BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:21 AM

A (true) Jelly Fish story

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 06:08 AM

Thread proliferation control

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: RichM - PM
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-

With the insertion of the editing comment (in brown) quite obviously the irony of Rich's post was wasted. And also wasted on some of our posters at least – for he felt he had to later respond with the following explanation…..

Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control
From: RichM - PM
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: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:19 AM

Thread proliferation control

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 09:52 AM

I get a lot of complaints from people about the conduct of so-and-so, usually an anonymous Guest. The trouble is, the people who complain are just as heavily involved in combat - and then they stick their tails between their legs and want me to protect them. I'm sorry, but if you insist on engaging in combat, I can't protect you. When you join the fight, you open yourself to attack, and what you receive is most often far worse than what you can give out.

So, I would ask everyone to help. If there is combat going on, stay away from it. Act as though the combatants were invisible - that's your best protection from them.
-Joe Offer-

Who "protects" those posters who are subject to abusive personal attacks, name-calling and the encouragement of general public animosity and gossip and from selective and personally motivated imposed editing actions - from those volunteer fellow posters who feel themselves qualified to judge their fellow posters but are not prepared to follow their own advice and who indulge in this "combat"?

How can peace ever be expected to break our on our forum with the hypocritical example now being set by some of our (anonymous) volunteer fellow posters (and their supporters)? Probably just as damaging is that many posters who do not think it acceptable – still quietly tolerate this hypocrisy and bullying. All of this threatens to compromise all of the traditional values upon which our fine forum has been based?

It has long been clear that the only way to avoid abusive or offensive postings on our forum – is not for posters to be encouraged to judge and complain about what their fellow posters have already posted. For it is a fact that reactive imposition does not avoid or PREVENT anything.

It is for posters to be encouraged (mainly by the example set) to tolerate the postings of others. For what fellow posters contribute is beyond their control. And not to indulge publicly in personal judgements of their fellow posters or to respond in kind to those that are posted. And for us all to be encouraged to ignore such posts and concentrate on the self-control of our own posts.

Under great provocation and over a long period – I have managed to avoid responding in kind to many such posts and to continue in the face of these – to try express, evidence, discuss and debate my concerns on our forum. Which remains its purpose – until Max publicly states otherwise.

I would appreciate some help to try and ensure that all posters can continue to post on equal terms to our forum.

For them to always be able to see their words remain as posted (unless they first agree to any change) and not be subject to the imposed judgement and editing action of a few volunteer fellow posters (some of whom are anonymous).

And for this personal taste and prefence of just a few posters - (no matter how well-intentioned) - NOT to be allowed to shape our forum - but for our forum to continue to be shaped by the equally considered and respected postings of all contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:39 AM

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:38 AM

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

The following is a (brown) editing comment inserted into Bert's existing post and not refreshing the thread)

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:33 AM

*I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/t1.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 08:12 AM

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 03:29 PM

Judge Contempt of court. However, I'm not going to punish you, because we're so short of judges at the moment, what with all of them emigrating to South Africa. I'm going tomorrow; I've got my ticket. Get out there and get some decent sentencing done. Ooh, England makes you sick. Best I can manage here is life imprisonment. It's hardly worth coming in in the morning. Now, South Africa? You've got your cat of nine tails, you've got four death sentences a week, you've got cheap drinks, slave labour and a booming stock market. I'm off, I tell you. Yes, I'm up to here with probation and bleeding psychiatric reports. That's it, I'm off. That's it. Right. But I'm going to have one final fling before I leave, so I sentence you to be burnt at the stake.

Judge Kilbraken Blimey! I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Oct 05 - 03:19 PM

Two judges.

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/hollywood-bowl/09-two-judges.html

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:01 PM

Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:58 PM

The following was in editing brown - when this thread Is anonymous posting to be encouraged was subject to imposed closure by one of our most willing combatants. All done (as the post says) in the name of 'free and open discussion' and to keep us safe from "sneak attacks". Don't worry for you will be judged and peace will be imposed upon you by your fellow posters. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:18 PM

Well, I have to say I'm getting very tired of all this animosity. It's great for Mudcat to be a place for free, open discussion, but lately it has seemed to be more like a jungle full of guerrilla warriors. How can discussion be free and open, if everyone has to keep a watch out for sneak attacks? This is a forum for exchange of ideas, not combat.

I get a lot of complaints from people about the conduct of so-and-so, usually an anonymous Guest. The trouble is, the people who complain are just as heavily involved in combat - and then they stick their tails between their legs and want me to protect them. I'm sorry, but if you insist on engaging in combat, I can't protect you. When you join the fight, you open yourself to attack, and what you receive is most often far worse than what you can give out.

So, I would ask everyone to help. If there is combat going on, stay away from it. Act as though the combatants were invisible - that's your best protection from them.

I'm closing this thread because it has become another hotbed of animosity. The topic of anonymous posting has been beaten to death the last few days, and I'm likely to delete or close anything else that gets posted on the subject for a while. Cool it - everybody.
Peace, please.
Thank you.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:19 PM

There is also a rather a lot of assunptions in your list Frank. *smiles*

The following thread is on the HELP forum. For those who do not usually venture there - it is worth a look.

