Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)

Subject: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: bbc
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 02:52 PM

Unless you've been away or had your head stuck in the sand, you've probably noticed an unusual amount of nastiness in the postings in the past few days. Some have gone so far as to advocate deleting various posts or threads. We do have those in our group who have that ability--a magic button which can be used to edit/delete. Although it isn't up to us whether they use it or not or how they use it, I'd be interested in some thoughts on the subject. BTW, I suspect those w/ the power would prefer to *not* use it. Censorship is highly subjective. How does one determine what/who to censor & once one starts, how far to go? An associated idea was that of throwing out "nasty" members. Here're my thoughts. What are yours?

Censorship is not something I want to get involved w/. I value the free & easy exchange of ideas we have at Mudcat & I would hate to see it inhibited. There remains the issue of nasty postings & the hurt they cause. I think we need to try to regulate our own behavior, so as to address issues, rather than persons. When we feel that others have crossed the line of acceptability, we owe it to them to try to encourage them, personally & privately, to be more friendly. If they persist in unkind behavior, perhaps ostracism is our best response. I'm not sure on that one. I guess it's hard for me to understand someone deliberately choosing to be hurtful, once it is brought to that person's attention. We all have our ups & downs emotionally & times when we fail to express ourselves as we had intended to. On the Internet, we lack the clues that tone & facial expression give us to help interpret others. The written word can certainly hurt. And, when you have something in print, it's hard to forget.

On the subject of booting out members, I can't say I'm for it. We all go through stages in our lives. I would hope that a person wouldn't stay w/ the goal of being hurtful. At the risk of sounding just too-too something, I feel that we have the opportunity in this group to help each other along the path toward being better human beings in various ways. It seems a shame to waste that potential.

best to all,

bbc

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 03:11 PM

I'm against anything except self-censorship.

I don't think we should boot people out, but if someone were to do nothing but snipe at other members, advertize, or post messages to incite, (and I feel this is a very remote possibility) I could change my mind. If it's someone in our community who's just being a pain...well if this were real life, we'd just tell him to knock it off and ignore future inappropriate comments. I don't think any human is 100% bad, and we have an opportunity to encourage the good. If we don't do that, we lose.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Bert
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 03:15 PM

Well here's my two pennuth

I don't think we need censorship here. If anyone desn't like a posting they can just ignore it.

I think we are seeing just a little over reaction where the best response would have been none at all.

It isn't a good idea to mention people by name unless it is a positive or humorous comment. After all we don't want to get "Mud Catty"

The sooner it's ignored the sooner it will go away.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: LEJ
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 03:19 PM

Just as our society is a free one, at least here in the US- my fondest wishes for all other Mudcatters- the society at Mudcat is and should be a free one. I am not sure what the fretting is about. Is it because Gargoyle made some nasty and prejudiced remarks? He has freedom of speech. Is it because some of us defined his remarks as nasty and prejudiced? That is our prerogative, and some would say our duty. I don't agree with the creation of threads attacking or ridiculing any individual, but I defend our right to respond honestly to anyone's statement, or to ignore them as our consciences dictate. Is it because of the IRA/Loyalist contentions in the Armalite thread? Dissension should be welcomed as a means of airing views, defining our own philosophies, and, yes, even learning from one another. I do not agree, however, with those who would try to control the discourse, and then leave if they cannot.

I like this forum because we can say what we think and feel, and fortunateley those thoughts and feelings are by-in-large positive and empathetic. But would we surrender our honest discourse to some overarching rule that we be nice to each other at all costs? No. Should we ban those who make remarks that some of us find offensive? If Gargoyle had been banned, I would never have been able to read his "taxi driver" monologue on the True Detective thread, a dark but extremely effective bit of writing.

Mudcat, like the real world, may contain some instances of strife and disagreement, but I would never trade it for Disneyland.

LEJ

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: annamill
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 03:22 PM

NO! NO! NO! I wish I knew how to make that NO bigger! Censorship, this is an old age question. One that formulates one of the basis points of this country. Like Animal Farm. who determines what goes and what stays. and who changes it during the night when no one sees.

The very, very best censorship is where no acknowledgement at all is given to the source, especially negative acknowledgement. Like a flasher, that's exactly what turns them on.

Like mary, mary little lamb, leave them alone and they'll go home, waggin their own tails. or however it goes.

This is my opinion.

