BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal

Subject: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:55 AM

I have watched the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread with dismay, as more and more attacks were made at Roger (Shambles) and the main issue became clouded.

In an attempt to get back to the basics, I am starting this thread with a suggestion for how and when to apply censorship on this forum, using elements of "constitutions" of other forums I attend.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it need not be applied to Mudcat; that is the prerogative of Max as the forum owner. But at least we can come to some agreement on the direction censorship could take.

Here are a few simple rules:

1. Monitoring (and censorship) of threads can be delegated to volunteers, who should be NAMED and announced and should always sign with their Mudcat handle in order to censor or modify or comment on a posting.

2. Ideally such monitors (or "clones" as they are often referred to) should only hold the position for a maximum term of 1 year.

3. The reasoning for any thread closure or post deletion should be announced publicly as a separate thread. This will allow discussion of the reasoning to take place without cluttering the original thread.

4. Legitimate reasons for post deletion can only be:
   a) potentially libellous statements
   b) overtly racist remarks

5. Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites

That's it. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:52 AM

Well, I really haven't been keeping up with the other thread but I'm not too sure having an *explainatory thread* will do much more than continue whatever was being censored...

Like Madcatter A calls Mudcatter B a ____________. So then the censorer starts a thread entitled,"Mudcatter A's thread Closed for calling Mudcatter B a ______________".

I think we are all adults here and know when we might have stepped over the line. I don't think that givin' someone's rude bahavior additional attention will do anything but reinforce their rude behavior...

I think maybe another way to deal with the problem would be to not close a thread unless it becomes out of control wacko. Instead, the inappropriate post be deleted, but not the name of the poster. This way the thread wouldn't get killed off and the flow of the thread wouldn't get hyjacked...

But having said that, I think that deleting a post should be the last resort... I'd hate to see it over used.

Jus' my 2 cents worth...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM

I don't think the current system can be reformed. The reason why it can't be, IMO, is that Max, Joe and Big Mick are bullies, which is half the problem. When your forum moderators are bullies, that sets up the dysfunctional, secretive, and wholly arbitrary dynamic that exists here.

Susu's Hubby explained it quite well in the other thread when he said:

"I, too, have been labeled as a troll on more than a few occasions. I think it really has to do with what you believe and how you state it. In this little web community, you have a lot of people that think and believe in a certain way. That's fine. But when somebody comes in and defies that way of thinking, then automatically they are labeled as a "troll" or "flamer."

It could be a way to dodge the really tough questions and not have to answer them. I don't know. It may be that there is no way to argue effectively against a point that someone has made so a troll label is thrown out and everyone migrates towards another topic to take the pressure off of everyone else."

And BTW, I'd add sexist posting to the racist posting standard, and would support blocking IPs of posters like Martin Gibson. In all my years here, he is the only poster who is intentionally offensive and abusive enough to warrant it (I'm post-Gargoyle). You can't write that off by claiming it is his "personal style".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM

I happen to have met all three "bullies", GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem.

I am in favour of minimal censorship, next to zero: The only case I would say it is needed is when libellour remarks have been made, and that is only to protect Max as the owner of the site. As for the rest, sexist or racist or hate-mongering and name-calling posts don't worry me; I am old enough to ignore them and form an opinion about the posters - just like in the 3-D world, really. There is no better antidote than to ignore such rubbish and those that peddle it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:41 AM

Bullies never bully people they perceive as their peers, El Greko, so I'm not surprised you, and many other forum users don't see them as bullies. If they perceive you as their peers (ie not "beneath their contempt") you are safe. So long as you don't directly challenge their authority.

But if you look closely at how they treat Shambles (just as an example), it is easy to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM

You would, El Greko, you brown-nosed shit-stirring creep!
But I did not put up the thread for you to discuss the personalities of Joe Offer and the rest of the clones. Please restrict yourself to commenting on the proposal above.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:55 AM

Xander, your very opening "as more and more attacks were made at Roger (Shambles)" pretty much ensured that would happen.

I'll say the same sort of thing to you as one of the points I tried to make to Shambles. If you just want an honest discussion on whether people believe the levels of censorship are right, fair, etc. do so without dragging personalities (on either side) into it like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:56 AM

1. Monitoring (and censorship) of threads can be delegated to volunteers, who should be NAMED and announced and should always sign with their Mudcat handle in order to censor or modify or comment on a posting.