Shambles

Hang the witch!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 03:12 PM

This is what I believe...and it's not because anyone one else told me to...

1. This is Max's Site
2. Even the Forum belong's to Max
3. Max wants the forum to be open and free
4. Max asked the Clones to moderate the Forum
5. Max is happy with the job done
6. If he wasn't happy he would have made some changes
7. Mudcat including the Forum is a privledge not a right
8. The best thing for Pseudolus and Shambles is to agree to disagree

I started another thread "A (true) Jelly Fish story". I mention this debate in the thread so in fairness I wanted you to know that. I don't disagree with all that you say, in fact I agree with a lot. I will probably not continue to debate here since I really do think that number 8 in my list is true. I don't think that either one of us is gonna change the other's mind.

It's been interesting,
Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

From another forum waht i use=
"if you are a moany basterd waht posts shite all the time=, your messedges could get delted, and if they do, then dont moan, just shut yup and stop moaning, or we ban you, [or with real moany nutters= we find out were you live, and cut your fuchking phone wires, so not able to post any more moany crap!".


jOhn

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 02:14 PM

Finally, what about the last statement in my previous post where I thought we agreed on one point. You said, "In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address". Are you prepared to do just that and allow MAX to deal with this issue in a way he sees fit?

Frank

Perhaps it is a good idea to provide all of what I said. Which rather natually - I do agree with. Do you?

In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address. The rest - as it has always been - is really up to the posters to control their own postings and continue to bring any concerns about our forum publicly to our forum - for Max and the rest of our forum to debate and consider.

Perhaps you would accept that how our forum appears has always been is up to all of us and what we all choose to post to it? A point that I feel from his public statements that Max is well aware of - as he tends to leave us to it. Perhaps you would like to help ensure that this remains the case and that the shape of our forum is not now determined by the imposed personal tastes of just a few posters?

So are you saying that because someone is human and doesn't get along with you that he is incapable of doing his job? If you are, then I disagree.

No.... I am probably saying that combining the dual roles of fellow poster with those of a judge - who can (anonymously) impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow poster - is an unrealistic and unfair expectation - both on them and the rest of our traditionally friendly and accomodating forum. It should be recognised that ALL posters to our forum are human (apart from the odd horse).

For whatever reason the statement was made, I've made worse. It doesn't make me a bad person and it doesn't make me incapable of doing a job. they are totally different things.

In the courts where the responsibilities of this judging business are taken more seriously - would you accept that certain standards are expected of those who would sit in judgement upon us?

That not only would these judges expect to be judged themselves but would expect their conduct to be judged even more more harshly? That these judges - if their conduct both privately and professionally fell short of these standards (especially on the grounds of any question of their impartiality) would expect their judgement to be severe and many would feel the need to resign long before this point? That these judges would accept that along with their privileges and rights - comes a greater responsibilty?

Some of those who would feel themselves quallified to judge the contributions of their fellow posters on our forum - appear to feel they should be able to impose judgement upon their fellows and remain anonymous. And some of those who are prepared to be known and accountable to our forum for their actions - do not feel they should be judged in turn.

Some of these seem to think that a correct response from them to any criticism or questioning of their judgement and resulting imposed editing actions on our forum - is for them to mount abusive personal abusive attacks, call their fellow posters names and encourage other posters to follow this example......

Some seem to think that everyone and everything is open to their personal taste and judgement on our forum - but they are above this. That they feel qualified to accept the privilges of their role but do not feel they themselves should accept any resonsibility for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:51 PM

So are you saying that because someone is human and doesn't get along with you that he is incapable of doing his job? If you are, then I disagree. For whatever reason the statement was made, I've made worse. It doesn't make me a bad person and it doesn't make me incapable of doing a job. they are totally different things.

Now, several times you have made statements implying that I am willing to accept some things just because someone else has said it here on Mudcat. I have never laid doubt to the integrity of your opinions, please don't do it to mine.

Finally, what about the last statement in my previous post where I thought we agreed on one point. You said, "In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address". Are you prepared to do just that and allow MAX to deal with this issue in a way he sees fit?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:47 PM

It sounds like you'd like some changes made and yet, more than one poster has posted a statement from one of your posts indicating "I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run". Is that not true, or am I just "willing to accept" this as well?

Perhaps you need to read the whole post for the full explanation? Maybe now you would accept that there is a difference between Max's site and our forum.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

Shambles, what part of what MMario said do you not understand? It is quite clear to most of us that this site belongs to Max. We have NO say in how it is run.

Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

However this is a part of Max's website that he has very generously set aside for invited contributions from the public and called the Mudcat Discussion Forum. I have some agreement - for my reference to this part of Max's site - as our forum. It is from a very unlikely source - and perhaps you would agree with the both of us?

[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 forum is certainly not Joe Offer's and it does not say that it is in the FAQ - yet.

---------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:16 PM

Calling someone an idiot is a personal judgement, I agree, but the editing actions are not. Joe has explained at length what his reasons are and if you think he's not being up front with you then that is your opinion.

