 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:27 PM PLEASE leave the censorship on the "Cat" to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....Some of you are here just to cause trouble of one sort or another...O.K but leave the censors to do what they do best....and they do it better than you would O.K??????? Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:30 PM Oh Mike that's like a red rag to a bull for some of our well balanced contributors. You can tell they're well balanced, they have a chip on both shoulders. :~) Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM ROFLOL...what on earth was my intention John? Best wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82 http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77678&messages=39 http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77622&messages=34 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:32 PM tsk, georgiansilver...now you've set him off again... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:44 PM Do you know? I think I have but I stand by my beliefs and suggest that the censorship on the "Cat" is about what it should be....and I don't care what anyone says to the contrary...You are doing a great job lads....and I don't see myself as a thread creep or anything like. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:04 PM The MC,,,, is free enterprize,,,, at its best.
IF... you believe you.... can do Max - one better - go to it and best wishes with the project.
For myself - this is the most libertarian playfield imagainable - all of my censorings have fallen outside the MC's and the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of acceptable community morals.
Go off and make your own playground - I like the sand in my diapers here - just fine.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:32 AM Well, we have played cat-and-mouse at times, haven't we, Garg? But thanks for the compliment, Mike. We try to keep a balance and do our best not to be heavy-handed. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:29 AM If there was any serious censorship here, do you think this thread would continue to exist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:42 AM Yeah, the trouble is, I like most of the people I censor... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:12 AM Perhaps it is a case of not liking people as much as liking to censor them? Actually being in favour of any form of censorship is a rather strange concept. The generaly feeling (outside of this forum) is that imposed censorship action may sometimes be thought necessary - but not ever thought welcome. For people generally supporting what they think is an acceptable level of censorship mainly the censoring of everybody else and not them) do not seem to recognise the fact that once imposed - the level of censorship only ever increases. When the greatest supporters of censorship - are those who are priviliged to impose it - you may question if they have any real will to actually solve the problem. For if the problem is solved - there will be no need to have anyone to censor and they will not be in a 'job' that they obviously like. I don't see imposed censorship as a solution - but as creating another problem - is not the same as not being concerned about the actual problem. Although that is the 'spin' that supporters of censorship here will use - to try and ensure that they can carrying on doing just as they wish. It is not whether you like censorship - like others to be censored -like to be censored yourself - or if you like censoring others - but if these measures actually work? Are there less counter-productive measures that may work better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:19 AM 99... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:20 AM 100!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Billy Suggers Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:42 AM Well I think this place is just GREAT - and Joe & co do a hero's job. There are things that don't fit in a folk - oriented place like this & are better fulminated about elsewhere - and they are rare indeed. What the admins do here is not so much censorship as an appplication of common sense & common decency. And THATS what makes a community a community. Try to regulate it (or totally de-regulate it, which is the same thing if you think about it) and the whole damn thing fails. Leave it to taste & common sense and it works. I'm all for benign dictatorship! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:40 AM Let us look in detail at the recent and favoured methods of censorship we are currently expected support and examine who these measures actually affect the most. The imposed deleting of entire threads throws out all the positive contributions made in the thread, along with the bathwater and prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result. The imposed closure of entire threads prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result. The imposed deletion of the offending posts only - is slightly less counter-productive but for some reason, seems to be less favoured. It is accepted that these methods are reactive and none of them - actually prevents the offending posts from first appearing. Members who are thought to have offended - can be contacted by personal messages and threatened with having all of their future posts blocked. Any subsequently blocking will prevent any future posts thought to be offending from this member - but will also prevent any positive ones from them. Such action against 'guests' - may be possibly but more difficult. Who is entrusted to impose this censorship? Well we are told Max has entrusted Joe and Jeff and the number and identity of the rest of our volunteer censors are intentionally witheld. Do any of these counter-productive measure prevent anything? Or could it be that in practice they acually make things worse? None of us may like seeing the offending posts here - but that does not mean that we have to support the only answer proposed - especially as this cannot prevent the ofending posts from appearing. Are there alternatives to this censorship? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:07 AM Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others. But that would not be the Mudcat, would it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:36 AM and where is JOhn from Hull? silence for some time now as he has been blocked. JOhn we miss you.