Love, annaP

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Fadac
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 03:36 PM

No on censorship.

That's the thing about free speech. Sooner or later sombody is going to say somthing that you don't like.

Some would like to censor the internet. They claim all sorts of reasons, bombs, kids, porn, etc. But who is the censor? Who sets the morals? Me? Better hope not.

The best way to get rid of a problem, is to ignore it. Usualy a problem is just trying to get noticed. Even when I have been the target of some pointed comments. First I got a bit upset. But refuesed to drop to that level.

So if someone gets a bit out of hand. Feel sorry for them, there mother, must buy them funny clothes.

So I say NO on censorship.

-Fadac

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Peter T.
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 03:50 PM

As I said in another thread, just trying to articulate my sense of what has gone on since the beginning, and has worked well up to this point: there has been an informal rule to eliminate (or maybe ignore) advertising that is not for or by somebody here, because the site is being turned into a billboard, when it is a discussion forum. The same is true about political propaganda that is just posted to shout at people. Shouting down is the first draft of shooting down.
I personally wish that at the very least the "Laughing at Gargoyle" thread title should be changed: I appreciate that Dai has apologised for it, but I hate it, and what it will do to this site if this sort of thing goes on. I don't see why he shouldn't be able to appeal to Joe or whomever to change that at least. If somebody started making threatening remarks or obscene comments about people on this place, whoever they were, I would personally support having these remarks eliminated. There are other much worse things that that that I assume are being kept off this site (though no one has, nor do they need I think) to articulate what they are. Quasi-public space is always subject to this problem: it is always having to defend itself, keep itself open without being destroyed: that is why people get sick of it, and go and hide in private enclaves. Meanwhile the streets are left to die.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 04:40 PM

No. For it is nor needed, if we cannot do it ourselves, then the Forum ceases to be a Forum.

Peter T said.

"There are other much worse things that that that I assume are being kept off this site (though no one has, nor do they need I think) to articulate what they are."

At the risk of sounding completly paranoid, are there such things?

I don't need to know WHAT they are, I would just like to know if there are such things? Max????

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Peter T.
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:02 PM

Well, since I believe strongly about this, let me reluctantly point out, and I mean reluctantly, for reasons that will become obvious, that although this site looks pretty robust, it would actually be easy to wreck it, if we did not have some rules that are implied. It would be very possible to sabotage this site with obscene thread titles and threatening titles containing people's names within the space of half an hour, just by posting and reposting. This could go on indefinitely, without legal recourse. People would just get disgusted and leave. I have seen this happen elsewhere. I cannot imagine the owner of this site putting up with it (if you look in the upper right hand corner of this site you will see the word "magazine"). It is an owned site, managed with exemplary style: it is only a free space as long as we play by certain assumptions, most of them dependent on our assessment of the decency of those who run the site for us.
What is being kept off this site? I don't know. Maybe the owners of this site have been lucky. I ran an environmental site for a year which was plagued with "contributions" to discussions "advocating" hard core pornography, on line virtual sex, fake invitations to discussion groups to discuss the merits of "art" photographing children, and so on. You can lose your innocence about free forums pretty fast that way.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Doctor John
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:08 PM

Three questions to ask about censorship:- 1. Who guards the guards? 2. Why am I corrupted by obscenity and not the censors? 3. Should the tolerant tolerate intolerance? Dr John

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From:
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:12 PM

An opinion, freely expressed, even with a bit of the profane is never an issue.

However, rude and scurrulious postings have no place here (or anywhere)... delete them at will, they're nothing more than graffitti. To do anything else would be a waste of bandwidth -- band width to be used for the nonsense *I* wnat to post.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Fadac
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:50 PM

Perhaps some rules posted, or a FAQ of what is and is not acceptable on Mudcat.

Then if someone has a problem, they can request a rule change.

A simple one, "Don't take anything here personly." Then "Don't get personel".

That would allow one to express their opinion without saying XXXXX is a idiot. Even if XXXXXX IS an idiot.

My opnion, is that there are some people that for some reason or other, are convinced that no mater what is said, they think that it is about THEM! Augh! Folks with that big of ego (or conceat (sp?)) If one is that sensitive, or thin skined, perhaps they should go to the Barny Dinasor web page and sing, "I love you, You love me..." (gack!)

-Fadac

Subject: I'm against censorship
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:51 PM

Well, I suppose that there are messages that those of us with "delete" buttons delete as a matter of course.