As you are willing to accept that this name-calling by a volunteer fellow poster is a personal judgement made publicly on our forum - how can you ever be sure that any subsequent imposed judgements are not personally motivated? When a volunteer fellow poster indulges in setting this example to our forum - can you ever really be sure that any of their subsequent imposed editing action are not also personally motivated?

Is it because your opinion is based upon the opinion of the person who is telling you this? The same person making the initial list of assumptions and indulging in the abusive personal attacks and name-calling and imposing their personal judgement and subsequent editing actions?

I am making no assumptions about my fellow poster's possible motivations for this but the evidence is there. It is a matter for you to decide from the evidence of the words provided.

Perhaps you will accept that under these circumstances there will always remain some doubt about whether the imposed editing actions were personally motivated?

Would accept that there is a need for these imposed actions to always be seen to be impartial And that if someone trusted to be impartial is seen to be suspect in any way - they should perhaps not be thought suitable to continue? Or perhaps should not even wish to for fear of compromising Max and our forum?

Would you like to provide some convincing explanation - other than personal motivation - as to why it was judged "time" for the imposed closure of this thread? Closing threads

It is only "time" for that thread because one fellow poster has judged (for some reason) that they have the right to prevent any other posters from making any further contributions to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:03 PM

OK, typo, I typed "    I do not think that Max is able to read comments on his Forum. You brought these issues out publicly to the whole Forum when only Max is in a position to pass judgement.
"

I meant to say

    I DO think that Max is able to read comments on his Forum. You brought these issues out publicly to the whole Forum when only Max is in a position to pass judgement.

sorry Max,
Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:02 PM

You too make assumptions - Like these...

1. But why do you appear to think that Max is not perfectly able to read comments on the forum that he has provided on his own website?

    I do not think that Max is able to read comments on his Forum. You brought these issues out publicly to the whole Forum when only Max is in a position to pass judgement.

2. Why would you assume that I have not done this also? Why would you assume that I would refer to such an exchange or make any such private exchange - public?

    I do not assume anything of the kind. I don't know if you did or didn't. My point was, if you did, and he is the only one that has the authority to make a decision, why not leave it at that? You clearly have issues with what the clones are doing and in particular with Joe. It sounds like you'd like some changes made and yet, more than one poster has posted a statement from one of your posts indicating "I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run". Is that not true, or am I just "willing to accept" this as well?

There is a statement in your last post that I absolutely, 100 percent, agree with and that is this... "In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address". Perhaps if this statement had been followed by everyone (including me) this thread would have been much shorter.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 11:24 AM

And if that is the case, why not just send a PM to Max and trust his judgement if what you asid is what you truly feel?

Why would you assume that I have not done this also? Why would you assume that I would refer to such an exchange or make any such private exchange - public?

But why should any contributor to our forum have any need for a private conversation - about our public forum - with Max? Has he not already provided all the requirements for such a debate publicly on our forum. If I wished to know the contents of his bank account - I may send a PM and ask him. He may reply - but his reply (understandably) may not be printable.

But why do you appear to think that Max is not perfectly able to read comments on the forum that he has provided on his own website?

The problem we have is one of assumptions. In the lack of a recent definitive public statement. Especially one that is radically different to those expressing the intentions for our forum that Max has provided publicly in the past - I think that it is perhaps safe for us all to accept that Max's vision for our forum remains as he has stated. To faciliate our forum's wishes - and not to sit in judgement upon them?

Other posters would appear to make quite different assumptions for a radical change in this approach - but with very little or no evidence to support any such assumption. Max may now be tempted (or even asked) to provide our forum with a statement expressing every confidence and full support for his appointees and structure. Rather like the one issued by Chairmen of soccer clubs about the club's manager - just before they are about to remove them. I hope not.

In the absence of anything like this - perhaps we should leave all these assumptions and also leave Max to quietly deal with the aspects that he only can address. The rest - as it has always been - is really up to the posters to control their own postings and continue to bring any concerns about our forum publicly to our forum - for Max and the rest of our forum to debate and consider.

For assumption - they do say - is the mother of all cock-ups.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:26 AM

I'm not defending anything since I think there is nothing that needs to be defended. I'm debating the issue with you. there's nothing wrong with that. My issue with your opinion is that it sounds like you believe that you are owed something. that we ALL are owed something by Max and the Clones. We aren't. this is HIS site and forum. Which, by the way, is very different from your example of George Bush or any other president. A president is an elected official to run a country that is in no way his and his alone. It belongs to all of us. The Mudcat is NOT a country, it belongs to MAX and the rest of us are just visiting!

You keep telling me on many counts that I am "willing to accept" this or that. In the last question you said that I am willing to accept that the site owner, Max, should be our guide. Well yeah! HE OWNS THE SITE! I am either willing to accept it or I can leave. It is his. Nothing you or I can say will change that. In your next post you say, "I have very little trust or respect for most politicians but I do have a great deal of respect for Max. I trust that he will address any issues that are raised on our forum for the best interests of ALL on our forum." Sounds to me like YOU are willing to accept that as well. And if that is the case, why not just send a PM to Max and trust his judgement if what you asid is what you truly feel?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:58 AM

What sort of a debate would this be?