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:17 AM Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others. But that would not be the Mudcat, would it? No and it would not be the real world either. Many of us would probably agree with your aims but it is a knee-jerk' - 'wish list' if an understandable one. Achieving any of it - is not done by a easily stated wish for MORE censorship. As in practical terms this means placing your trust in someone elses judgement to remove just the things YOU don't want and leave the things YOU do. That is what I mean by censorship just creating and adding to the problems. Unless you give-up and go elsewhere - there is no easy short-cut to you making the choices on the forum. To you deciding what to open. To you deciding what to ignore or what to respond to. Inviting censorship to do this for you - just means that you are denied more and more of these choices. And there WILL be more censorship you will find you may not agree with - as it is like flood-water - you can say when the level is plenty high enough for your liking - but the water tends to keep-on rising anyway. The answer to all this is simple and many posters simply get on and do it. Perhaps more posters (and our volunteers) can be encouraged to follow the fine example that these posters are currently setting. You ignore what is not to your taste. You don't ever respond (especially in kind) to obvious provocation and you do not ever encourage others to do this. There is nothing funny in doing this - the idea that there is any humour in this - probably causes of most of the forum's problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:08 AM Yes Shambles, whatever you say Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: SINSULL Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:47 PM jOhn from Hull is experiencing technical difficulties and has not been blocked. See Joe Offer's post on the JfromH thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:59 PM Be glad I'm not one of the mods here, or there'd be a HELL of a lot MORE 'censorship' But ya... if ya don't like it, lump it! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:06 PM OK, I am glad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Donuel Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:39 PM The time and money saved from avoiding bitter litigation allows the censorship here to pay for itself. Not to mention forgoing years in prison for the spiteful undesirables such as XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXX XXXXXX who post links to child porn . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jim Tailor Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:48 PM "...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny;" But then it wouldn't be cross-cultural/transatlantic anymore, would it? And who would hold sway? ...the Brits who don't get our humor, or we who don't get theirs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Richard Bridge Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:05 PM I think it might sometimes improve the tone if the true names and addresses of those who set out to be offensive (guess who I nominate) were published. I really (sometimes) would like to know what makes some of the offenders tick. Speaking as one of the earlier offenders, with a thread a long time back called "Has Gargoyle got piles?" - I don't care if he has piles, I just wanted to know why sometimes he can be a rational and constructive individual and sometimes quite - well, you know. As John Barden (or was it Dave Bryant?) said some time ago - we use our real names, and you can easily trace us. We accept responsibiity for waht we say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM Send all correspondence to: Martin Gibson c/o Prince Charles Fuckingham Palace London, England Planet Earth I'll be waiting for your card, DICK! Hah! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM "...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny" There is... don't post to them... This place'd be pretty damn quiet if it wasn't for those post though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM Even got Prince Charles's address wrong!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Once Famous Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:26 PM I'm sure he'd get the card, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM Perhaps we should also leave the Iraq situation to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....and leave our Governments to do what they do best....they do it better than we would O.K??????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Amos Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:29 PM We tried that, Nameless. It didn't work well at all. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:10 AM 69!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 03 Feb 05 - 04:34 AM The breakfast of champions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gurney Date: 04 Feb 05 - 04:42 AM Somehow I always pictured that as someone eating sparkplugs... I've posted this before, and now again. I've been on a forum that was virtually closed by backbiting and illwill. And no, I took no part in it. Twats will always be with us, but a lot of guests are members in making, and contributers, so I do approve of guests being able to post. I vote (if anyone is interested) that the present level of moderating be maintained. I don't think it is really censorship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Amos Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM It's not censorship in the institutional sense. It's a civilizing restraint. But whining comes with the territory. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM Censor Official with power to supress whole or parts of books, plays, films, news,letters etc, on grounds of obscenity,threat to security, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 05 Feb 05 - 06:45 AM The 'whining' (of a few noisy posters - over many years) is - what I suggest - has caused all of this quite unecessary imposed judgement. And the 'spin' - that all this censorship is vigously defended by, as being required. Despite its obvious inablity to prevent over time, the only thing it is supposed to be set-up to combat and protect us from. For despite all the unpleasant threats made to occasional offenders by our volunteers and the deleting and closure of entire threads - the same long-term offenders are still offending (and addressed here by our volunteers quite politely). This leads many folk to post and question IF any censorship at all, IS in fact taking place.......For IF it is taking place - it does not appear to be affecting the offending posters or improving the general tone. For all posters have always had all the tools they needed to deal with threads and posts that may not be to their taste. The practice of passing judgement on the worth of other poster's - rather than just noting, responding or ignoring the views contained in their post - has been encouraged by our volunteers to be just about the 'only game in town'. The constant call from many other posters - for others to be encouraged to follow the sensible and effective example - (that I suggest the majority of posters manage to set without too much