BS: Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:23 PM

As Max appoints the anonymous volunteers and we have no input into any such decision, how is it that we are your problem?

Can you try that one again Jon? I think I may know what you are trying to say here but I would like to be sure - before I try and answer it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM

As Max appoints the anonymous volunteers and we have no input into any such decision, how is it that we are your problem?

Can you try that one again Jon? I think I may know what you are trying to say here but I would like to be sure - before I try and answer it.

Shambles I am saying that one of your objections is that we have amonymous volunteers performing tasks at Mudcat. We neither appointed those people or set the rule that they should be allowed to perform thier tasks anonymously.

What I want to know from you is how we who had no part in these decisions that have created a system you (not I) object to are the problem. I also want to know why the creator of this part of the system (one I think works well) should not be part of your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:44 PM

haven't read this for several days, but I do want to assure anyone interested that I am not in cahoots with anyone..*grin*

and Shambles, I don't think I am likely to be censored either, but I'd like to believe that it's my genteel nature and mild manners that keep me safe. I certainly don't think my deep respect and reverential relationship with Joe and Max have anything to do with it.





(is $5 and a six-pack enough, Joe?)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Chris Green
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:57 PM

The coloured messages look very pretty! Well done!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:03 PM

Hmmmm. Shouldn't the phrase be, "Beware of gifts beairng Greeks"?

And Bill, I can't recall if I censored you ar not. I certainly didn't ever censor Shambles - but from the way he screams about censorship, you'd never know it.

Well, I DID delete a few duplicate messages of his, back when he felt honor-bound to post the same thing in three different threads. I guess he still does that, but mostly now he posts and reposts MY words...

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:12 PM

Jon WE are all posters to the forum - WE are the public that Max invited to contribute. From that point on - it is all of US that create all the problems - like abusive personal attacks and responding in kind.

Is it Max's fault that we can't get along and up to him to sort out and rule on every squabble and try to ensure that folk don't see anything here that might offend them?

It is my view that the current 'system' of having some trusted volunteers who can now as a matter of routine impose their tastes upon others and who feel they have to edit in response to every minor concern - is only in the long-run - going to add to the problems this system is set up to address. The strength of the forum was always that everyone was encouraged to post on an equal basis. Is this not now thought to be important?

I am not really interested in apportioning blame for the harm the (largely well-intentioned) current 'system' is doing to our forum - just in trying - before it is too late - to ensure that The Mudcat Forum remains a special place - and does not become just another website - with threats and ever more petty restrictions and needless judgements being imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:18 PM

Is it Max's fault that we can't get along and up to him to sort out and rule on every squabble and try to ensure that folk don't see anything here that might offend them?

Hang on a minute Shambles, wasn't it you who wanted all editorial judgments to go to Max?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:30 PM

Ah...

Perhaps a similar process here - where every imposed editing action required a written report to be submitted to Max for his approval - may have the same effect and result in less imposed judgement and a more proportiate approach?

So it's OK for Max to be burdened with processing written reports (rather than put some trust in the people he appoints) and at the same time not to be expeceted to sort out squabbles.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM

So it's OK for Max to be burdened with processing written reports (rather than put some trust in the people he appoints) and at the same time not to be expeceted to sort out squabbles.

There are two cases detailed in this thread alone (and many others that I have evidenced) - where it is shown that this trust was misplaced. All of this does a lot of harm to our forum especially when it is simply defended and remains unchanged - until the next time.

I suggested that if they should remain - that volunteers having to fill out written reports was one way of limiting these types of incorrect imposed editing - for really minor things and general 'tinkering' with other people's posts that could easily be left alone. Max does not have to ever read them.......*Smiles*

The best solution would be to have no routine imposed editing at all. In truth - the only editing action that Max really needs to decide on is if he wishes the libellious or rare extreme posting to remain on his website. These are rare and can easily be brought to his attention.

The rest is up to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:03 PM

There are two cases detailed in this thread alone (and many others that I have evidenced) - where it is shown that this trust was misplaced.

So surely if Max's trust has been misplaced, that should be of concern to him? Why don't you tell him?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:14 PM

and Shambles, I don't think I am likely to be censored either, but I'd like to believe that it's my genteel nature and mild manners that keep me safe. I certainly don't think my deep respect and reverential relationship with Joe and Max have anything to do with it.

The first bit may save you Bill - but it can only be working very hard at cultivating the second bit - that saves Catspaw *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:06 AM

Morning, Roger - you were up late, I see.
Or should I call you Laocoon?
You can call me what you like, if you get confused between reality and April Fools - I wooden shout myself horse in protest. Take it as a gift from me.

Sad person that I am, I went back and counted the instances of your repetition of the El Greko-or-Xander gripe: 6 in 4 weeks, twice in the last 3 days. I won't even attempt to count the number of times you brought Joe, the clones and censorship up, I bet dollars to peanuts the number is in the hundreds.

Bless you, Roger, but you're getting samey. A bit of originality would help this conversation. It may be pointless, but it doesn't have to be boring. Have you really exhausted all the possible logical cul-de-sacs you can lead us down? We follow you faithfully, but do try to make it more interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:50 AM

A bit of originality would help this conversation

Funny, I tried to write an "autoshambles" last night. I changed my mind on what it should do but maybe I will give this version a whirl and see if it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others
This is clear evidence that Joe and his evil empire are destroying our forum which Max invites us to post to

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
This is clear evidence that Joe and his evil empire are destroying our forum which Max invites us to post to

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think. I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones. -Joe Offer-[Not in brown]
This is clear evidence that Joe and his evil empire are destroying our forum which Max invites us to post to

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:58 AM

I have a peaceful easy feeling that there is a 1000th post to be had here. Terence, are you up for the challenge? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't get up till 2pm do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:02 AM

Aaarrgghhhh!!