I think G.W. Bush is the best job of everthing. And those he has appointed are also carrrying out his wishes and are also doing a great job of everything. And if they were not and abusing their positions - we could trust G.W. Bush to deal with it and leave it to him. END OF.

Not much room for debate there. Perhaps we should remember that even a good leader's intentions are often compromised by some of those they appoint.

I have very little trust or respect for most politicians but I do have a great deal of respect for Max. I trust that he will address any issues that are raised on our forum for the best interests of ALL on our forum.

The best way to bring those these issues to Max's attention is through free and open debate and to try and ensure that our forum remains a place where all views are considered equally.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:38 AM

What makes you think that any of this has to be defended at all?

It remains a fact that there are constant attempts on our forum to defended and justify all of this (selective) imposed judgement. Why not ask those who make this attempt - why they feel they have to do this? Why do you appear to feel this need? Should this not be a matter for Max rather than you?

we're all playing in Max's house. He doesn't have to defend anything that goes on here by him or the people that he entrusts with the running of this site. Now THAT is really what is at the heart of my argument. As someone said earlier, we're not here because we have the right to be, we're here because we have that privlege.

Someone may have said this and we all may agree to some extent and be grateful but you seem to accept that it is the site's owner Max that should be our guide? Should we then take notice of Max's public words - rather than just ignore them and be encouraged by others to ignore them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:33 AM

What makes you think that any of this has to be defended at all?

It reamains a fact that there are constant attempts on our forum to defended and justify all of this (selective) imposed judgement. Why not ask those who make this attempt - why they feel they have to do this? Why do you appear to feel this need? Should this not be a matter for Max rather than you?

we're all playing in Max's house. He doesn't have to defend anything that goes on here by him or the people that he entrusts with the running of this site. Now THAT is really what is at the heart of my argument. As someone said earlier, we're not here because we have the right to be, we're here because we have that privlege.

Someone may have said this and we all may agree to some extent and be grateful but you seem to accept that it is the site's owner Max that should be our guide? Should we then take notice of Max's public words - rather than just ignore them and be encouraged by others to ignore them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 09:07 AM

OK, I give up, you have an overwhelming amount of support, from Bert.

You said, "Frank - Would you aree that most posters would consider that being called name like 'idiot' by the Chief of The Mudcat Editing Staff would constitute a "personal judgement"."

Calling someone an idiot is a personal judgement, I agree, but the editing actions are not. Joe has explained at length what his reasons are and if you think he's not being up front with you then that is your opinion. But the bottom line is that he makes the decisions which are blessed by Max whose opinion frankly is the only one who matters and he is the one and ONLY person who could step in if he thought there were inappropriate decisions being made.

You also said "Would you agree that to enable it to be honestly defended - that any imposed censorship needs to be seen to be open, fair and to have a clear objective?"

What makes you think that any of this has to be defended at all? we're all playing in Max's house. He doesn't have to defend anything that goes on here by him or the people that he entrusts with the running of this site. Now THAT is really what is at the heart of my argument. As someone said earlier, we're not here because we have the right to be, we're here because we have that privlege.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:52 AM

I wasn't saying that no one ever agreed with you, I was saying that no one has come to your defense that the clones are making personal judgements about you by making these changes.

Again - what you are saying is not factually correct. And as I have said, Bert has long been trusted by Max to have an edit button and unlike some of his fellow volunteer posters - sees no reason to undertake his role anonymously.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert - PM
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 10:37 PM

I have to agree with Shambles on this. If someone originates a thread what right does someone else have to change the title?

Unless the thread is offensive then it should stay as it is. So if YOU have the ability to edit threads then keep your bloody maulers off unless the thread is a personal attack, a threat, or is offensive.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert - PM
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:04 PM

Oooh wow. There's a lot going on here.

First Shambles and Katlaughing and Wolfgang and just about everybody posting here. No not just about - EVERY SINGLE PERSON posting here, I consider to be a dear friend. So my opinion is based on the issue involved and is not personal in any way.

The issue is that Shambles has been targetted for editing by one particular elf.

So if that particular elf would BACK OFF AND LEAVE HIM ALONE then the problem will go away.

I will also state that I consider the elf in question to be a dear friend. So it is not a personal thing. Now Elf in question just take it easy and let Shambles and all the rest of us have their say without interference - PLEASE


Frank - Would you aree that most posters would consider that being called name like 'idiot' by the Chief of The Mudcat Editing Staff would constitute a "personal judgement".

In the light of this - and the many other assumptions and public speculations made by our volunteer fellow posters - about the possible motivations behind a fellow poster's contributions - how can any poster to our forum really be expected to accept that any selective changes imposed upon my contributions were not personally motivated?

Would you agree that over the assumptions contained in the justifications over the PEL threads alone - that there would at least be some doubt that these subsequent and selective imposed editing actions were as free from personal judgement?

