 sj |
||
|
||
Thread Proliferation Control
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:13 PM Just happened to be here and saw your post, Karen...that 'Guest' wasn't me at 9:54AM. I used to post anonymously but some others started posting UFO stuff at the same time I would in order to discredit what I was saying, so now I always sign with SOME name. But yeah...use the BS filters. This really is a well-thought-out site, and people seem to reserve most of the BS for the BS threads, so with a simple click you can eliminate most of the political or 'offensive' stuff. If people aren't doing that, it's because they don't WANT to. Go figure. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Karen Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:04 PM GUEST 01 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM, Dreaded Guest, Hated Guest, Dratted Guest, or whatever name applies, or is applied to/by others, makes this valid point: "So the reality is, these changes are being implemented because a group of Mudcat insiders, some of whom are also clones, have decided they are sick and tired of "reading through" certain types of BS threads." Personally, I just don't get this argument. No matter where on the web you go, you have to read through a lot of stuff that doesn't interest you, so why complain about it? I could understand the "too much BS argument" when there was no BS filter, and people who came here to discuss music were really tired of reading through so much BS. But there just isn't a problem here that I can identify. So what if there are a lot of threads about PEL or Iraq? They can't be any more frivolous or inane than BS threads about men wearing socks with their sandals, can they? If people don't like or are fed up with particular BS subjects, yet still want to read the BS threads, shouldn't they just ignore them and shut up about it? Live and let live, all that? Considering that there is a BS filter now, it seems to me that all these complaints of people being "fed up" with certain subjects is just plain ole whining and belly aching by the most intolerant among us. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:01 PM 'Greatest Anti-War Song Ever?' That was the thread with the name-change at the start. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:58 PM For what it's worth... I started the NPR / CIA thread. I started that as an independent thread because I posted the same thing in the body of another thread which was 'consolidated' almost immediately after. The consolidation obscured the NPR observation...so I wondered why that had been done. From what I've gathered in reading on Mudcat, the site receives certain grants, etc., for operation. Govt sponsorship? So I decided to push the envelope and re-post the NPR thing to see how deeply-indebted to the govt this site is. I've had other threads deleted and changed (I started the 'Anti-war' thread with the name 'The Hated Guest' only to have that part removed, so it now seems to have been started by an anonymous guest. Have NO idea why that was done. And I've had a couple of threads...a couple that I can recall at the moment, maybe more...just outright removed). Anyway, I expected the NPR thing to be deleted, but I guess some rules about excessive deletion apply...rules I'm not familiar with. So instead of deleting, 'Joe' enhanced the thread title with "(Conspiracy of the Day)", then made an entry which he later came back to and enhanced with more verbiage about 'black helicopters' and such. Third-grade name calling. Then later I read where the Joes are encouraging diversity and involvement...bullshit. I expect, if you folks really ARE seeing new and unprecedented changes on this forum, the changes are a result of political panic. These are unusual times, and government sites are going to do what they have to do to keep their grant money coming in. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:53 PM One guest in particular (me), who doesn't post personal attacks, contributes as much as many here to the music threads, but who enjoys the banter of the political BS threads, is particularly loathed by Joe, catspaw, Big Mick, and katlaughing. WAMSO Matriot, I have never met you, hence it is hard for me to loathe you. What I do loathe are your methods and what I see as your motives. This is where Rick and I differ on you. He thinks that you are trying to move from a troll to a contributing member of the community. I don't see you that way. I see you continuing (this thread is a good example) to try and stir problems, then when you manage to cause a problem, coming on as some kind of intellect or voice for the disenfranchised. We call that type of manipulation "self fulfilling prophecy". And sure as the sun comes up, others who have been rude, disruptive, and disrespectful jump on with you. But, hard as this is to believe, this is not about you, or me, or Rick, or Shambles, or Jon, or Kat, or even Joe. It is about this wonderful place starting to deteriorate to the point of not being "the town I always wanted to live in" to quote Rick. Once upon a time we had many of the best and brightest of our various genre's that came here regularly. We had threads that were interesting, and the topical stuff full of fierce and interesting debate. The agenda's of the posters at that time seemed to be clearer and the intent was not to disrupt and destroy. Rather it was to intently and intensely debate. There were many calls back then to make it music only, but I and others resisted that. We felt as though there were many "music only" sites, but this one was different as it contained friendly banter, intense debate, and downright silliness, by and between musical people and about the stuff that we make music about. Along the way, something has happened. This place has become the haven of folks that are so caught in an agenda, that the debate has become argument. It has become a place where folks who, when their arguements don't seem to be getting traction, attack decent folks who are just trying to keep this place alive. WAMSO, I often attack your motives. Let me give you examples of why. It has been pointed out many times that those of us who are clones are not allowed to delete anything. We simply assist in correcting typo's when requested, fixing links, eliminate duplicate posts, etc. The only time we eliminate an offending post is when we feel it is so egregious (sp?)as to merit immediate elimination. Even then we must email Joe, or Jeff, and if they don't agree they reinstate it. In all my time here, I have done that once. Yet even with that knowledge, even after it has been pointed out to you by Joe on a number of occasions, you continue to act as though we are eliminating stuff on a regular basis. Ain't so. Another example. Once there was a Veteran's Day thread that simply asked if we could just let it be a thank you thread for those inclined to say so. It had no political intent, and I even asked that if one was inclined to debate, could we move it to another thread and just let this be. You immediately hijacked it, and despite any number of requests continued to attack. I could go on, but I won't. The idea behind the moves by Joe are simply stated and plain to see. He simply wants to stop the Forum Page from having more than one or two threads on the same subject. He also is trying in the best way he knows how to return the Forum to its intent. He is the best man for that. I don't know why any of you come here, but I will say this. If you want to return this place to something like the place that drew you here originally, go along with Joe on this. His motives are pure, and his methods, while not perfect, are as good as we are going to get. Respectfully, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ralphie Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear.... Welcome to Paranoia Corner..! Ralphie (Not Flaming...But, Drowning) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JohnnyBeezer Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:03 PM Thanks very much for your help Kat! I look forward to having some fun. Best wishes Johnny N |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:00 PM Fixing links, putting in the line breaks, consolidating EXACT DUPLICATE THREADS (not threads that a clone or Joe has deemed repetitive)--those are the things I understood were being done by