Naming the volunteers opens them up to huge amounts of critiscism - quite frequently from posters who don't even have the courtesy to give a use-name.

2. Ideally such monitors (or "clones" as they are often referred to) should only hold the position for a maximum term of 1 year.

a year is barely enough time to really get to know the system.

3. The reasoning for any thread closure or post deletion should be announced publicly as a separate thread. This will allow discussion of the reasoning to take place without cluttering the original thread.

ridiculous!

4. Legitimate reasons for post deletion can only be:
   a) potentially libellous statements
   b) overtly racist remarks

likewise ridiculous!

5. Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites

therefore any corrections of links, misinformation, etc should only be made at the request of the original poster? Not good.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:12 AM

Well, Xander, welcome to Mudcat.

Using site tools open to us all, I see that your posting history began on 21-Mar-05. How remarkable that in such a short time, you feel that you know Mudcat well enough to propose policy! However, it appears from your post above (brown-nosed shit-stirring creep) that you may lack the membership maturity to carry your proposal forward, effectively! :~)

Now, I've been around here for quite some time. I'd like to offer you a friendly heads-up about this community-- the first thing I'd suggest you perceive about Mudcat is that no one can control how people here post. So when you say things like please restrict yourself to commenting on the proposal above, you reveal how poorly you have estimated the context relevant to what you're trying to address.

I also note from your posting history that only two of your posts were in the music section-- so my second friendly heads-up would be to suggest that you spend more time in the forum's main section before getting too caught up in the BS section, where most of the issues that concern you so much are located. Ultimately, when people aren't here for the music, they're missing the whole point of Mudcat. I know that's a pretty sweeping statement. But you know, as a longtime member who's seen (and been caught up in) just about everything here, I take the liberty of saying that.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:30 AM

GUEST of 08:56 AM :

Simply saying "ridiculous" is a comment, strictly speaking, but not a helpful one. Please explain further. Also, I think you misunderstood my point 5. I did not say (and did not mean) that deletions can only be made at the request of the original poster.

WYSIWYG, or should I say Susan,
You are right that I have been a member only for a short time, but I have been visiting as a Guest for much longer.
Regarding my maturity - OK, I shot from the hip with that statement; but I am sick and tired of El Greko defending the Powers That Be. I promise I will PM him with my apologies.
As for the rest of your post, I take it as well meant and will not argue any points.

Now, can we get back to discussing my suggestion? I note by the way the earlier Guest's point about including "sexist" in 4(b) and he/she (not meant as a joke!) is perfectly correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:55 AM

You missed out deletion of personal attacks. There were several threads started a while ago, and it's come out in other threads; unwarranted personal and vindictive attacks designed to do nothing but make the attacker feel powerful and superior. I've never felt bullied by the 'Joe Clones' but I have felt distinctly uncomfortable at some of the annonymous posters that have felt the need to inform the world that I have a fat arse or that I speak my mind.


But to defend Shambles and then to do exactly the thing you're defending him for, to another poster, does sort of disincline folks to think you're serious.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Ale******
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM

Zander you're mistaking this place for a members club run by a chairman and a committee. It is a club of largely like minded friends, our the ethos is music and our ethics are old fashioned. We prefer good manners, and are offended by personal attacks. We like to see Mudcatters play like good girls and boys and would prefer it if members didn't throw their toys out the pram every time they imagine they are being got at. It is not up to us how this place is run, and it's gotten along pretty well on the present basis for some time. If you care to look back through the records you will find this argument keeps coming up, and Max has heard it all before, so he does the best thing, and ignores it, he will still be here long after you've gone. I suggest also that you take look at Roger/Shambles posts in their entirety, you may then understand why some people have lost sympathy with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,katlaughing coming through the backdoor
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:27 AM

Well-said, LtS and Ale******.

joeclones get enough crap heaped on them, most of it unsubstantiated and/or the delusions of conspiracy theorists, without going public

With a posted set of what will and will not be tolerated, there is no need for any endless thread explaining nor defending decisions of Jeff, Max, Joe and the clones regarding moderating the forum. This is a privately owned site, not a democracy.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:36 AM

Ah, no. I've read a fair bit of garbage (IMHO, of course) here in the past five years. However, the garbage accounts for about two fifths of five eighths of fuck all compared to the knowledge, wisdom, compassion, humour... I like the seating arrangements here at the Café just fine, thank you.