Duplicate messages - that's obvious

"Get Rich Quick" and other Spam messages that have nothing to do with music - obvious

Messages that just take up space, like the one from the guy who filled a whole page with just his name - obvious

I don't think that's censorship - it's just tidying up. The only other messages I have deleted are the ones that were direct, personal attacks on Mudcatters, and I think I have deleted only two of those in the last couple of years. The ones that give us problems are the ones that have responses. How can I justify deleting an objectionable message if there is a string of responses to that message? I can certainly sympathize with the outrage people had expressed at a couple of the messages posted over the last few days, but all that outrage doesn't do a whole heck of a lot of good. I know it's justified, but it really has been pathetic.
The very best thing you can do to an objectionable post is ignore it. Just act as if the poster were invisible. Obnoxious people feed on the responses people give them - don't respond, and they're likely to stop being obnoxious.
The only people who hold official positions at the Mudcat Cafe are Max, our host; and Dick and Susan, the curators of the Digital Tradition. The rest of us are the guests of these gracious hosts. I haven't seen Dick, Susan, or Max make any move to censor anything here. If they don't censor, then nobody should. Max gave a few of us "edit" buttons and told us to use them with good judgment. I think we've tried to do that, perhaps erring on the side of freedom of discussion, but I think that's good.
The best censorship is self-censorship. If somebody posts something objectionable, ignore it. If it's a forum message that really might cause harm, then that's another matter - send a provate message to Dick, Susan, Max, or me or whoever the other unidentified button-holders are, and we'll take care of it if it can be done. If it's a matter of personal messages that are threatening or otherwise troublesome, contact Max directly.
Now, can we please get back to talking about music? We have a Dock Boggs song transcription that is in serious need of help (click here). I worked really hard to transcribe all eleventy-seven verses of Babes in the Wood (click) - it's a great story. In the "Babes" thread, an anonymous person we all know has issued a challenge, aksing that somebody transcribe 54 verses of "The Turkey Factor." Let's get back to doing what we do best - music.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Chet W.
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 06:29 PM

No.

Chet

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: bbc
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 06:47 PM

Good message, Joe. Thanks very much for your input. I needed to hear it.

bbc

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Roger in Baltimore
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 06:54 PM

NO!

I have been on the Mudcat for a year and a half. Occasionally, discussions have gotten out of hand and someone wants to make "rules". I am hardly a libertarian, but I do think we have too many rules in this world and our goal should be fewer rules not more. Whenever "rules" come up I suggest that everyone look long and hard at how necessary the "rules" are.

Often, "rules" are a substitute for simple human contact. We make the "rules" and feel we have dealt with the problem. That is not the answer. Some confrontation, on a private level may be more intimate and more helpful.

Roger in Baltimore

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Helen
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 07:00 PM

Chet,

I hope/assume that you were saying "no" to censorship and not "no" to Joe's suggestion to getting back to talking about music. *BG*

Helen

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Banjer
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 07:15 PM

NO to censorship..If we cannot control ourselves without having to resort to the use of censorship then this forum becomes useless.....

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: John in Brisbane
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 07:24 PM

I believe that this is the first time in two years that I've contributed to this type of thread - and I intend to never do it again. But I believe it is my right to ask if there is a formal goal/mission stetement/charter for this forum. Once I know this I can then examine my own motivation, my contributions or lack thereof. I attempt to provide feedback to others in this forum in other than an encouraging fashion, but would prefer to allow others to provide their own personal assessment. If I find that the charter doesn't suit me I'll move on to other aspects of my life.

Best regards, John

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: DougR
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 08:13 PM

No censorship please.

DougR

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: gargoyle
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 08:18 PM

YES!!!

MC has lost its focus

Make a RATIO - say 6 to 1......

For every six BS posts a person makes there must be at least one legitimate - folk song, posting of lyrics, or clarification, or question or anything else relevant to the thread.

All this women's gossip/hugs/and poor-me's is as sick as those who rattle their waggin' tongues during a musical performance; they were invited by friends, they liked the music, but they prattle on and on because they don't have a clue.

(Bet most of they are AOLers with MACs)

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 09:42 PM

Can't stand AOL or MACS, m'self.

FADAC: Regarding any kind of FAQ's or etiquette rules, this is a paraphrase of one on another favourite site of mine, maybe something like this would help?

