"This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate."

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

In practice - as the rather chaotic and counter-productive actions evidenced below above would tend to show - the BS rules would now appear to be made-up as they go along and are readily imposed upon our forum by a unknown number of (well-intentioned) fellow posters.


This BS thread – about censorship - contained a post (claiming the 100th post) that was anonymously censored (and this thread has now been subject to imposed closure) Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

This BS thread – about the anonymous imposing of thread titles – had a change to its title imposed. In the UK

Subject: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:55 PM

I changed the title of this thread to
In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
The purpose of this change was to give readers the freedom to know what was inside the thread without having to open it. In other words, it was done for the sake of clarity.

In response to Bert's comments, let me say that messages from Shambles have never been changed. Thread titles and duplicate messages are another matter. Thread titles are an index to our threads, and are routinely changed when clarity is lacking. If at all posssible, we add a clarifying tag or parenthetical statement to the thread title, and avoid changing the essence of the thread title. We are well aware that Shambles believes that thread titles should only be changed after consultation and such, and we respectfully disagree because that process is comubersome and most people just don't seem to think it's a really big deal. I think it's safe to say that it's a matter of opinion, one that will never be resolved. Such is life.

In the thread in question, the title was originally Minister say's jamming OK. For the sake of clarity, one of our volunteers changed to thitle to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. I suppose I would have changed it to (UK) Minister says jamming OK, but that's neither here nor there. In the end, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of difference, but the UK designation does make it a bit more clear.

We also routinely change thread titles that are ALLCAPS. We routinely add dates to obituary threads, and we move non-music threads to the non-music section - usually without renaming them. it's just normal housekeeping, nothing that should make much difference to most people - so it seems silly to go through some lengthy approval process.

Duplicate messages are routinely deleted. It just isn't fair to post the same message in several threads.
-Joe Offer-

And this Tech thread – about thread closures – was relegated to the BS section – subject to anonymous closure – re- opened and then for reasons that were equally as unclear as the first time- subject to final closure. Closing threads

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

OK, so now I know which volunteer closed the thread, and we've discussed the matter.
And as I've said earlier in this thread, it's an internal matter and has been resolved internally. That being said, I can't say anything more. Shambles has his honest answer, so I think it's time to close this thread.
-Joe Offer-

If you really see a need to join Shambles in discussing this subject further, see Opening threads a debate which is really about closing threads.


[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.

-Joe Offer-


Our few well-intentioned fellow posters now seem to feel themselves qualified to impose this judgement upon their fellows but do not feel they or their actions should be judged in turn.

They do not seem now able or very willing in the future to contact posters before imposing judgement nor to communicate to each another very well – before or after these actions.

Nor to have any clear overall objective other than to loyally ensure that some of their number can continue to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of their fellow posters – but in the process - still remain anonymous (and unaccountable for their editing actions to our forum).

My view is that if things don't change – they will stay the same - as in some respects on our forum, they sadly and stubbornly have. It is also my view that if these actions are not to continue to just 'stumble along' and the attempted justification and defence of these actions are not to become even more chaotic, judgmental and nasty - that improvement is urgently required in response to those actions evidenced in this post (and elsewhere).

Surely any editing action imposed on our forum deserves to be seen to be open, fair and needs to have a clear objective? When such imposition is limited to this – it can then be defended as such – and I will be the first to be seen to defend it.

As this current judgement, secrecy and imposition is supposedly being undertaken only for the benefit of our forum – perhaps it is time for our forum to have a reasoned discussion on the current benefits and extent of these measures? To decide and establish if the direction we are currently 'stumbling' along in – is in fact the direction that our forum wishes to go.

To enable our forum to suggest ways in which these benefits can be best provided, without any more needless division and how new posters can be best encouraged to contribute to our forum. And probably most importantly - by not placing at any further risk the traditional freedom of expression, provided for all to post on equal terms - on the part of Max's website that he has kindly set aside for contributions from the public.

If there is any crusade - is seems to one of some fellow posters wishing to prevent free and open debate on a discussion forum set aside by the site's owner Max - for that very purpose.