PS - If anyone has any negative feelings, I hope you don't let this deter you from supporting Max's non-profit, tireless efforts to maintain this free site for the goal of preserving and promoting folk and blues, and for YOUR benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:41 AM

Non-profit meaning willful non-functioning and stubborn refusal to fix it, of course.

And non-profit should not be misconstrued, in the case of Mudcat, as meaning that Max has never received any money for his lackluster efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:48 AM

DNR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:49 AM

In addition, you should know that Roger Shambles' "mistreatment" is the end product of a long and tireless campaign of passive-aggression on his part, incredibly wordy exercises in word-chasing and thought-juggling disguised as communication but often with a dominant undertone of blaming others and claiming victimization of self. Joe and others who have stepped onto the squirrel cage of dialogue with Roger have often struggled patiently and articulately to answer his points only to have them changed and their answers nullified by absquemious and baroque architectures of endless odorous gymnastics which have added little or nothing to the discussion but have extended it in volume to boxcars worth, stretching over the horizon, all redolent of the same sweat and whine combination.

Therefore, I second both of Madam WYG's suggestions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:55 AM

10:42 AM... You are partially right. I'm not getting into a pissing contest here about how things are run. As far as $, you're right he has. I have purchased goods, I have won auction bids, and I have sent cheques for which my only remuneration was this site. And it was damn worth while. And there's a lot of 'Cats who have done the same... for years. You are welcome, 10:42 AM.

"Lackluster"? You obviously know little, if anything, of the history of his efforts.

Normally, I do not respond to trolls. I shall not again in this thread. See ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM

Xander... Mudcat is NOT a democracy... If you don't LIKE the rules here, or the way they are enforced or not, kindly experience the egress...

That's your ONLY recourse

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:13 PM

That's your ONLY recourse

Unless of course one wants to participate on the music side, and contribute something positively, there.

I think for some time now, a lot of folks have had Mudcat confused with a free-hosting, personal blog site-- where someone will do all the work to keep the site open for them, and pay all the fees associated with the site, for an unlimited number of individuals to have their own, unlimited soapbox.

Actually, it's a music site. The rest is ancillary to that.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

The suggestions in the first post show a naivete regarding the history of Mudcat, some of its more argumentative menbers, and the experience of how it operates.

From: Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM

You would, El Greko, you brown-nosed shit-stirring creep!


I'm also underwhelmed with the temperament demonstrated so far by this new member. It's usually a good idea to lurk for a while before sticking your neck out and suggesting changes. And like Susan said, spend some time in the music threads and forget about the BS for a while. Take a true measure of the Mudcat before you try to fix it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:56 PM

No need for shades of gray here. The only guidelines needed are those in the minds of the owner and the moderators---.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:57 PM

Well, you want a set of rules.....Here ya' go! This is the substantive portin of the Terms of Agreement for Use which everyone signs at one of my other favorite sites where I spend a lot of time. It's an auto racing site with multiple forums covering various forms of racing and including a Fan Fun Forum which was added when it became obvious that folks occasionally wanted to tal a bit about issues of the day or tell a few jokes or just BS, much like we used to do here before the BS became much as Susan states.....some kind of multiple blog site with nothing but politico-religious fights and very limited fun.

In any case, over on the Speed Boards, THESE are the rules everyone plays by or they don't play at all.The mods are selected by the site owners, known only as their screen names, and their decisions are final. Any appeals are made privately and not discussed with the membership as a whole. If a post or a thread gets zapped, that's it. Period. If you start a thread questioning why and all of that, it gets zapped too. It's very simple. When a post or thread gets zapped there is no explanation given.

I would also add that the place is very friendly, has a lot of great discussions and arguments, and runs along quite smoothly. So here you go.....Rules that work (the italics are mine:

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

When you post to a privatly owned website (which the MudCat Cafe is)

"You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit" should be a given and not even need to be stated.

Just as when you are on private propertie the owner has the right to ask you to leave - and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,GUEST, El Greko minus "biscuit"
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:26 PM

OK, easy on the guy, Xander did in fact PM me straight away to apologise. He somehow thought I was "in" on some sort of inner circle, because I had argued against Roger, that's all. We cleared that up and agreed to differ on the matter of censorship.

George the Hungry (without cookie)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM

not the old "conspiracy of the inner clique" fallacy coming up again?