Forthright expression of conflicting views is liable to give rise to heated arguments and lead to inter-personal antagonisms which work against mutual co-operation for the common good. In this moderated cyber village of individuals interacting through their emotionless computers, strict constraints on subject range are not necessary. Therefore we can engage in rational consideration of 'sensitive' subjects in an endeavour to gain a deeper insight into their nature and discover why they arouse such passions. With that in mind, no topics are barred from this site. However, all contributions will be edited to ensure ordinary civility and respect for opinions which differ from one's own.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 10:24 PM

Kat, I object to the "all contributions will be edited" (censorship) unless you mean the contributions will be edited by the individual who will implement submission.

Joe, I didn't know why I didn't see a lot of junk mail here - now I do. Thanks!

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Margo
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 10:28 PM

NO to cencorship.

YES to ignore-it-ship

Gargoyle: I think it would be impossible to count and keep track of how many BS threads there are as opposed to Music threads. What exactly do you mean by "the Mudcat has lost it's focus"? Compared to when you first arrived? When was that?

How about you all who've been here for a couple of years? I think it would be very interesting to hear their account of what the forum was like when they first arrived, and how it has changed, and if they find that desirable or not. I got on in September of '98.

Margarita

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: WyoWoman
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 10:35 PM

I'm against censorship -- but believe in and practice self-censorship.

I agree with Jeri. If someone's workin' our last good nerve or says something insulting, tell him or her to knock it off. Then let's go about our business.

Interesting -- I looked in some old threads from a couple of years ago, just to get some sense of history, and this certainly is not a new controversy. It keeps rearing its ugly little head, stirring up trouble, then going away until the next time someone acts like a consummate butthead with someone else. Still, it is a public forum and that kind of thing is going to happen -- unless the forum is censored. Which seriously goes against my nature and inclinations.

I work for a daily newspaper and we have a huge "letters to the editor" section. And on those pages, we run about 97 percent of the letters we get -- an unheard of number in the newspaper business. And I HATE, HATE, HATE at least a third of the letters we get because of their nastiness, their stupidity, their idiot axes to grind, their repetitive, dependable nature. However, we have taken a (I think, principled) stand in favor of free speech, so we have to take the idiots with the savants.

I agree with Joe. Let's just try to let it roll off our backs, tell 'em when they've done something unacceptable, and continue enjoying each other's company -- and our liberty.

WW

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Alice
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 10:43 PM

so now it is about slamming Mac users.
guess I'll ignore the Mudcat for awhile and hope it recovers the interesting musical qualities it used to have.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 11:38 PM

Jeri, I was just paraphrasing and suggesting; I don't personally believe in censorship, except in the types of instances Joe mentioned, i.e. absolute crap which we never see in the first place, and that happens rarely from what I can gather.

Gee, Alice, I am sorry, I didn't mean to jump on that bandwagon. I decided it was better to deny being a MAC user, which I am not, than say something about misogynistic postings. Guess I should've just shut up!

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: gargoyle
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 11:54 PM

It ain't censorship.....it's called a "filter." A ratio can be set.

They were used 12 years ago with BBS's, they are used today with FTP severs (CPM3's etc.) and even found in peculiar variations among "net-nanny's" and "V-Chips."

The bottom line is...POLICE YOURSELF....

6-1

if you load ALL "BS" then "get the h*ll out of here."

(Thank you Art for reminding me of the three jolly fishermen)

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: gargoyle
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 11:57 PM

Good Bye Alice....

Thanks for preserving the bandwidth.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 12:08 AM

there is a BIG difference between 'censored' and 'moderated'...it already IS moderated to some extent..Joe, Max, and maybe a couple others have an edit button'...which they use with GREAT care and not often..

I don't want censorship....some of MY stuff might get zapped..*grin*...

I see gargoyle has voted 'yes'...interesting- but he sure has a misanthtopic view of what he wants censored..and his reasons are as terse and brusk as ever..(reminds me of trying to figure out what Emily Dickenson was saying).......(and, is it really true that the curse of "waggin' tongues, prattling, and hugs" can ONLY be countered by bitterness, invective, and insults?..tsk!)

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 12:19 AM

seems there was a post while I was typing....I used to complain a bit myself about the ratios of 'folk' to other things..but I always left it up to Max to decide..I still wonder if that is not a good plan..

