Thread Proliferation Control

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Deckman
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:21 PM

Joe ... a couple of thoughts: First of all, thank YOU for all the time and effort, and other things that I know you put into MUDCAT. Even though I once (recently) started a "BS" thread about cigarettes, I hang out here for FOLK MUSIC. That's what is so important to me. So, following some others suggestions, I do like to idea of perhaps including, or starting, a daily thread titled "Garbage Disposal." I am clearly putting myself in agreement with Art. In my opinion, if it isn't about folk music, I do NOT want to read it here. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:19 PM

Now I'll be the first to admit that I *might* have started some purdy dumb threads that weren't worth startin' and so, yeah, Joe took me aside and gave me a voucher good for one weeks worth of Betty Ford "Dumb Thread" counselin'. Now I usually ain't into vouchers but, what the heck, I did the time and Iz feeling much better now. But...

...those urges are still there. But, I'm doing what Betty told me to do: smoke, drink, beat the danged dog, etc so I should be able to get thru this one!

However, I feel a *dumb one* comin'.

Hey, Joe, can I get another voucher???

Please, depot agent...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM

Joe, I only advocate what I do (probably) because I know it doesn't have a snowbll's chance in a jalapeno patch of coming to pass. I've learned to enjoy the B.S. too and I can't advocate going back to only music-related stuff because precedents for B.S. have been firmly set at Mudcat now and it would hurt too many good people to take it away. I learned to like the BS like Dr. Strangelove learned to love the bomb. Still, this is a good idea. Limiting BS threads by de-fragmenting is a nice way to do it. Thanks for all you folks do.

Art

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:12 PM

I got the joke Rich; I mean it had to be a joke didn't it, after all it had a name attached to it. Usually remarks like that are headed GUEST.
And they say that Americans don't do irony!!
failte.....Giok

Subject: Changing Subject Heading May Help
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:05 PM

Another thing I think it is good to remind people of is they can change the Subject heading of their individual postings, so that it makes it easier to search for them,later, and also for people to scan threads. I think if we did this more often it would help a bunch, esp. in everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink threads such as the political ones.

kat

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:59 PM

That brings us back to the idea of Guests not being able to start any non-music thread and/or having to enter a consistent identifier next to the Guest moniker.

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 PM

You know, Bruce, you're right. I'm likely to make some mistakes. The "Purple Haze" thread should have gone under "miscellaneous useless horseshit." Your reponse was worthwhile, but the initial message didn't even give much of an idea what the thread should be about.

The original message in the thread consisted of a single, barely-comprehensible sentence, and a link. That's enought to start a hundred-message chain of useless verbiage - but not enough to start a discussion. It took me more time to dispose of it, than it took the original poster to start it.

I guess I'm asking people to think before they post messages, and especially before they start threads. I know this is a novel concept to some, but perhaps it IS possible.

Another novel concept is that this is primarily a MUSIC forum. We welcome all discussion, but we have to exercise certain controls to ensure that the political stuff doesn't overwhelm the music. I'm trying to keep those controls as gentle as possible, but it's a difficult task.

If you want to start a thread similar to "Purple Haze" and begin with a message that gives your own opinion of the issue, that's fine. It does take some time to start a worthwhile thread - I would think it should take at least ten minutes to type an initial message that has some actual thought in it. The initial message needn't be long, but it should be thoughtful enough to provoke discussion.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:29 PM

Excellent idea! One of the problems with multiple threads on Iraq (or multiple threads on any given subject) is that if you are interested in the topic, you wind up having to bounce from thread to thread to follow the discussion, and if you post on any of them, you practically have to keep a running log of which threads you've posted on. I am interested in the Iraq discussions and I do post to them, but it's a real hassle trying to keep track of what's where. Keeping it all on a single thread would really simplify things, and I don't see that anyone could have a reasonable objection to that.

I think we should also consolidate the "Conspiracy du jour" threads. That stuff is getting ridiculous!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Beccy
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:00 PM

Go Joe!!!! Works for me.

