. We are assisted by a number of volunteers who were personally chosen by Max Spiegel, the owner of the Mudcat Cafe. They got the name JoeClones because I was the first volunteer editor - and they followed me in later years, as our traffic got heavier. They have varying levels of editorial access, and their duties and level of access change. They are all supervised by Max, Jeff, and Joe. Generally, they are supposed to provide technical assistance and correct technical errors, but we also use them on a strictly limited basis to control posts that are obviously objectionable. Every editorial action of this sort is reviewed by Max, Jeff, or Joe. But no, we're not interested in submitting every editorial action to public review or public vote - we delete objectionable posts because we want to remove them from public view. Discussing them in a public forum is exactly opposite to our purpose.



As for one-year terms for Clones, I suppose you could suggest it to Max if you like, but I certainly disagree with it. It would seem to limit our ability to control the volunteers. One volunteer who goes overboard in editing would be a major headache. I believe that Max thinks that editorial authority should remain in the hands of Max, Jeff, and Joe. Max selected volunteers that he knows personally, people he trusts completely. But as a second precaution, their work is reviewed and restricted when it comes to handling objectionable behavior.

As for Mr. Shambles, you will note that we allow him to say exactly what he wants to say - over and over again, ad nauseam. That doesn't mean that we have to bow down and thank him every time he heaps abuse on us.

-Joe Offer-