*groan*

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,GUEST, El Greko still hungry
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:31 PM

Yep - my apron must have showed ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:51 PM

No Mario, it's not the clique this time. Following my interchanges with Shambles on the other thread, it's now "Spaw's Spurious Spinnin' Mudcat Puerile Posse."   What? Don't tell me your badge didn't come in the mail? I'll puit a tracer on it, I mean, I've been counting on you to help out with the horses. Like right now, we got this Appaloosa with the shits.................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Don Firth (crawled in through the cat flap)
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:54 PM

Spaw's citation of "rules that work" gets my vote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:57 PM

Well, Xander - you have the rules of conduct pretty well figured out. More or less, we follow exactly what you propose. The rules are all posted on the FAQ. One you missed is that we do not allow personal attacks. Martin Gibson got away with them for a long time because so many people helped him by taking his bait - and deleting his countless abusive message would destroy the flow of threads to the point where they would be unintelligible. But it is at the point where Martin Gibson can be tolerated no longer. His posts will be under 100 percent review until he cleans up his act, and anything of his that even smells of combativeness will be deleted.

You're new to Mudcat, and perhaps you don't know Martin's history. I'm sure others can explain to you that it is time to bring him under control.

There is no need for a specific set of rules to describe in detail what is prohibited here. The rules are clearly stated in the FAQ, and we do our best to enforce them sparingly. We do our best to delete or edit things only when it is quite obvious that they need to be dealt with.

As for administration of Mudcat, that is handled by Max, Jeff, and Joe. We are assisted by a number of volunteers who were personally chosen by Max Spiegel, the owner of the Mudcat Cafe. They got the name JoeClones because I was the first volunteer editor - and they followed me in later years, as our traffic got heavier. They have varying levels of editorial access, and their duties and level of access change. They are all supervised by Max, Jeff, and Joe. Generally, they are supposed to provide technical assistance and correct technical errors, but we also use them on a strictly limited basis to control posts that are obviously objectionable. Every editorial action of this sort is reviewed by Max, Jeff, or Joe. But no, we're not interested in submitting every editorial action to public review or public vote - we delete objectionable posts because we want to remove them from public view. Discussing them in a public forum is exactly opposite to our purpose.



As for one-year terms for Clones, I suppose you could suggest it to Max if you like, but I certainly disagree with it. It would seem to limit our ability to control the volunteers. One volunteer who goes overboard in editing would be a major headache. I believe that Max thinks that editorial authority should remain in the hands of Max, Jeff, and Joe. Max selected volunteers that he knows personally, people he trusts completely. But as a second precaution, their work is reviewed and restricted when it comes to handling objectionable behavior.

As for Mr. Shambles, you will note that we allow him to say exactly what he wants to say - over and over again, ad nauseam. That doesn't mean that we have to bow down and thank him every time he heaps abuse on us.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:58 PM

Brown nosing shit stirrer..etc. that is the very thing that SHOULD be deleted! Grow up! If you don't like the civilized behaviour here, find another well to poison.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM

"Unless of course one wants to participate on the music side, and contribute something positively, there.

I think for some time now, a lot of folks have had Mudcat confused with a free-hosting, personal blog site-- where someone will do all the work to keep the site open for them, and pay all the fees associated with the site, for an unlimited number of individuals to have their own, unlimited soapbox.

Actually, it's a music site. The rest is ancillary to that."

The last line should be a banner heading (though, ironically, even my proposal that it should be so, demonstrates a disatisfaction with the site that I don't feel :^) ).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,El Greko (no cookie, but had dinner)
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:21 PM

Joe, very helpful post (oh dear, I might be accused of you-know-whatting again); for me, it highlights where the difference is with Roger: Namely in the matter of open disclosure of reasons for deleting a thread/post and named joeclones.

I believe that this is precisely at the heart of Roger's complaint; and as such it indicates a lack of trust.

So - the majority trust Joe, Jeff and the clones to manage the forum efficiently and fairly. A minority does not trust them. Given that we are all guests here anyway - whether with handles or not - the obvious response is, as several pointed out above, "go play somewhere else". Just as this world is "ours" to enjoy but not to own or abuse, the same holds for Mudcat.

Roger is conspicuous by his absence - hopefully this could end up a very short thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:25 PM

Thanks Joe, once again, for your time and effort in helping all of us understand more clearly what you shouldn't have to take the time and effort to explain.