As an aside- wouldn't it be neat if someone invented "Sarcastic" font for the 'puter so that we could rely upon that to convey our biting remarks?

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM

Okay, Joe. I understand about redundant threads, particularly related to Iraq. Now please explain to me why one of the threads that was moved had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ!   

The thread that was entitled "Terror Alert Level: Purple Haze!" is most emphatically NOT about Iraq. It is about the people who were busted this past week for selling Marijuana smoking paraphenalia over the Internet! Did you even bother to look at the content of the post or did you just assume that you knew what the content was based on the thread title? GUEST who started the thread was making a joke when he chose the title for it. My wife was unable to get into a military housing complex the other day because of heightened security. She joked that since she was wearing a plaid jacket we must be at alert level "plaid". Same kind of joke. Get it?

Personally, I feel that the folks getting busted for selling bongs is a topic worthy of discussion on this forum. Those items were sold to individuals who paid for them by credit card. Computers have been confiscated and The Justice Department now has the name and address of every person who ever made a transaction. You can bet your ass that there are some people waiting for a knock on the door right now.

I believe you made a mistake and I respectfully request that you move that thread back to the main forum.

Sincerely,

Bruce W. LaWall

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Blackcatter
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM

1) Proliferation is too big a word for most outraged guests to understand quickly.

2) The sun never sets on the Mudcat Empire!

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:35 PM

maybe if you changed it to "Ricktin Crisp" they'd notice ya more! **bg**

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:04 PM

My problem is that no one KNOWS when I'm being sarcastic!

C'mon...where the heck are the "OUTRAGED GUESTS"? I'm waiting for my Mudcat entertainment value. Do they only come out at night?

Cheers

One of Joe's willing sheep, ha ha!

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

I am going to be a brat for a moment.:-) Just for the record, I posted this a while ago and was shouted down, sort of **bg**:

Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions
From: katlaughing - PM
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 06:50 PM

Three cheers for you, Joe! Thanks.

How about if we have a News of the day thread, a continous one which is a central location for all of the political/news stuff? The only exception being some momentuous happening such as Columbine or the Space Shuttle?

Ha!

kat

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:59 AM

Geez, sorry Rich....as a sarcastic bastard myself, I should have realized!!!

I wouldn't want to stop anyone from posting anything......but every thought on Iraq doesn't merit a new thread. A "News" thread free to drift would be fine and in the case of a continuing topic like Iraq or the PEL, much easier to keep up with.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:56 AM

Rick, if you'd had "Thread Proliferation Control" in your life, you wouldn't be the Rick we love so much. Your wife Heather wouldn't like you, either.

I hope to be gentle in this system of control, but it will be a trial-and-error process. If a thread starts out with a well-reasoned expression of opinion that invited comment, I'm likely to leave it alone. If it starts with a link, a one-liner, or a cut/paste article, it's likely to be consolidated. If it's an answer to an existing thread, it's likely to be consolidated.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:55 AM

I'm all for it Joe. Anything that will pare down and streamline so that the idea (if not the reality) that the music threads are the main reason for Mudcat Cafe is wonderful. This will serve to make the music threads more obvious, and that is just great with me.

As I've said before, I'm for censorship that will create a moderator for the Mudcat that tosses non-music topics into the grease trap.

ART THIEME

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: RichM
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:49 AM

- My comments were meant as irony, Spaw. I guess I was unclear, because I am reluctant to be sarcastic!

To state more clearly, I would say that I feel all topics should be allowed--by guests or members, unless they are personal attacks or insults to others in the forum.


A nasty or contentious topic will run it's course and die a natural death.

Rich

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:35 AM

Rich, no way on the "Approved Topics List"........Anything is fair game. That idea is way too close to censorship.

I have posted previously in the HELP forum on this and I'll repost it here. It would be a lot easier to keep up with the news on the PEL issue, a very important topic to many, or Iraq, or General News with fewer threads.