My view has always been that any imposed editing is censorship and that any censorship is a serious matter. There should NEVER be any question that any censorship is free of any personal motivation on the part of the censor.

The current situation where a fellow poster can express their personal preference on the forum - as is their right - but then (in some cases anonymously) insult and impose this preference upon their fellow posters - is one that is open to abuse.

Just as importantly - the secrecy and division involved make it impossible to honestly defend from any accusation or suspicion of abuse.

Would you agree that to enable it to be honestly defended - that any imposed censorship needs to be seen to be open, fair and to have a clear objective?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 08:26 PM

I agree...oh, wait you probably want more than that. OK, here goes...

Max is in fact the owner of the Cat therefore he had the right to select those folks that aid in the admin duties for the forum. Since it is his site and since he has handpicked his helpers, he should be the one and only one to decide if they are functioning in the manner in which he would like them to. He should also be the one to pass judgement on their performance and render any decisions necessary when issues arise.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 06:10 PM

May I make a sugggestion? Frank as you are willing toactually debate this and as Roger says he is as well, then let's lay it out in actual debate form. First you need a question to debate and then you need to agree on term definitions. Perhaps the first question should be:

Since Max has selected and asked for the help of Monitors (individuals to aid him in the administration of The Mudcat Forum), should Max be the final arbiter of their function and performance?

TERMS: Max...The site owner; Monitor...Most common terminology for those perfoming various editing functions on internet forums. Please note that other terms for this job are used but you both must agree to them.

PSEUDOLUS takes the agreement and SHAMBLES takes the disagreement.

Each may make one opening statement. After each has made an opening statement each then may make a rebuttal statement followed by a second rebuttal. Then each makes a summary argument for their side.

It would be nice if we could follow the standard format where the Agree begins and the statements come in order.

Ready to try this?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 03:39 PM

OK, maybe I wasn't clear. I was confining my comments to this thread in which I haven't seen any overwhelming support. Looking back I shouldn't have said "in all of these threads" since I was only talking about this one. I apologize. In either case, I wasn't saying that no one ever agreed with you, I was saying that no one has come to your defense that the clones are making personal judgements about you by making these changes. Not everyone is going to agree with the actions that are taken to keep the forum running smoothly.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 02:37 PM

Does it occur to you that in all of these threads, not one clone, regular poster or even Max has posted a message that agrees with your point?

Perhaps because like many of the things you appear to accept, repeat believe and post publicly and do not bother to check or attempt to evidence - it is not actually true.

Bert also happens to be long term volunteer fellow poster. But even if what you incorrectly state were true - what difference would this make?


Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: folkman - PM
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:39 PM

I agree with you Mr Shambles.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert - PM
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 09:11 PM

Well said Shambles. The thread title should NEVER be changed without the consent of the originator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,khandu - PM
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM

I am with The Shambles on this one.

A couple of years back, I created a thread regarding a certain troll. Within moments, Pene Azul pmed me and explained that he believed this thread would probably do far more harm than good and requested permission to delete it.

Certainly, he could have deleted it without bothering to ask. But Jeff showed more class than that.

The simple act of contacting me beforehand made all the difference in the world. I told him to delete it and I felt rather good about it all.

Had he or anyone else deleted it without contact, I would have been pissed and would have posted a grumbling thread about it.

Simple decency goes a long way.

Change my thread titles? Sure, if you believe there is a good reason. But show some civility and respect to the creator of the thread by sending a simple PM.

khandu

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Pseudolua at work
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 01:10 PM

Well, it seems that the only explanation you have for claiming that you are right is the clones reason for making changes as much as the changes themselves like they are out there conspiring to annoy you and only you. I posted a thread about Casey at the Bat. I put it in the BS section and the next day I couldn't find it. Turns out it was considered a recitation and the thread was renamed (without my permission) and moved to the top half! where as you may have taken this personally, I took it as a promotion and a helpful way to get the thread to where the most interested people would see it. My "permission" wasn't asked for because it wasn't needed. they're not out to get me.

Does it occur to you that in all of these threads, not one clone, regular poster or even Max has posted a message that agrees with your point? No one has come out and said, "ya know that Shambles is really getting the shaft from the clones." Personally I think that says as much about this debate as anything else. That's not a judgement, for I have no right to judge. But if I was trying to explain my opinions over and over and was asking questions about the same point continuously and NO ONE even once said, "ya know, you might have a point there", then I would take a hard look at my side of the story and what's driving me to go to great lengths to make the forum understand that they're all out to get me.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:36 AM

To me, that is a reasonable thing to do not to mention helpful. As far as the editing of the threads goes, it is my understanding that the clones took lengthy posts that were posted in several threads and consolidated them into one.

I think your understanding in this case is wrong. It may now be the wish of our anonymous volunteer fellow posters to control every aspect of what their fellow posters contribute. And this form of imposed editing may have been undertaken elsewhere and other subjects – but as far as I am aware none of the PEL threads have been subject to this form of imposed editing action.