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Night Owl
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 12:20 AM

No to censorship.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 12:48 AM

You have got to be kidding!! The debate threads have produced some of the most memorable writings in the 'Cat. Have you noticed that flamers just die out, folks. People of integrity can have disagreements, they may even get ugly. Sometimes people like Martin (IMHO) take misguided steps. But the ups far outweigh the downs. Once, someone edited one of my posts in which we disagreed. I am saying this now for the first time. Yes (and you know who you are), I did notice but in the interest of not creating a stir I didn't say anything except to a friend to see if they had noticed and they did too. I almost left the 'Cat over it. I have not seen it since, and if I thought that were going to be the practice, I would be gone.

My position has not changed. We are an amazing community of people who have discourse on music and the issues which spawn it. Done with respect, we can be a venue for understanding. Isn't that what we seek to be when we sing the songs of the people. Isn't one of the purposes of folk music about helping others to feel the feelings of others? Doesn't that promote good in the world. Leave our 'Cat alone, got it?

Mick

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 01:12 AM

Copied from another thread...

Anger, hurt feelings and off-topic drifting are part of the price you pay for anarchy. If nobody rises to the bait, unsuitable postings simply fall off the bottom of the thread list. If someone wants to join in a fight, there'll be a fight (a virtual fight, anyway).
Nobody's going to censor the Mudcat.
Nobody's going to impose his/her idea of helpful organization upon it.
If Mudcatters can't figure out how to avoid reading threads that are annoying to them, we'd better fold the whole thing up.
End of didactic diatribe.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Banjer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 01:14 AM

Yeah, Mick....Well put, as usual.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: gargoyle
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 01:19 AM

Thanks dick....the legitimate music data drew me here.

But I stayed for the anarchy.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: mountain tyme
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 01:36 AM

Sorry I'm late....I got engrossed on the Why A Duck page. Each one of us censors what we say.... Each one of us censors what we read.... Where's the rub?

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:17 AM

Alice, I am pretty sure you are not the Mac user referred to above (notice the connection to aol). Gargoyle, I can't use the dragdown members list box on the personal messages page so I can't send messages to you personally. If you send me a message, I can respond and you can vent to me personally and neither of us will have to inflict this stuff on the rest of the group. --seed

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: MAG (inactive)
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 03:37 AM

I'm against censorship. but bbc, as a fellow librarian, knew that.

MA

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Roger the zimmer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 03:52 AM

As another librarian I'm also against censorship. I don't read all threads, and have resisted the temptation to contribute to controversial non-music ones, (though not to the temptation to add my own dreadful jokes to humour threads) but if you respond to one that offends you, then the "offender" has probably got the result he/she wants. If no-one else posts, then the thread dies.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 04:30 AM

I still don't think that there IS any such bias in the forum. I would feel a little foolish however, having taken pains to assure Mick that there was no such bias operating here, to find that his views (or any others) had in fact been censored in the past........ If this has happened, it would certainly go some way to explain why he may detect such a bias and feel as he does?

Without going in to the issues involved and before this gets permanently embedded in the 'urban mythology' of The Mudcat, is this true, did such a thing happen?

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 04:56 AM

Well, it's the first I've heard of anything that might be considered censorship. As I have confessed in the past, there were a couple times that I deleted messages that I felt were personal attacks that were directly harmful to individuals. I have disagreed with Mick - strongly, on occasion - but to his face, in open discussion. As far as I know, nobody has censored anything here. It sure has been tempting these last few days, though....
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: SueH
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 08:08 AM

I vote no to censorship.

I am also very much in favour of ignoring deliberately provocative or inflammatory threads. I am sure there have been several posted recently just to see what reaction they trigger.

I think there is a tendency to be too analytical here. Why has someone decided to leave, etc. No group or individual can hope to be all things to all people, but I think that Mudcat does a pretty good job. If you have an enquiry about music, then someone will instantly help you out if they possibly can. Therefore Mudcat is fulfilling its basic function. A diversity of threads is what stops it from becoming a sterile environment. Does anyone honestly expect to find only threads which are of interest to them? Even if only music threads were allowed, this would hardly be the case, as 'folk' music is such a generic term.

We all have the choice of which threads to read & which to ignore. It seems to me that by entering into endless discussion over whether there are too many non-music threads, whether someone was being too personal/offensive/inflammatory etc, is not only perpetuating but also increasing any problems.