difficulty) - which is never to post to respond to obvious provocation - is ignored by our volunteers. This example is ignored in favour of invited support for continued imposed judgement action taken as they wish, by our volunteers. Who seemingly themselves are incapable of not responding in public (and in kind) to obvious provocation and generally behave just as they wish - whilst excusing and justifying every one of their actions. That this negative example is the one that is generally being followed by many other posters - is perhaps not too surprising. I have no expectation that any of our volunteers (known or anonymous)are going to volunteer to stop. For although this is not a paid position - it would obviously appear to have its rewards as there are no shortage of willing volunteer judges. However and perhaps, if more and more of the rest of us do set and follow a more positive posting example - it can finally be demonstrated by us - that there is no need for any of our volunteers and their judgement to be imposed upon us? Then we will all be happy.......? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards... If mudcat'd pony up, these people'd be FORCE to go the hell away... What some here call "Censorship" (as if it's some kind of dirty word or something) most message boards call day-to-day moderation... And they seem to tick over quite nicely... What's wrong with posting, and enforcing a Code Of Conduct? And to the 'mods' who claim they don't want the job of such... fine... hand your keys over to someone who will do something to help this place... The only other option folks, is that if you don't like that mudcat ISN'T moderated, please visit the egress... (Cause things aren't likely to change around here... Someone would have to care enough to want to act... and have the back-bone TO act...) It's not like Mudcat is the ONLY such place on the net... If it bothers you so much, find somewhere else to post... Or accept this place for what it is... and that no matter how much you'd like it to, it's not gonna change... It is after all, just a message board... (I know... I know.. "Oh but we're a community!" yer gonna say... well, EVERY message board group says that.... So even if you are, it's not special... unless YOU think it is... then sure... it's special... to you...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Once Famous Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:09 PM I would like to volunteer and write the code of conduct. OK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM LOL!! MG... yer almost as funny as Joe! hehehehehe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bert Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM 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.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,mystified Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM "BS.Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't" DELETED >> why ??????????????
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:56 AM why indeed ? it seemed harmless enough for a BS thread. someone here definitely has a problem with mudcatters having fun and silly [drunk ???] laughs together a weekend |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:59 AM "BS: Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't" hasn't been deleted, or closed. It's right here: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78083 ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 06 Feb 05 - 11:08 AM oops.. false alarm well it did'nt show up on search for me and I dont know why the other guest couldnt find it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:13 PM "hasn't been deleted, or closed" More's the pity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Teresa Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM Clinton says, "I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards..." Ahem! I respectfully disagree! Checked out Slashdot or Usenet lately? Those make this place look like milk and cookies. 'tis a good thing, too in my opinion. Teresa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:08 PM I gave up on Slashdot and Usenet a long time ago... That they might stink more than some of the shit here, is hardly praise at all... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bert Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM 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. 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- I fear that this list can only increase - perhaps it could be first publicly explained – why when there is no editing action taken or required here – that our volunteer's reply was chosen to be made in the form of an editorial comment (so as not to refresh this thread)? Not an option that is open to all of us - as explained in the following? Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:23 AM on this thread http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82 But if I reply to a question or comment within the message where the question was asked, there's no question to whom I am responding, is there? I find that efficient and clear, and see no reason to do otherwise. It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them. -Joe Offer- Perhaps it can be publicly explained what exactly our volunteers find 'contentious' about this thread - that they do not wish to refresh it? And are 'contentious people' now those who simply dare to hold and express a different view to those of our volunteers?
Bert who will protect us from deliberate personal attacks (and incitement for other to indulge in these) – when they are made upon us - by our volunteers (and defended and justified by them)? Some following examples of the double standard that is making this forum look foolish and oppressive. Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it. Bob, I'm sorry this happened. Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen. But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. -Joe Offer- I can deal with deliberate personal attacks (even from our volunteers, if I have to). By not ever responding in kind – but I cannot accept incitement from our volunteers to encourage other posters to indulge in the very activity all this imposed volunteer judgement is supposed to be protecting us from. There are sadly many other examples of this double standard being set by our volunteers – incredibly and sadly - all of it defended and justified by them. Perhaps Bert you can do your best to ensure that this practice – and all of this volunteer imposed judgement - can now stop and a less hypocritical and a more positive example of conduct is set for the forum's posters to follow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:16 PM The only thing that you can be sure of, Roger, is that I will point out that your whining seems pathological to me. Apparently there are many others that agree. Mick |