I think it would be quite simple to start a "PEL News of the Day" and an "Iraq News of the Day" threads. Everything goes there. If the subject fits into another existing thread then post in it as well or transfer the post later.....Just stop the friggin' daily thread additions. Khandu mentioned Punch the Horse...We HAVE a "Who's playing where" Permathread don't we? Let's use it.

A new addition to Iraq or PEL or just some General News tidbits can also be listed in the appropriate thread assuming there is one, but a "News" thread would be simple to keep up with. As an example, let's say someone posts a new thread. "Kim Howells Rips a Fart"....maybe that would best go under some other existing thread, but for now it becomes a post in the "PEL News" thread rather than a new thread of itself. If there can be found a thread it might best fit in like, "Kim Has Smelly U-Trou" than it can be transferred there later but everyone gets the news. Same with Iraq only moreso as not much of that stuff is future reference. Say at about 300 or so posts a new "News" thread is started. Only rarely can I see the need for a new Iraq thread.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM

You jes' do what you have to Joe!

If I'd had "thread proliferation Control" in my life for the last 40 years, I'd a bin a lot better off!

Rock

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:21 AM

My only concern is that the starting of these threads may be yet one more volley designed to troll Mudcat Central into increasing its control over the forum-- made necessary only by the slowness with which members realize a thread is a troll thread, and our collective inability to let these threads die. You see, although I agree with your idea, my concern is that it'll just amount to another extended "Look what Joe did" fracas. I KNOW you can take the heat-- but if it serves to make the thread originator(s) feel they have gotten attention and "won" a moral victory, it may serve only to encourage them further.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: RichM
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM

Good idea!
Carry it further though:
Forbid the messy notion of allowing uncontrolled new threads-- Every morning, or once a week,or whenever-- publish a pre-approved list of acceptable new topics.

So that we (as member or guest) can only post to an existing OR pre-approved thread. And NO more threads containing the word Ir** !


Rich McCarthy

---

I don't think I want to do that, Rich. One of the beauties of this place is its spontaneity, so I want to be careful not to exercise too much control
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: mack/misophist
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:01 AM

As I understand it, it's your job to keep things neat and tidy. You'r doing your job; what's to complain about?

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:58 AM

Overdue.

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:53 AM

How about suggesting people lump the tidbits in a "Topical News--Thread Drift OK-Week/Month/Year" that is where odds and ends can be placed, instead of all new threads all the time?

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: TIA
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:48 AM

Excellent move.

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:46 AM

I'm all for it, Joe! When I skim down the threads, there are so many on Iraq, and the impending (seemingly) war, half the time my eyes start to glaze over, and I click on Mudchat (where interestingly, I haven't come across a single conversation about Iraq.) I think everyone has the right to express, re-express, slightly modify and enldlessly repeat their observations, but howz about one REAL BIG IRAQ THREAD? :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM

Thanks Joe. Undoubtedly though someone will cry out that their "freedom of speech" has been trampled upon. Keep up the good work anyway.

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:03 AM

Yes!

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:54 AM

Makes sense to me Joe.

DougR

Subject: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 AM

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.
I think there's a general consensus that a very few people are starting a very large number of threads, and I think there is general annoyance with new threads started when there is already an ongoing discussion on a related topic. On music threads, we combine requests with previous threads as a matter of course. I've been wondering about the political and other BS threads, and I think maybe I'll go in the same direction.
When Iraq threads get started that don't really bring up a new topic, I think I'll move them into a Misc Iraq thread, or to an existing Iraq discussion. I suppose some of the thread originators won't like it, but maybe it will help them learn to fit their comments into existing threads, instead of fragmenting the discussion so much.
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.
The way things have been, a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information, and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood.
I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful, but I think maybe that a system of moving them may serve to focus the discussion. I think you'll note that the PEL people have settled down a bit. Maybe the Iraq folks will do the same.
-Joe Offer-

(copied over from the Help Forum [click])