Sue

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Allan C.
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 08:11 AM

I got to thinking about the suggestion made to proportionalize or otherwise limit the non-music threads. Here is a thought I had a few days ago which sums up my feelings:

Picture a bunch of good friends gathered around the pickle barrel at the local general store. Many of them have lived in the area all their lives. Some moved there recently. These people have a little time on their hands and they come to the store to "just sit a spell". They talk about whatever might be of some general interest until the door opens and in walks a stranger who asks the group directions to the old vinegar mill. Well, now the members practically fall over each other trying to point and tell the stranger the "best way" to get there. After a short time the stranger thanks them and leaves. Then the conversation, perhaps one about the myriad uses for a 'possum, resumes.

So, with this image in mind, I have to say that to limit the quantity of BS threads could have an effect equal to that of putting up a "No Loitering" sign at the store.

As to deleting specific posts. In other forums I have been witness to some very good reasons for that being a necessity. In fact, I saw an instance in which a webmaster denied the "cookie" of a particularly obnoxious person. That person had inflicted wounding remarks upon a number of "regulars" and had also done far worse in private emails. I fully support both of these forms of censorship.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 09:56 AM

I can assure you that this has happened on the one occasion that I know of. I do not believe it to be a practice of this forum, or even to have happened more than this one time. As I said, if that were the case, I would no longer be here. It happened about 6 months ago, a post that I had put in had been modified.

Please do not get to focused on this. I believe that Dick, Susan & Max have absolutely no intention of allowing this to go on. I probably erred in not bringing it to their attention when it happened. But it absolutely did happen and it caused me some distress at the time and I have watched since and seen no more of it. I believe it may have been a misguided attempt to avoid having controversy. My comments were not personal nor were they offensive in any profane way. I believe it to have been a misguided attempt at keeping harmony on the 'Cat.

I have such love for this place that I find myself regretting that I have even brought this up. Let us be aware of this, but let us not endanger our community with it. I beg you.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 10:26 AM

Positive thread creep (as JO suggests): Anyone know what Ethermotor drops are?(not having much luck in that thread).
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Alice
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 10:33 AM

Gee, Peter, can you use "Ethermotor drops" in a sentence for me? ;->

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Margo
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 10:58 AM

Gargoyle, if you stayed for the ANARCHY, then why are you in favor of imposing rules?

Folks, this is incredible. It's just like a novel like "The Lord of the Flies" (No comments about who's Piggy, OK?). Here we are, brought together by a common bond; music. Then the regulars find familiarity. Then the controversy creeps in, controversy that is borne of human nature and all it's good and bad.

Government, IMHO, is a necessary evil. We want to be free and self governing. In our case, what are we suggesting that might be the reason for cencorship or 6 to 1 rules? As far as I can gather, the reasons are:

emotional distress (hurt feelings)
personal preference (want for more music posts)

So it boils down to
1)I can't help but respond to nastiness so I vote for cencorship to protect my feelings
2)I don't see this forum being what Iwant it to be so we should set rules.

Hey, I might be wrong, but the above reasons sounds like immaturity to me. There is a sure fire way to avoid being hurt by an offending person's posts: don't read them. If you don't like Margarita, you can see it's her post before you read it.

You can avoid the BS posts by not reading them. Leave the BS to the BS-ers, and move on.

As far as I can figure, that should settle this whole mess. (I've been called many things, including simplistic) So let me have it guys. Am I off base here?

Margarita

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 10:59 AM

I used to have one of the all time bizarre cars. Does anyone remember the AMC Pacer? Lots of window space, that's for sure. The strange thing about this one though was that the motor was on the outside of the car, affixed with duct tape.(Oh, and did I forget to tell you that it was fuelled by ether, rather than gas?) T'was still a very unreliable car though, so I purchased a second motor and taped it to the other side. Well naturally people were always asking me questions about it, and I'd have to explain that when "either ethermotor drops off, the other ethermotor will keep the car going".
Hi Alice, hope that helps.
rick

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 12:26 PM

I sure could use some of those good old Ethermotor Drops right now, sitting here on the old Mudcat porch listening to the banjo music of Dock Boggs, with the Rick Fielding CD expected any moment through the Sear catalogue, and in the near distance that most beautiful of all sounds: human beings raising their hearts in harmonious song. All that I would then lack would be sweet Alice by my side, and surely then we would move on through the summer in blitheness and grace.
How's that?
yours, Peter T.