Lumping individual threads together may appeal to a tidy mind who does not appreciate the subtle differences but the originators should perhaps been consulted first. It may be understandable to you that every thread title be subject to imposed change - to enable you to clearly understand their contents. It may be understandable – but is it very practical to do this for every thread? And if it is not – is it fair or effective to selectively to only do this to certain contributors and not others – which may be equally unclear?

This is also reasonable in my opinion because if someone was going to read all of the PEL threads why would they want to read the message over and over.

They may not want to but there are many things we may prefer not to have to read on our forum? Is the rather remote possibility of reading a message twice really the worst and worth such fuss, judgement and imposition? From the list of justification - you may consider the result of such imposition to be understandable but would you really consider it to be proportionate?   

Abusive personal attacks and name-calling are supposed to be what our anonymous volunteer fellow posters are protecting us from. But you will see many such examples of this in this thread alone (and the following threads) – many of them being posted by those who are supposed to be protecting us from this.
Censorship on Mudcat
Max what about Shambles requests
In the UK
Closing threads


Look everyone. You have to understand that I am talking about behavior that is carefully controlled borderline crime. Unless you are used to making threats and using the information and technology within the Mudcat to stalk, hurt or scare people you have no fear of crossing a line.
Max22 Jul 99

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Do you think it understandable if our forum's posters are not sure if our anonymous volunteer fellow posters were now singing from the same hymn book as our site's owner?

what is the purpose behind putting it in so many threads?

I fear you have been given and accepted a rather false and exaggerated picture from the justifications given.
If you specify what particular message and in exactly how many threads – I may be able to provide a further answer to the one I have already given? But even if there were no purpose to this – in the grand scale of things – why on earth make such assumptions and judgements about such small things? For example what is the purpose on our forum of a thread with 10,000 posts about nothing?

It is about all posters being encouraged to accept what others post on our forum – not the futile attempt to judge and control the postings of others and shape our forum by this vain attempt. Our forum has traditionally been shaped by the needs, wishes, talents, knowledge, opinions etc of ALL it posters – perhaps you can help ensure that it continues to be?

No post was deleted unless it was a duplicate of a post in another thread. He explained that it was due to the duplication and always left one post in there. If he was editing out your opinions, wouldn't he have deleted them all?

You have to be careful when repeating such claims in this list of justifications - as if they were true. It is now quite obvious from the following that Joe Offer has no idea how many or whether my words have been deleted or not. But he is still not prepare to apologise for wrongly and emphatically informing our forum – not once but twice – that not one word of mine has been deleted.

So, I'm sorry that Shambles takes this personally. It isn't meant to be that way. It's all just housekeeping, not a power struggle. It's just trying to make some sense out of the chaos. And we will continue to welcome Shambles to say whatever he wants in every message he posts. He may not get the "front page" coverage he wants for his every word, but his comments are easily found. Just click on his name in any message he's posted, and you will receive a complete collection of everything Shambles has said on Mudcat. And not one word of it has been deleted, except for some of his more glaring duplications.
-Joe Offer-

No, Roger. I see no need to apologize. I haven't found any of your words that were deleted, although I concede that one or two of your 8,362 posts may have been deleted, if they were in a thread that was deleted. I did a quick check, and found none. It's not an all-encompassing check, but a quick check shows nothing. You're back to quoting out-of-context remarks from 2003 - comments that make very good sense when read in context. You've gone looney again. It's time to go back into your hole. Goodbye, Roger. Maybe you just don't get it. It's worthwhile to respond to you when you're reasonably rational, when you address an actual issue. When you resort to two-year-old, out-of-context quotations and ad hominem attacks and one-in-a-million situations, you've gone too far, and there's no reasoning with you. Then it's not fun any more. Go hibernate, and come back when you're ready to be rational.
-Joe Offer-

This list of assumptions was given by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff - to justify the continuing special treatment that my postings have selectively been subject to in the last four years. I will leave our forum to judge if this special treatment is really proportionate to my supposed terrible 'transgressions' or whether this special treatment is simply personally motivated. Or indeed whether any poster should receive special treatment.

The only telling words in the list of justifications are the following. His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause. A worthy cause that was not helped on our forum - by the identification of this worthy cause with personal judgements of an individual poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:17 AM

Only if you will accept the *fact* that those doing the editing are appointed by Max as his proxies and conforming to his wishes as to their duties.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:15 AM

Shambles - you keep referring to the "right" of posters. This is a private site. The posters (aside from Max himself) *have* no rights. This is not an opinion, it is a legal fact.

MMario - Perhaps it is you who needs to talk to Max?

Perhaps you would accept that IF there is no 'right' on our public forum for poster's words to remain as posted - there would be even less 'right' for others to impose their judgement upon these words?

If 'right' is not the word would you accept the word 'expectation' and would you accept that the essence of our forum has always been based on mutual respect and not on pedantry and judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 11:00 AM

Shambles - you keep referring to the "right" of posters. This is a private site. The posters (aside from Max himself) *have* no rights. This is not an opinion, it is a legal fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:40 AM

From another forum:

About.com Forums are intended for discussion related to the topic of the site.

Please use the Forum responsibly, and in accordance with the User Agreement.