Joe and the clones. I have understood the unspoken "rules" of Mudcat to be that those are the only sorts of tasks done by Joe and the clones, and that decisions about what gets deleted based upon content alone, was a decision that was made by Max. It is clear Max isn't involved with the daily operation of the forum now, and hasn't been for some time. So my guess is that Joe now makes those decisions, and has instructed the clones to delete here and there, consolidate there and here, based upon content. That is a very big change. The new "thread management" system being implemented now, ie the selective deletion and moving of posts and threads based upon the post/thread content, is the slippery slope to censorship. I agree that the word 'censorship' is a powerful, potent word. But that doesn't mean it doesn't apply here. And why the secrecy about who is actually moderating the forum? In an open, friendly forum, one always knows who the moderators are, so why is Joe insisting on keeping the identities of the clones a secret? Answer: power, control, and a lack in self-confidence about what Joe and his clones are doing. Not necessity. Only fear could be driving this paranoid set of rules. And the fear driving this engine of change Joe and his clones insecurities. They don't feel confident about what they are doing. I don't think they should feel confident about their abilities to moderate, because they really don't seem to be up to the task. I agree Jeri, that moderation isn't that tough for people who can do it well. I've been in a number of forums where it is done beautifully, and one never even notices that it is being done. But one of essential elements to good and even excellent forum moderation is not bearing grudges about certain posters who are frequent and/or regular contributors to the forum. It is easy to say that we shouldn't use the names of the people who we perceive are the problem. But that tactic often shields and protects the guilty. Let's face it. Everyone knows that Beedubya/Bruce, CarolC, The Shambles are all members in good standing in the forum. So it seems to me that painting them as guilty parties publicly, as has been done here in recent days with these bullshit "consolidation" and "deletions" (don't use the word "censorship"!) games being played by Joe and clones, is just patently unfair, and selective prosecution. Some people here are being held up as examples, who are guilty of nothing. Absolutely nothing. And I do include myself in that list. The two threads and posts I have voiced an objection to having deleted/consolidated, were the BS thread providing a link to a Vonnegut interview, and a thread on the Justice Dept's prosecution of sellers of drug paraphenalia. One was serious, the other was intended to be humorous. Neither were about Iraq or PEL. The justification used was first that the subject matter of the threads was "frivolous". When people challenged that, the justification given was that I was a "problem guest". I'll admit to being a thorn in the side of many here, but I'm not any more guilty of being a problem than the anonymous guest who was behind the Drumcree threads. A bit of a double standard? You bet. Finally, when people like Lepus Rex challenged the whole "anonymous guest as nasty character" thing, the justification became that I hadn't provided enough context for a reasonable and worthy thread discussion to ensue. That too was challenged, most recently by Beedubya/Bruce. Considering that none of the above justifications have been legitimate, I think it is easy for at least some here to conclude that these "changes" aren't in the best interest of the forum. Liz said she did want to know who the clones were. That isn't an unreasonable request in a moderated forum. Well moderated forums always have the information visible and up front on who the moderators are, so they can be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Here, with the secrecy that is rampant among the Mudcat inner circle and a few in the ring surrounding them, secrecy about the "identities" is paramount. The obsession driving this, once again, is rooted in the identity issues that are so central to the problems on Mudcat. As has been pointed out, there will never be a solution that satisfies those who are so deeply disturbed by the internet identity issues in this forum, who have become the power behind the Mudcat throne. Because even if this forum were made member only, there would be no certainty about all identities used by members, just like there is no certainty about all identities used by guests. As has been pointed out so often in this forum, the problem isn't with the identity labels typed in the from line, because that will never be sorted out. Too many ISPs generate random IP numbers, and won't answer questions from site maintainers about the identities of their users. So the identity issue in Mudcat is a false one to begin with, because that is just the reality of the internet. The problem here truly is with a few Mudcat members who now have power members haven't had in the past. Sadly, those members, including Joe, are obsessed with the identity issues, and use them to drive a wedge between users of the forum. Some of them, though few of us except the privleged few, know who the clones and the power behind the throne are. And just as Lepus Rex has said repeatedly, they are the ones driving "the changes" being made now. Their grudges against me may very well be driving a lot of this. We have no idea which clones are now allowed access to the files and logs that contain information about individual poster identities. And my guess is, we never will. But the people who are now calling the shots haven't impressed me with their ability to set aside any personal feelings they have about specific users of this forum, and moderate judiciously and fairly. Rather, everything I've seen so far indicates that they are regularly overstepping their bounds and tripping over one another to "get back" at certain posters they have it in for, and will use the protective cover of the new rules as justification for their personal vendetta campaigns. Welcome to the new and improved Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:50 AM But what is the problem? Is there one? Too many threads? Too many posts? Too many threads on subjects that some people do not like? Before the attempt is made to fix something it may be a good idea to see if it in fact broken. That people are going round fixing things without bothering to find out if it is generally considered to be broken, and doing it IN MY NAME, is what I see as the problem. Is less than one thread a week over a two year period on aspects of the same music related subject, too many? For that is the situation and figure established with the PEL threads. But this fact has not prevented a witch hunt and a mind-set verging on hysteria, that every attempt made by the posters to address the various concerns expressed, has not mangaged to alay. But surely if you don't care for the subject, don't open them, for they are (mostly) clearly marked. Jeri's post continues the myth that an issue seems to have gotten out of hand, without ever establishing what that means or that less than one thread a week over two years IS in fact presenting any more of problem than the same number of threads over the same period of time, on other subjects. As far as the large list of PEL threads - yes, a lot of threads have been started on the PEL issue. We could combine some threads, but that's very intensive and no doubt would be used as evidence against us. It would be possible to move the list somewhere, but that would also be evidence - "I can tell you don't want anybody to find it way down at the bottom like that!" Same with completely deleting the grouping. It's not up to me, but I don't believe it's reasonable to change the entire structure of Mudcat for one particular issue that seems to have gotten out of hand regarding number of threads. On the other hand, maybe the PEL threads could be broken into subgroups. When your strict rules are seen to present a problem by an unforseen response to one issue, it may be an idea to re-examine those strict rules, rather than critising the large forum response, or number of words on that perfectly valid subject. And again without indentifing the exact problem, the suggestion solution comes in. To break them into subgroups! They are already broken into subgroups - they are called threads................ Some joined up thinking is called for at his point, not drawing around the wagons in defence and shooting from the hip. This post expresses perfectly the paranoia that is evident in those who refer to themselves as 'we', as a group distinct from 'us'. The only real problem with the PEL threads, apart from matters of personal taste is that having that many related threads at the top of each thread and then the list of posters (400 or so posts to the petition thread for example), is that folk lose the will to live before they ever get to the discussion itself. I gave a out a link to one of the PEL threads and the person I gave it to, gave up, telling me that the site was not working as all they saw was a list of titles and names.... I fail to see this as a difficult problem. A single link to a thread where a full list of all the related threads can be found would solve this small problem for all subjects that may prove to have many related links. Despite these problems, The Mudcat has made a huge inpact on this issue and has been directly responsible for creating the team and informing the individuals whose efforts have resulted in many changes being made to the legislation. Something I feel all those on the forum can and should be proud of. I would like to give thanks for all the positive efforts made and those who are just putting up with the PEL threads. There will still need to be a few more yet, I fear. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM "BillD have you ever known Carol to do anything other than express her honest feelings?"...of course not! If I hit a nerve, I truly apologize. (I seem to remember my own "honest feelings" not being totally well received at various times...*insert wry smile here*) *sigh*....all I was trying to say above was that being the 'cook' is a hard job, and that constant 'suggestions' about flavoring, recipes, and ingregients can sure LOOK like complaints, even if if one follows up with "..good, though!" when I typed my pithy little comment, I had NO one specific in mind, (I barely read the names associated with some of those comments) and was merely suggesting, in my late night stupor, that if one IS happy with the cook, let 'em cook, with very minimal comment...and I would suggest that unless one's comment NEEDS public airing, it might be best to PM Joe with your concerns, rather than doing it all in the threads where dozens, if not hundreds, of minds with different views can do almost anything to it. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:11 AM Ahhhh who gives a shit??!! All of us who've been here longer than it takes for a cup of coffee, know that Joe does his best in a "no win" situation. Most of this pallaver is just that. We do it for fun. IF he made a mistake with something that Jack the sailor said...chances are he won't do it again...but Jack can't be THAT pissed 'cause he found Carol here...and that ain't chopped liver!! GUEST (of above long post) Janet Ryan (I call her by her name 'cause she's addressed me in the past by MY name) is one of our most articulate posters, but she knows darn well that keeping things sane around here is NOT an easy job. Too many agendae blowing in the wind. We're ALL just killin' time til the grave here...and I bet even the folks complaining in this thread are havin' fun! Doubt if they'll admit it though! Ha ha! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jeri Date: 01 Mar 03 - 10:29 AM Joe is going after redundant threads, threads that begin with no message, just a link, and deleting stuff that probably has no business being here anyway, as in "I don't have anything to say, but I need to type something anyway." (No, I'm not talking about humor - we need some humor.) We've always (since we've had the capability) combined similar threads and deleted blank messages. I personally wouldn't delete the "here's a cool link" messages but would move the link to an appropriate thread if there were one. If I were mostivated by ego instead of a desire for discussion, and wanted to start whole bunch of threads to get a whole bunch of responses, I could post link after link (or cut-and-paste after cut-and-paste) in thread after thread because it's too easy and I didn't have to type anything. Most folks wouldn't do that but it's become painfully obvious that some would. The thread that was grouped with PELs and was unlinked - well I did the un-link - it was fairly obvious to me that, while that thread could be related to PELs, it was also related to other issues going on. I watched that thread and the Help Forum (correcting mistakes is the reason it exists). Not one word. I'm just guessing, but I'd bet Joe never got a PM about it either. This silence led me to believe the un-linking was the right thing to do. The thread is now back in the group. As far as the large list of PEL threads - yes, a lot of threads have been started on the PEL issue. We could combine some threads, but that's very intensive and no doubt would be used as evidence against us. It would be possible to move the list somewhere, but that would also be evidence - "I can tell you don't want anybody to find it way down at the bottom like that!" Same with completely deleting the grouping. It's not up to me, but I don't believe it's reasonable to change the entire structure of Mudcat for one particular issue that seems to have gotten out of hand regarding number of threads. On the other hand, maybe the PEL threads could be broken into subgroups. Most arguments in this thread are all about hypothetical situations - the what ifs and the worst case scenarios. It's not realistic. Maybe some folks are just expressing their darkest thoughts out loud. I'm sure we all can think of people we wouldn't trust with making judgement calls consistently temptered by common sense and self control. They may have difficulty not reacting emotionally to what people do or say. Unfortunately, since they can't keep emotions from motivating behavior, they assume no one can. There are other people who just see an opportunity to troll. The use of the word "censorship" used to describe the moving of posts as opposed to deletion is a fairly blatant indicator. Mentioning names and attributing Evil Motives is another. It's a whole lot easier to remain calm about issues than perceived attacks on people - just gotta react to those! (Sits back to watch reactions to above message.) I trust Joe even though I may not always agree with him. He's a volunteer but behaves professionally. I believe I do the same. I fix stuff for everyone, no matter how I feel about them or whether I agree with them or not. I personally don't care for the large amount of words in the large amount of PEL threads, (I'm not talking about any discussion of this worthy cause) but I still read some of them. I thought I was doing something right by ungrouping that message. (I haven't yet been called on the carpet for fixing occasional links in those threads, but I assume that sort of thing goes un-noticed.) If you have complaints on specific problems, please say something. If I don't know about it, I'm not taking any responsibility for its continued existance. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM Actually Tinker, I don't think it would be all that difficult to do the job of moderating the forum. The problem we're seeing right now, is that Max has always stated that Mudcat is NOT AND WILL NOT BECOME a moderated forum. Nonetheless, without any discussion, announcement, etc. the forum has been changed from unmoderated to moderated by Joe and the clones, which include people like catspaw and katlaughing, who are very busy defending their "behind the scenes suggestions" Lepus Rex keeps referring to in these very threads. It is their suggestions, which it doesn't take an idiot to figure out, are now being implemented with no announcements. How do I know just whose suggestions are being implemented here? I don't for certain of course, because I'm not a privleged insider. But some of us can read and read between the lines of the most transparent posters here. Lepus has sussed out the same thing through his close readings of certain people's posts to the forum. The rest of you don't notice when the clones are at work, because they haven't come for you and your posts. Yet. So some people, like Beedubyaeel, CarolC, The Shambles, etc. feel they have been victims of an insulting, embarrassing enforcement of rules they didn't know existed, have never read, and don't understand the need for, yet still feel compelled to support "the moderator" because that is what a reasonable "member" does. So, what does any of this have to do with "nasty characters" and "anonymous guests"? Well, the truth is, not much. Mudcat hasn't had any serious problems with trolls and flame wars in quite a long time, actually. There have been plenty of heated discussions, but they have remained quite civil. So the reality is, these changes are being implemented because a group of Mudcat insiders, some of whom are also clones, have decided they are sick and tired of "reading through" certain types of BS threads. Well, as some very reasonable people have pointed out a million times, if they don't like the BS threads, they now have an easy option to keep all that visual clutter out of their personal lives--it is called the BS filter. But that just isn't good enough for them. No, now they want EVEN MORE POWER TO CONTROL THE POLITICAL THREADS. Please note, the only threads being consolidated/censored and deleted are ones the de facto forum moderator Joe, and his merry band of clones, have decided are the most offensive to them personally. It is no coincidence that the types of threads Joe and the clones have deemed "frivolous" also include posters they personally don't like, and would like to somehow prosecute/persecute in their typical passive/aggressive way. One can only wonder what would have happened to the Drumcree threads under the new jack boot rules. Lepus Rex is dead on right about one thing. One guest in particular (me), who doesn't post personal attacks, contributes as much as many here to the music threads, but who enjoys the banter of the political BS threads, is particularly loathed by Joe, catspaw, Big Mick, and katlaughing. Sure there are plenty of others who loathe me as well, but they don't wield power behind the scenes of this forum the way the inner elite do. Check out their "complaints" that are in lockstep with Joe's solutions, and their "justifications" in these threads that provide the "logic" to support the current "remedy" to...what exactly? We haven't been told exactly what the problem is that these "new rules" are designed to remedy, have we? The changes we are seeing now are to fix problems that don't even exist. The changes we are seeing now are the result of Joe and the clones putting their collective heads together and deciding that Iraq and PEL threads are "a problem". Who among have complained to Joe about these threads being a problem? And what problem is it that these threads are causing, exactly? It would be so much better for the insider community if certain changes would be implemented. One, membership only. That way Mudcat could be the private club it felt like to these people when they first joined, which it will never be again because of the growth of members. Because you see, it is the Mudcat insiders who are the power behind Joe's throne, and it is THEIR will we are seeing done here. They are the ones who demanded this music forum tolerate the BS, because they loved the BS. When it was about them and their Mudcat clubhouse. Now, because of the growth of the forum, the BS isn't about them. The BS is often quite serious and political. The power behind the Mudcat throne is only willing to tolerate the political BS to a point. We will just never know what that is. We will also never know if and when our (especially) ironic attempts to start a serious thread with something humorous will be deleted or consolidated for being "frivolous". I also wonder who will suggest that Joe Offer's personal attacks on certain forum members and guests need to be deleted too. Because Joe Offer does say some pretty damn insulting things to people here. Not the sign of a good moderator. Good moderators don't attack the forum users. Good forum moderators don't use a personal yardstick to judge what is acceptable, because in most moderated forums, there are a number of moderators with different philosophies about what is and isn't acceptable, and must reach consensus before any individual action is taken. Clearly, the de facto moderators of the forum have begun to flex their collective muscle, and Joe is being sent out as the public face of it. But in case some of you haven't noticed, Joe ain't here 24/7 while all this "consolidation" is taking place. Don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Aw, I don't dislike you. You write very well, and I admire your chutzpah. I actually agree with you on most of the political opinions you've expressed. Your main problem is that you're so darn prolific - you produce words too fast. I just have to keep you in check a bit, so you don't overwhelm the forum and crowd out the music stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Tinker Date: 01 Mar 03 - 08:55 AM All rights come with responsibilities. Communities have growing pains just like any other living thing. One model compares the size of an organization and it's problems by personality. Small, insular and cat like... Medium, friendly and more like a collie... Large, diversifing and potentailly corporate and compartmentalized...The Basic folk personality doesn't to the last very well IMHO Mudcat has grown at a phenomenal rate and once we take a name it's easy to forget we are all guests. There are no "taxes" to join or participate. There are no "service hours" to donate. It's presence is a gift and all we are asked to return is respect to each other. Joe is NOT an employee who's performance we are asked to review. He is NOT an elected offical who you can choose to recall. He is an extremely patient and mostly gentle man who gives of himself to maintain, corrall, and help form this place. Like all of us, at times he can irritate and annoy individuals, but I would guess more rarely than most. I've disagreeed with Joe, but I wouldn't take on this place if given it with full funding. I doubt many others would either. Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:46 AM Shambles, there are techincal issues that I would consider but the bulk of everything here are social problems. There is no real sense of direction given from the top (Max). Joe takes the responsability (at least publically I don't know what private chat there may be with Joe and Max) and at times gets shot down for trying to do it. I think there would be fewer people cussing and yelling if Max said "This is what we are going to do". That is not Joe's fault. What Mudcat has become is a battle of peronalities each with thier own beliefs. A nuber of people are more concerned by what they see as thier own rights being infringed than seeing that perhaps excersising those rights cause problems to others. So we have a battle field. This battlefield also helps open doors to trolls, though I believe willingness to respond is the major problem there. I think that without some recognition of problems, Mudcat will eventually self destruct and even as a "Max hater" (I don't have that feeling BTW) and operator of a "rival site", or whatever else anyone may think of me don't want to see that. I spent too long here and got too involved here not to care. I think the biggest tech issue was solved with the BS filter. This does mean the strict music people can enjoy that side without having to see the BS and I see no reason why the 2 can't sit happily side by side. There still always will be debates over volume of threads musical or BS and I think whats needed there is discussion, not arguments. I'll use the PEL one as an example. It is very important to any of us who enjoy live music in England and Wales (and personally I live for my weekly session - I can't wait for the next one...) but the way it was tackled here clearly angered people. We must also realise that not everyone here will be affected by PELs. A good commutity surely would be capable of recognising both sides of the problem and trying to get together to work out a solution enabling the visibiltiy of the important problem but reducing the number of threads and annoyance caused. Mudcat has grown and is huge. It needs to mature enough to cope with differences of opinions within the community. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:42 AM Would you folks just take a breath? This is a friggin' forum, not the government of major countries. You act as if something bad is going to happen to your pet if you post wrong. The simple fact is that the Mudcat, due to certain individuals actions (some intended, some not) is in trouble. It is slipping down the slope to irrelevance to the same folks (new and old, I am referring to personality types, not individuals here)that made it a success. How often do you see Liam's Brother here? Frank McGrath? I could go on and on. The time has come to clean it up and that is what Joe is doing. The most valid, and central question, is asked by Rick. He recognizes and states that we have significant problems and they must be fixed. That leads to who should do it. Joe and I have disagreed many times on what we should have as rules. I probably don't think that all of his moves are correct. But............and this is a key...............he is the best person for the job. And he does it well. He is not here to function as anything other than a benevolent dictator. Why? Because he has devoted the time, and (for the most part) has demonstrated a cool head. I have seen him make decisions that he later reversed because he was convinced to do so. I know him as friend as well as Chief of the Clones. We differ on how to handle some problems, but there is no one I would rather have making the decisions. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:01 AM Lets us all be clear, this thread IS only about censorship. The justification given for this censorship, is that things were 'messy'? My view is that if this so-called 'mess' offends ANYONE, then THEY can always can leave us to own mess. Is it not totally illogical to start yet another thread to complain/explain that there were too many threads and to gain approval for actions based on this? Is it a technical problem? Are there just too many contributions to the forum? If so it matters little (except to a tidy mind), if these contributions are contained in one thread or over many. For this then is a technical problem and clearly requires a technical solution, not an excuse to exert a tidy mind and for that particular personal view to be imposed. What then is the problem this time that can only apparently be resolved by our 'minders' taking action and then asking for approval? Why could this not be flagged up with the individuals concerned first? I don't want to talk here too much about the PEL problem in the UK, but this fight is over two issues that are important to many of us on this forum. These are music and the right and freedom to express this. Much needed and much appreciated help has provided by many contributors, from all over the world. Over two years the Government and our local authorities have come up with wonderful and ingenious reasons and justifications why the simple human right act of making music, presented all sorts of problems. To my knowledge, that the situation was 'messy; was not one of the reasons given but to our civil servants and local officials do tend to have more tidy minds, than say many of us 'oddballs' on this forum. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in our Parliament has concluded that in order to prevent this freedom of expression, a proportionate response to a pressing social need is first required. This cross party committee of MPs and Lords, are not satisfied the Bill (or the current regime) has demonstrated this. Has the case ever been made on the forum for this freedom of expression to be subject to the selective and subjective views of a single individual (other than the originator of the forum)? To my knowledge three independent requests have been made for the huge list of two years of related PEL threads, to be removed from appearing at the top of every PEL thread and some better method found. This appears to present too many problems and the only practical response to this that I can see so far, is that a thread that I originated and was (correctly) linked to these PEL threads was unlinked because the original linking was "believed" to be a mistake. It was not and a PM to the originator would have confirmed this but no such PM was made before action was taken. This thread title and contents are significant for any contributors who may find themselves in the position of the following It seemed to Joe said he was going after some pretty nasty characters. I thought I couldn't be one of them. Apparently I was wrong. Then they came for me Roger, I don't like the way thread grouping works when there's a long list of threads, either. It works quite well in most situations, but the PEL list and Woody Guthrie and a couple of others don't group satisfactorily with the system we have. Jeff is toying with alternate ideas, but has not yet come up with an alternative that is satisfactory. Be assured that your request has been heard. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Mar 03 - 03:24 AM Hi, Liz - the Clones are allowed to delete messages only to resolve technical problems. In certain limited circumstances, they can delete problem messages - but they have to notify Jeff or me that they've done it. If a deletion is unwarranted, Jeff and I can restore it. If there's a deletion you question, contact me by personal message. Jeff, Max, Jeri, and I have access to registration information. The Clones don't. Various people have various levels of editing access at various times. No, I'm not going to furnish a list of who has what access. Jeff, Max, and I control and monitor the editing process, and all editing is done under our authority. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Liz the Squeak Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:27 AM Er... I think I'd like to see a list of everyone - and I know it isn't just Joe who has deletion/movement control in this place.... not for any reason other than I like to know who to blame if something I start goes missing less than an hour after posting. Then of course there's the security reason... if there are Joe Clones out there with those powers, do they have access to my personal details, the stuff without which you can't acquire a cookie.....? I don't want to have to be bailed out of a South African jail, just because law enforcement officers think I'm Mata Hari..... LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:12 AM Well, all this is interesting. Basically, though, the responsibility for the forum is shared by Max, Jeff, and Joe - and Joe does most of the moderation of the Forum. Jeri shares some of that responsibility at times. No, you wouldn't want the responsibility shared by the Clones. No, you wouldn't want hard-and-fast rules if you got them. Basically, we try to exercise controls when things are messy here, and ease off when they're not. Things have been messy the last couple of weeks, so something had to be done. I try my best to use controls only when I must. I'm sorry, but I often can't explain why I do what I do - if I explain, it often serves to exacerbate the problem I'm trying to resolve. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:09 AM How do we know it isn't shared or discussed? What are the indications that he MAY be carrying too much of a load? Everytime he's posted he seems perfectly calm. Don't a lot of these decisions have to be made quickly? Seriously, would there be FEWER people complaining if Joe weren't the one making the decisions? I did a bit of looking back tonight, and there are really very few folks (who give their names) who seem disappointed...and almost all of them seem to be talking to Max as if he's listening and gives a shit, rather than living his life. I mean, I think most folks here find the anonymous Guest complaints entertaining, but would anyone CHANGE Mudcat because someone who wouldn't give a name demanded it? This isn't a hip young people's internet forum...it's a corny bunch of folkies who've found a surprising hobby....and it's a Community. Strikes me as Joe Offer's a pretty representative guy...and if he's willing to do all the stuff, then I'm happy to let him do it his way...whatever his motive. If a sizable percentage of people think differently, then he should let someone else do it. Eick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:35 AM I think Joe is a good moderator overall. But maybe he's carrying too much responsibility by himself. Maybe the job is just too emotionally exhausting for just one person to carry mostly on their own. Especially on top of the responsibilities that Joe has at home. Maybe it would help if the decision-making responsibilities were shared more equally between Joe and one or more of the Clones. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:04 AM So...I'm going to ask the question again. If NOT Joe Offer, then WHO would you prefer running the ship? From what I've gathered, Joe is NOT an extremist, or fanatic in any one area. Surely that's good (for a moderator kind of guy) He's NOT a "one issue" guy. I mean there are folks here who NEVER even go INTO a trad. music thread, let alone have anything intelligent to say about it. So he doesn't like birthday threads...and he thinks there are too many PEL announcements....I'm sure there are folks who think the "Punch The Horse" joke is over-ripe, and that LH's "Shatner" stuff ceased to be funny after six months. I'm really not trying to defend the guy, in fact I've wondered a dozen times why someone would want the responsibility of this. I guess it's a kind of fun power, but boy, the hassles wouldn't be worth it for me. At first I was a tad concerned because I don't want ANYBODY who's religious, makin' decisions for me....but I quickly realized that Joe's as confused about the supernatural as I am...so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (the last few words are a joke) Anyway.....bottom line to me: If not Joe...WHO? Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:45 AM Its pretty simple from my point of view. In the first post of this thread. It seemed to Joe said he was going after some pretty nasty characters. I thought I couldn't be one of them. Apparently I was wrong. We have some fascinating people at Mudcat, people who have well-honed opinions on just about any subject you can think of. If they're interested in a subject, they will give a well-reasoned response that really gives you something to think about. , and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood. I thought I was one of the well honed, but I am apparently one of these. a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information Although this lesson which I have been taught came as something of a surprise, I respect Joe's right to run this place as he sees fit. He has shown that he believes that my particular brand of satire is "frivolous" (his words from a PM). My point was to try to have some people lighten up and have some fun, perhaps not to take all of this petty squabbling quite so seriously. If that offends the powers that be then I don't belong here. That puts me in a little bit of a bind Carol thinks very highly of many of you, she thinks this forum is important and considers it to be akin to the second home. I guess I don't have to like my in laws but it saddens me that this BS has hurt her. Another reason for me to avoid the MudCat, but it compels me to stay in touch. This exercise has been a success from one point of view. He certainly has curtailed any urges I might have to proliferate threads. I feel like the little kid who has been told to go sit in the corner. I never liked that I guess, I tested the limits in school and I still do. BillD have you ever known Carol to do anything other than express her honest feelings? I have no idea what you are trying to say. But I do know you well enough to believe that you wouldn't hurt her feeling on purpose. Claymore, I'm not looking for retorts or trying to give them, as far as I am concerned, this is just friends trying to work things out. Joe, I take full responsibility, for misreading your intentions, and for testing your limits. For the record, in answer to the first post in this thread. I did think a little before I posted. I did not think that my thread was ancillary to the discussion, it was a satirical comment on all of the discussions, I respect your right to disagree. My opinions are usually "honed" and "reasoned" I respect your right to judge if they are "well-honed" and "well-reason" I respectfully disagree with you contention that allegedly superior opinions are being "drowned in the flood" If the object is to express opinions then how well the opinions are "honed" hardly matters. I know that no one thinks me one of these people: very few people are starting a very large number of threads. If only because a couple of threads per month is not a very large number. I now notice that I had overlooked this sentence " I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful" I see now that had I been thinking more clearly I would have realized that this means that you are reluctant to delete threads. That you would not delete a thread even if it was the express wish of those participating even after the thread has lost all relevance except as a "cautionary tale". I had the understanding that it is the policy here to delete threads at the request of the author. I assumed differently I assumed that that policy was still in effect. I was wrong. Had I been that wise, I'd have taken my medicine and walked away. I would not blame anyone for thinking I have over analyzed this or for thinking I am being to sensitive. Put it down to the stress of five months of forced idleness and wanting to protect my wife. I also want to minimize further discussion of this by covering as much ground as possible. Please do not think less of Carol or attack her for sticking up for me and taking my side. I love her for that. Please accept my apology and let this end right here. I apologize, I will behave. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:58 PM I don't know if either you, Bill, or you, Claymore are responding to my last post, but if you are, you need to know that I have given my unconditional support to Joe and whatever decisions he has made for well over a year now. Whenever he has corrected me in threads, I have apologized and made the requested changes to my behavior. I'm not yelling moose turd pie. And I'm not trying to rag on Joe. I'm just feeling pretty jumpy about posting right now, and trivializing things doesn't help. Maybe that doesn't matter to the big picture, but it does matter to me. I think I'll clear out of this discusson now. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:50 PM God I love it... Retorical Dawinism... only the best and most original survive... Niche Threading... The rest will be herded into the cattle pen of deletion... Does an old carnivores heart good. But seriously, it's long overdue. And I wouldn't worry about any real form of rules. In my experience most people view rules as some thing to read and, (1) Forget, until you're slapped by them, or (2) Try and figure a way around them. (If you don't believe me watch how many people get their work combined and then cry when they're caught, or go "Huh?"). Besides I'm willing to bet that Joe's judgements will be based in some part by the posting history of the person creating the thread. And frankly I like what I've seen so far. And thus the ultimate retort - If you don't like it... leave. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM "My God...that's Moose turd pie!" |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:11 PM Managing excess threads is one thing. I can understand that. And for the past couple of years, I have regarded Joe as a friend. But in the case of the thread that was started yesterday that I have a problem with, Joe was asked repeatedly to delete it by the person who started it, as well as other people. Rather than deleting it, Joe moved it. After moving it, he was again asked to delete it. This has not been done. It feels like we are being used as an example to other people, and I don't think friends use friends in that way. Sorry Carol. I did what I thought was right, and I still think it's right. I take requests into consideration as much as I can, but I cannot honor every one. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Feb 03 - 09:35 PM Shambles, forget the forum or threads or whatever and think about this a minute......In the case of the PEL it is a very important issue to say the least. Now as an American, I don't have a dog in that fight, but I have read along as best I could and tried to educate myself. I've stayed out of the opinion end but have occasionally asked a question to help me understand. The number of threads is significant at this point and it's easy to get lost. I think this is happening to a number of UK members as well. What I am suggesting is to keep a "PEL Daily News" thread going and to post to it. It would be easy to follow and not miss out on the latest change. THEN, if a significant development occurs, start a new thread on that but reference it in the News thread as well. News that fits one of the older threads can be listed in both the News thread and the appropriate existing thread or if you want the info in an older thread as background to the News post, link the one you want me to read as background in the News post. The number of PEL thread starts has improved but I think you would be well served to have a NEWS thread as a "meeting place." At 200 or 300 posts or every week or two start another one. It would make the whole thing infinitely easier to follow. Let's say you post a piece of news and I want to make an extended comment about it. If you have linked the right thread then I can post to the NEWS thread and say that I have an opinion and I have posted it on "XYZ" linked thread. Just a thought in your case and if you hate it, I'm sorry. it would be something I would consider were it I that were in your place. As to deletions or (gasp!) censorship on Iraq, none is taking place. Joe has moved messages and deleted only cut and paste stuff which he has explained. Everyone needs a place to express their opinions on the war and at lest a place to vent. But the situation is far different from PEL.......In the case of Iraq we have a very few people starting the vast majority of the threads, often with only cut and paste troll stuff. Everytime a new piece of news comes along, it doesn't warrant a thread, but if it does, anyone is free to start one......But geeziz let it be different and not the same friggin' thing!! Where Joe has transferred messages, they still exist and that ain't censorship! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Jon Date: 28 Feb 03 - 09:19 PM Rick, I may get barred for life for this but my own "reality" says that Joe, Jeff and Jeri (wow 3 J's never though of that before) hold this place together. Joe is sort of leader of the forum organisation. I've had my own rows with Joe bit basically IMO his focus is on keeping something resembling music round here. Jeff, is IMO a very good programer. He is the hidden one who never gets the praise he deserves. Jeri, well, she was a very good friend until I went OTT with my criticisms here. She doesn't have the same power as Joe but is a genuine person wanting the best for Mudcat. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 28 Feb 03 - 08:44 PM My dictionary defines Forum: Place of public discussion, court, tribunal. I am begining to think that Max's ideal is coming to resemble the last two, rather than the former. Order may be good or even necessary, but it is not and should never be considered the sole purpose of the forum. The tolerance and understanding that used to be the way and enabled all of us to contribute to the forum using only mutual respect, is sadly giving way to something else. The idea that there are PEL people or Iraq people is offensive. And the idea that these are any more of a different tribe than people who start any other thread on any other subject that may not be of personal interest to you or me is misguided. There were two Iraq threads started today that just didn't need to be started, since there already were a number of Iraq threads running. The new threads didn't deal with a major change - they were ancillary to the ongoing discussions. With a little thought, the thread originators could have fit their information into the ongoing discussion. The originators of these threads considered that these did need to be started. That view should be respected, even if you or me may not agree with it, for it is just a matter of opinion and personal taste after all. Everyone has every right to express their view, but not to express only it after imposing it by taking action. A PM could be sent first to the originator (if they have a cookie) and ask if they agree to any proposed course of action? I fear the PEL threads will give way to more non music pro or anti TPC threads like this one. Did this one really have to go on the main forum? Could it not have stayed in the help forum? The idea that the forum can have too many threads is rather like the Emperor in Amadeus, telling Mozart that his music has too many notes, and to take a few out! We may all have opinions but only the Emperors among us have the power to act on them............ |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 28 Feb 03 - 08:36 PM So let me see if I've got things straight here? Joe is combining some threads 'cause they're reduntant (in his view).... He's eliminating some other ones 'cause he feels they're a waste of time. (is this actually true, or am I simply confused and just parroting what his detractors said) I'm assuming this is all being done to streamline the site a bit. Some folks (about three or four, and an anonymous guest who MAY be one person or six ) are pissed. How many people actually USE this site? Surely it's several hundred. So what's the BIG complaint that the majority might have? Is it the "Censorship, first admendment" thing? That is SOOOOO American, and this IS an international forum. Who cares if your immortal words get poofed? Write 'em again if you think you're that profound.....chances are they WON'T get bumped a second time. This place has long ceased being a viable source of really accurate detailed information about the old time,Blues, Bluegrass and Country Music I love, so there are other places I go to discuss that stuff, but Boy, have I learned a LOT about traditional Vocal music from the Cat....plus some great Gospel stuff, and tons of fringe stuff. It's still very valuable to me.....but for different reasons than when I came here four years ago. I LOVE the political discussions! But reading the same things over and over again from idealogues who simply can't spell, and don't give a shit about being part of the communinty just becomes boring. So who ARE the Joe Clones anyway? Apparently there are still folks here who think Max runs the place. Reading between the lines indicates to me that he stopped doing that a LONG time ago in order to have a life.....yet people KEEP using his name. Are the Joe Clones just the ones who answer all the technical questions? Is Jeri a Joe Clone? She seems pretty balanced. Are there others who are perhaps NOT as balanced? Jeez, I'm not sure I wanna know....perhaps Gargoyle is a Joe Clone...he knows a lot of computer stuff! Anyway, who ELSE would you want besides Joe making the decisions to keep Mudcat manageable? Not me, that's for sure....cuz I'd insist on memberships and identification....more fun (for me) that way, and I might even editorialize in every thread...it would be tempting. Nah....I think if someone's gonna push the buttons, it might as well be Joe. Many of us (the honoured inner circle) have met him, we know a LOT about him, and I think HE'S REASONABLY SANE! Remove this Joe, and I'll cut yer balls off! Cheers Rick Ballsoff? Remove WHAT, Mr. Rick? I don't wanna remove anything, Mr. Rick. No, Sir. Not ME! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:54 PM Santus Sanctus Santus Is the deleter who vaporises non musician troller-flamers who divert the true path of the Mudcat FOLKMUSICIAN'S forum Joe eo Gratias |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:37 PM Another negative to this plan--Joe Offer's merry band of clones are Mudcat insiders with a very low tolerance level for discussion of politics here on Mudcat. The political cleansing of the forum has begun. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:24 PM What a bloody mess. I just came in here after a couple of days being away, and threads are being deleted, consolidated, closed...I tried reading the "consolidated" threads, and it was like listening to the rants of a madman. Great solution? You must be joking. RichM is dead on. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Pooka Date: 28 Feb 03 - 04:07 PM Joe, may I add to members' thanks for all you do for this community. I may not always agree with you, but (a) who cares? :) and (b) I cannot *imagine* having to do your job. You're making good-faith efforts to handle what is clearly a growing problem, while reasonably balancing the competing considerations. I get really annoyed at those cut-and-paste threads. :) hoo hah |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:37 PM hi, johnny, BS=Breeze shooting or, if you prefer, Bullsh** I haven't seen the context in which GB was used, but a guess would be George Bush or Great Britain (but you'd suss that one out, wouldn't you:->) PEL is Public Entertainment License of which there's been quite an uproar in the UK **BG** = Big Grin IMO = In my Opinion a variant is IMHO, in my humble opinion Hope that helps and welcome to the Mudcat! kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JohnnyBeezer Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:09 PM What do the shorthand/Acronyms "BS" "GB" "PEL" stand for? Serious enquiry. Does anyone have a glossary of these esoteric (I'm English) references? Thanks Johnny N |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:28 PM Joe, you said As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. (My emphasis.) I have supported the consolidation of the myriad Iraq threads and I have been outspoken about nameless ones who have started so many on that and on conspiracies, because they just became ridiculous, as you say. BUT, I don't think the above rule is going to work. There are always going to be overlapping threads on any given subject and I don't see how to draw the line on some but not others. I added to the Political Misc. one, today, but really wanted a new thread because I feel what I was posting was very important, the way Bobert felt his thread on Saddam's interview was important. I think the one possible solution still might be limiting the right of nameless GUESTs from starting anything but music threads. Not even sure if that would work, though. Please know, this is not personal. IMO, you've done nothing more than what many have asked for or, agreed was a good idea. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: dick greenhaus Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:24 PM Joe- One counter-cultural suggestion: We have one thread on who's going to Old Songs. This just tacked the 2003 responses to those for the 2002 Festival. Why not split thim, and let last year's postings go back to sleep? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:15 PM Neither Rob nor I start very many threads. We both practice moderation in the threads we post to in that there are many more non-music threads that we don't post to than those we do. We both are happy to follow rules that are clearly spelled out, and applied consistantly. But this rule looks like it's being applied selectively, and that's not only confusing, it's hurtful. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:52 PM Sorry, Carol, you'll have to be more specific. Which threads are you talking about? I consolidated three threads yesterday (click), based on suggestions from people who had posted to the three. Consolidating is not a perfect solution - it's better for people to use control on their own. As far as policy on specific types of humor, the only rule is "no personal attacks." As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. If there are 15 Iraq threads on the Forum Menu today, some are going to be consolidated. Five is tolerable. Fifteen is ridiculous. Yes, you're encouraged to add to existing threads. But refreshing sixteen Shatner threads or twenty Iraq threads is not going to make people happy. We want people to be happy here... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM This policy is starting to confuse me quite a lot. We are instructed to add to existing threads when possible. Yesterday, a thread that was started in order to have a little fun was consolidated with some other threads in a way that made it not fun any more. So I looked up an old thread that was fun, thinking I'd put something I thought was funny on it in order to have some fun. This was a thread that had no acrimony on it and it was (is) a good natured, funny thread. The thread in question was started in October of 2002. The last post that was made to it was made in October of 2002. Two weeks ago, when I looked in on the thread in question, it was still open for posting. Today, when I looked in on it, it was closed. What's really going on here? Are we supposed to add to existing threads or not? Are there specific rules about what types of humor are permitted here (other than the rules about personal attacks, etc.)? If so, would someone please point to them in the FAQ? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:09 PM Couldn't agree with you more, Carol. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 27 Feb 03 - 07:57 PM I don't have any problem with Joe's policy. I do have a bit of a problem with people other than Joe thinking they need to do Joe's job for him. I hope those people (those who are not named Joe Offer) who are quick to jump into threads and yell for Joe to come move them, will not be hypocritical when it comes to the threads they start themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:57 PM Basically I'm for it - but the kind of thing I'd worry about would be that threads like the musicians from Iraq thread might get swallowed us in a Iraq miscellany. A single issue can often have radically different aspects which can justify separate threads. I think we ought to make much more use of putting in links to other threads which seem relevant to us, like I did just then. I think that we are still stuck in ways of thinking that are pre-upgrade. Any thread longer than 50 or so used to be inaccessible to some people, and anything longer than 100 was a nuisance to everybody. That meant that starting a new thread rather than continuing on older one made sense. But now it really isn't necessary most times. The other thing that's been happening, as has been pointed out, is probably an effort by one or two people who like to pose as friends of free speech to try to force the Mudcat into a more moderated and controlled pattern, so that they can pretend it was like that all along. It's how some people get their kicks. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM Oh fer krisesakes, Lepus! Pogroms? Really over the top there, esp. considering the absolute bullshit certain GUESTs have posted trying to "save" us from our own ignorance and denial, long post after long post, after long post. Some of them make the right wing conspiracies nuts look half-way sane; in fact, I'll bet some of them kicked the holier-than-thou SOB, or maybe it should just be "B," out. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Lepus Rex Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:33 PM Well, this is the least bothersome to me of your "censorship" plans, Joe, as you're not deleting posts or preventing anyone from posting. But I urge you to choose the threads you relocate carefully, as those long strings of somewhat-related posts from a deleted thread can really disrupt the flow of the thread they're added to, and are difficult to read in their new form. (Much like that last sentence. Screw it. I'm tired.) But, of course, this thread brings out the ASG, once again howling for restrictions of GUEST privledges, and apparently trying to incite another irritating "I hate the Mudcat elite" flame war. I once again remind you, Joe, that they may be loud, and they may respond to your every suggestion with "Huzzah! Joe is God! Gimme that boot, Joe! *lick*" But they are a small minority of Mudcatters. I don't think the majority feels the need for draconian anti-GUEST pogroms. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:13 PM To the people who are sick of threads on Iraq(and who can blame them?) may I commend my modest thread on "Musicians from Iraq" which has so far only attracted 7 postings, as opposed to the 17,336,471 letters on Iraqui politics we have to wade through. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:45 PM Joe has the patience of Job. If he didn't, in fact, I think I would have more fun and might even consider being a pain-in-the-butt guest tweeking the people what can be tweeked. (What the hell that Max guy does is beyond me, but) Joe is a near-saint. So, Joe, I'm sorry I impersonated that guy who wasn't gay. Your patient efforts are appreciated more widely than you probably realize. |
| Share Thread: |