I'd say Max and the Clones are a pretty good bunch, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you? NNWW, eh what?... can I get an EH WHAT?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM

EH WHAT?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM

I already indicated remorse at my statement towards El Greko further up in this thread, and I apologised to him directly also. Yet some people continue to hit me over the head with my hasty words. What do they want, blood? How many times does one need to apologise?

Back to my proposal once more: Following Joe Offer's note, I gather that the amended text would be something like this now:

1. Monitoring (and censorship) of threads can be delegated to volunteers.

3. Legitimate reasons for post deletion can only be:
   a) potentially libellous statements
   b) overtly racist or sexist remarks
   c) personal attacks

3. Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites


So, out goes the 1-year rule and the naming of clones; and out goes the explaining of reasons for deletions.

Everyone OK with this?
I repeat, this is in no way intended as a set of rules for Max or anyone to follow; if they happen to follow it, it is just coincidence and common sense. It's just a "paper exercise" for us to agree how an ideal forum might be moderated - ideally.

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM

"destroy the flow of threads to the point where they would be unintelligible"

What's wrong with deleteing theads? If they're worth discussion, they'll be started again...   What's the big deal?

"As for one-year terms... I certainly disagree with it."
Here here!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,katlaughing coming through the backdoor
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM

Thanks, Spaw, for posting those. Well-written, imo. BTW, maybe you should give some of those oats to el Greko...might help the Appy, too!

Thanks, Joe.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,8:56
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:44 PM

I said ridiculous because those propasals (3 and 4) are so.


Regarding number 5 - you said:

Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites

therefore any other corrections - such as fixing broken links - adding informational links, cross-linking trhreads, adding posted midi file links, etc, etc. would not be legitimate. Believe it or not most editing that occurs is NOT in any manner done as censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

OK, Guest 02:44PM, if I change the word "amending" to "censoring" we should be OK. Editing for clarity or information is not censorship.

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,WYSIWYG
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:58 PM

Xander, one reality of Mudcat (and every forum I've ever visited) is that many of the thread's posters do not read all of the posts preceding their own. Sometimes they do not even read the FIRST post! So people who flame often end up being addressed about it, long after it has been cleared up. C'est la Vie Cyber!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:58 PM

The mods/admin don't NEED a reason to "Amend" or "Censor" this place... It's THEIR place... they can do whatever they want here...

If you don't like that, don't come here...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

Guest 02:58PM, I did say that these rules are not for Mudcat, but for an ideal forum run ideally. Your point is pointless, therefore.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:07 PM

Xander, you still seem to be operating on the idea that there is a "legitimate" reason or whatever.   It's not a democracy. The first amendment has nothing to do with the net. If the admin says it goes, it goes. There is no "only" about it.

I've been here since '98 and watched the place change a lot. The one way it hasn't changed is that Max has always wanted (and gotten from his elves) a light touch on issues of editing posts. You are more than free to suggest whatever you want to Max and if he goes that way, he goes that way. At the present time though, he seems happy enough with where things are. I doubt he wanted to have to muck about with the MG character, but there ya' go. No explanation needed.

My one suggestion to Joe might be a simple "edited" instead of the BLEEP.....but the bleep is cute Joe.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:09 PM

BTW.....your ideal forum would be as Shambles states. No real rules needed.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

But surely it's OK to dream about an ideal world, even if we don't live in a democracy? And it's OK to compare ourselves to democratic establishments, even if we don't live in a democracy? I never claimed any "legitimacy". Just expressing a dream and a hope.

If that's OK with you, that is.;¬}

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:18 PM

Isn't that what IS here? EXTREMELY limited rules? Almost none, it seems, by times. It seems the "community" polices itself, as this thread, and others, demonstrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:18 PM

No, I'm sorry it isn't. You'll have to pledge allegiance to me and agree to change bedpans at the NYCFTTS for a two year period. That was the requirements for original clique members and the Posse is the same. BTW, the original clique wound up with several hundred members and that was 6 years ago. I'm still backlogged on bedpan changers but I am thinking we may need to put someone on stall mucking.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,El Greko
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

Where do you want this bucketful of manure, Spaw?
And remember, you said I could ride at the front today - I'm sick of eating everyone else's dust at the back.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

'Spaw - you got a spots with the trots? I keep telling you - you can't feed them on nothing but sweet-feed. They are *designed* to eat hay. Let them!