Your About.com Guides may read and post to the Forum, but it is likely that most postings will not be reviewed or monitored. Therefore, neither the Guide nor About.com is responsible for any posting. About.com reserves the right to remove any Guide- or user-created content, once it is brought to our attention, if we find in our sole discretion it violates these guidelines or if it is in violation of the law. However, About.com will not be held under any obligation to do so.

You are welcome to post, but please do so responsibly and remember that there may be minors reading the Forum.

About.com's Forums should not be used to advocate or promote the following:


Any illegal activity.

Activities that support or espouse non-consensual and/or extreme violence or sexual aggressiveness towards another individual or group for any reason.

Activities that support or espouse hatred towards another individual or group based upon any criteria (including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, etc.).

Activities and input from individuals that violate our inclusive standards.


For a complete description of our content policy guidelines please refer to About.com Content Policy Guidelines.

It is at the discretion of the Guide or About.com as to how these guidelines are met.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:35 AM

350

See? Now we have something to debate! OK, Joe himself said that a "PEL tag" was added to the threads so that others would know what the thread contained. I for one appreciate that because as I said before, sometimes I don't have a lot of time and I like to know what I am getting into before I open teh thread.

Yes Frank - Joe Offer did say this. It is difficult debating the PEL threads when you have already posted to support everything in the justification given as being understandable even when the assumptions behind this attitude it may not be true. Do you accept that by doing this you are also accepting all of the assumptions made in this list of justifications that formed the basis for these actions and attitudes?

Should imposed editing action be based on one poster's assumptions about what a fellow poster's motivations may be? You may think it understandable – under the current circumstances – but is it really necessary or desirable? Would you think it so understandable if I was the one imposing judgement and editing upon your contributions based only on my assumptions of your possible motives?

Do you think that any of our anonymous volunteer posters would be happy if I were doing the imposing of my judgement upon their contributions on this basis (or any other basis) and attempting by this imposition – to shape our forum to my personal tastes? And posting abusive personal attacks calling them names for not being in agreement with me and encouraging others to do this?

For these justifications seem presume that posters have lost their traditional (and understandable) right on our forum - to have their words remain as posted? Or that the whole purpose of our forum is to enable certain posters to impose judgement, name-call and speculate on publicly on their fellow poster's possible motivations, spelling, grammar and mental health etc. Pedantry that was so refreshingly absent from our forum here and which made it the fine place that it now struggles to be.

For the reasons I gave – the PEL threads were clearly titled to enable our anonymous volunteer fellow posters to provide links in a list which appeared at the top of each thread. To my knowledge none have been the subject to imposed re-titling – despite the hysterical reaction to mere existence of these threads from some quarters.

No one is saying that it is not perfectly understandable to wish to know what a thread contains by its title. It is only how such understandable aim is achieved and at what cost. Would a PM from our volunteer fellow posters to the originator, proposing a change achieve the same end - at less risk of offence and with a style more in keeping with the site owner's wishes?

Why does a title change have to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission? Why does this imposition, at this stage of our forum's development now appear to so many posters be so understandable? Perhaps because it is not happening to them (yet)? Or that the expectations for our forum have been lowered by comparisons with plainly inferior sites? And by some strange wish from some - for our forum to be as poor as these others are and not to work together to try and ensure that our forum is the special place that Max's vision and hard work entitle it to be?

It would indeed be nice if everyone else conformed to our idea of order. No amount of imposed judgement upon our fellows is ever going to make this happen is it? Perhaps our forum should be encouraged to accept that in reality – this is never going to be the case – rather than encourage the idea that such order and control can be (selectively and increasingly) imposed?

Will you accept that I am trying to ensure that posters continue to have control over their own postings and not be subject to the control, judgement and imposed personal tastes of a few (anonymous) fellow posters? This right is now routinely taken away at the slightest excuse. How can it be understandable for you to expect to have the right to judge that another poster's chosen thread title should made be clear for you? Is this understandable wish for you or others to have or impose this judgement - greater than the original poster's right to be control over the words of their own posts?   

Are you saying that the end will always justify the means? Surely every thread is individual just as every poster is an individual and worthy of individual respect?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:30 AM

Fact is, no one took me up on it. No one ever named a thread they wanted an article deleted from. So I didn't delete anything. I concluded that the whole controversy is much ado about nothing.

I would suggest that all instances of posters complaining about the posts of their fellow posters should be thought to be much ado about nothing as they should be informed that the only postings that anyone has any control over - is their own. The idea that one poster may judge another's to be 'obnoxious' should be seen as a opinion - not as justification for imposed editing action.

Meanwhile as a result of recent crashes - many interesting older threads are still messed-up and the posts contained in them are still remain out of sequence.

Perhaps setting our unknown numbers of volunteer fellow posters to work on this task may be more useful to our forum than having them sitting around waiting to judge and impose their anonymous judgement upon their fellow posters for the slightest excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 07:50 PM

Since someone thought my offer (to delete copy-and-pasted articles and replace them with links) was important enough to copy and paste to two other threads, I figure you might be interested in knowing the outcome of that offer.

Fact is, no one took me up on it. No one ever named a thread they wanted an article deleted from. So I didn't delete anything. I concluded that the whole controversy is much ado about nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:47 PM

The following was posted on another forum I frequent just the other day. Just for reference sake it's good to remember just how free and easy Mudcat really is and that Joe and the Clones are so relaxed in their moderation. The fact they remain in the job is obvious proof that Max is satisfied with the work and decisions. The post below appeared AFTER 1bout a dozen threads on the subject in question had already been deleted along with probably well over a hundred postings. Needless to say that none of those involved as the posters and thread originators were notified. All other posts had been consolidated into one thread. Sham may have a heart attack about this type of thing but it is common as dirt on the net as anyone who is out there knows.

**********************************************************************

Civil opinions and posts are welcome here.

http://insider.speedtv.com/viewtopic.php?t=97713

New duplicate threads, and uncivil comments will be immediately moved and/or deleted.

The old threads have been shut down and will be deleted, as the changes are made, and you now have opportunity to post your comments on this new thread.

Please express your thoughts and emotions in a courteous or at least a civil manner. You post here as a privilege.

Thank you.
_________________
Speed Monitor

**********************************************************************

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

to be scatching around (Shambles)

What does that mean?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 01:01 PM

See? Now we have something to debate! OK, Joe himself said that a "PEL tag" was added to the threads so that others would know what the thread contained. I for one appreciate that because as I said before, sometimes I don't have a lot of time and I like to know what I am getting into before I open teh thread. To me, that is a reasonable thing to do not to mention helpful. As far as the editing of the threads goes, it is my understanding that the clones took lengthy posts that were posted in several threads and consolidated them into one. This is also reasonable in my opinion because if someone was going to read all of the PEL threads why would they want to read the message over and over. what is the purpose behind putting it in so many threads? No post was deleted unless it was a duplicate of a post in another thread. He explained that it was due to the duplication and always left one post in there. If he was editing out your opinions, wouldn't he have deleted them all?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:54 PM

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Think Again (Dick Gaughan)
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:13 AM

Susanne -

I am not so sure about urgency. For there appears to boredom among some of those anonymous ones who perhaps could be better employed currently (or if I had my way - not employed at all). And who - when they are not busy looking to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters - would appear to be scatching around offering to undertake even less urgent tasks. In order to make them happy - like the following example.........


Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in...
From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones - PM
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 06:29 PM

I'd be happy to delete some of those lengthy articles and replace them with links. It's usually easy enough to find where they were copied from. Trouble is, I seldom read BS threads about controversial issues any more, so I don't see them.

Tell ya what: Post links here to threads that have long articles in them, and I'll see what I can do. The thread number would be sufficient. I don't guarantee that I won't get bored after a while, though.

Think again - indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:40 PM

We're caught in a trap
I can't walk out
Because I love you too much baby
Why can't you see
what your doing to me
When you don't believe a word I say
We can't go on together with
Suspicous minds
and we can't build our dreams
on suspicious minds

As there is no way of telling for sure what a fellow poster's motives may be - it is probably better to take what they post at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:32 PM

I suspect there may be a pushing of the boundaries, in order to provoke editing, and thereby justify the original complaint. If the bait is not taken and no editing takes place then the objective of being able to post unedited is achieved, it's a sort of heads I win tails you lose situation.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:26 PM

What is preventing me? A debate has two sides, a debate has a topic. I asked you for a topic, you said it was up to me, I gave you a topic and you responded with many opinions but none that were specific to the topic I chose. Frank

OK, you said that I could pick the topic. I picked the renaming of the PEL threads. Frank

I offered a debate. You said that I could pick the topic. I did. the topic was "The Closing of the PEL threads". Frank

As none of the PEL threads were either renamed or closed (when current anyway) - I have pointed out that there was really little mileage in debating any of those topics. And you had already made the judgement that I read the post from Joe that you included in your last post and the reasoning behind the renaming of those threads is very understandable to me.

Are you saying that you think it not only understandable but acceptable on our forum - for anonymous fellow posters to impose judgement and editing action - based not on what is being said but only on their many listed assumptions about what a fellow poster's possible motivation for their postings may be? When it has already been agreed that the PEL issue was a perfectly valid one for our forum.

Would you still consider it understandable and aceptable when these assumptions were wrong?

And would you consider that after four years these groundless assumptions should still be motivating the selective editing actions still being imposed upon this poster's contributions? Not to mention the continuing personal abuse and name-calling from our volunteer fellow posters - which I suspect you would also consider to be understandable? When Max has stated that he see his role only to facilitate?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:48 AM

What is preventing me? A debate has two sides, a debate has a topic. I asked you for a topic, you said it was up to me, I gave you a topic and you responded with many opinions but none that were specific to the topic I chose. I'm willing to debate, I'm waiting for one to start. How's this for a topic...let's debate whether or not it is possible to have a debate here on this Forum. I believe that we can. What do you think?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:32 AM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

For there appears to boredom among some of those anonymous ones who perhaps could be better employed currently (or if I had my way - not employed at all). (Shambles)

Wolfgang