LOL, Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:11 AM

As you make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. (Shambles)

Shambles, you have been asked the same questions by different members and instead of giving a clear response have repeated the above post by you. Since this post does obviously not apply to all the members that have asked you the same set of questions you could perhaps answer to those for which the above evasive answer doesn't apply.

Or are you playing a child? "I won't respond to you before Catspaw (or whoever) doesn't apologise to me."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:22 AM

For Wolfgang and anyone else.

So whatever new names can be found to call me and however many HTML variations are used to say it - whatever passes between me and any other party - will remain private. Perhaps this and many other things - can be respected and those that wish to can return to sensible discussion and those that do not - can find another thread to refresh - that interests them more than this one obviously does?

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:35 AM

Respect, Roger - your private conversations are your own and I for one have no interest in them. The three questions referred to your inviting an opinion from Max, and not to the precise details of any response.

I realise however that the three questions are in fact redundant by now. Max is bound to have seen the thread, and very likely Joe might have also mentioned it to him. The absence of any response from Max is very eloquent in itself - after all, why should he get involved in silliness such as this?

Accordingly, you should therefore now cease invoking "Max's wishes" or your interpretation of them, in support of your theories on censorship.

As for refreshing this thread - you yourself said that chasing the n00th post is not offensive or to be censored.

So don't you try to censor us

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:52 AM

The thread that El Greko started (in March – which claimed to be a April fool) - whilst pretending to be Xander (in order it would appear - to argue with himself) Mudcat Censorship – a proposal does make for interesting reading.

It starts off with the following 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.

It is interesting to see how the (completely bogus) impression given that Xander could even slightly seen to be posting in any form of support for the views that I honestly hold, express and evidence – is received. Also interesting how this is commented on - by posters who quite understandably assume Xander to be who he claims to be and have no reason to think he is not.

I am content to let folk make their own judgements and I make no claim to have legions of supporters –– but should posters reading these threads be too surprised at the apparent lack of anyone - openly willing to place themselves in the firing line?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:08 AM

Three in a day, 7 in 4 weeks... If this keeps up, I won't need a new April Fool's next year, we'll just use the same.

What firing line, Roger? No guns pointed at you, as far as I can see. You posted your views, and we disagreed. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. And so on.

On the way, some got frustrated by your repetition and seeming inability to comprehend the responses you were getting or to answer any questions asked of you. That turned the conversation into a shambles (pun fully intentional) and a rigmarole. And some got offended by it - very understandably. Even worse, the impression you gave by all this repetition and childish attempts to sidetrack questions (just like you did just now) has been - how shall I put it? Listen to the first verse of the Beatle's "Fool on the hill" and you'll get an inkling.

Ah - but will you?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:22 AM

You did not wait until April 1st this year - so please go ahead but I am not too sure that anyone will notice.

I am beginning to think that perhaps Xander is the serious one and invented El Greko - as the joke. Xander in fact - spoke a lot more sense.

This is the end of the Trojan wars - if you wish to continue this persoal spat - please do so via PMs. There is no need to inflict this upon others and I shall ignore any further public provocation from you (or Xander).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:33 AM

8
Good - I agree about not inflicting this gripe on others.
I hope this can also apply to the rest of the arguments.
I PMed you.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:25 AM

Aw, c'mon Rog - only another 179 to go. At current rates, you'll have that done by this evening!
And, boy, won't there be an almighty and undignified scramble to claim the 1000th post?
though it really should be Joe who does it - in brown text, of course!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 11:58 AM

OK, this time just for a change you seem to have given an honest response, Shambles, to my last post. For responding to others that you do not respond to them because Catspaw has not apologised to you does not seem to have been your honest response. Or was it?

Which Shambles shall we take by his word, the one who tells others he will not respond to their question because Catspaw has not yet apologised to him or the one who tells us whatever passes between me and any other party - will remain private?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM

Gee, we're at 827 posts, and I'll wager that nothing is going to stop this thread until it makes 1,000. I'm sure that Shambles would like to fill the rest of this thread with copy-pastes of the Wit and Wisdom of Joe Offer. I'll bet he could post the same quotes two or three times in the same thread, for that matter - since people can break threads into pages now, perhaps it's fair to make sure that the copy-pastes occur on each page?

I'd like to propose that we get away from all this negativity. Hey, we could continue talking about the Trojan Wars (is that about condoms?) and talk about something more uplifting (Helen's brassiere?) So, do you think Helen would like it if we gave her that big horse to ride?

Anyhow, I have to say that I liked the movie, and I don't care what the critics say about it.
Troy, that is.
I like Mudcat, and don't care what the critics say about it.
Shambles, that is.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM

Gervase

We could always start up on hunting with dogs again - if you like. But all I am saying is that I am not prepared to inflict a personal spat with El Greco on the forum. I still await convincing that my concerns about censorship here are unfounded and my suggestions for improvements are too complicated. Logic, reason and evidence may do this - but personal judgements will not.

Wolfgang

I have found over the years that you have spoken a lot of sense. I have not found that to be true much lately - and your last post post has completely baffled me. Perhaps this will baffle you in return?

The questions asked were simple repetitions of the original poster's repetition after I had provided this poster with their answer. Are you suggesting that I won't be considered as honest until I provide a different answer to exactly the same repeated questions?

Whoever is asking - I am being asked to post publicly - a response to a private exchange. I have given my reasons for not being prepared to do this - can this finally be respected?

Is is now clear that the fact that Catspaw owes our forum many apolgies is not a justification or a condition from me - for the lack of a reply to anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:03 PM

Do you actually think that nothing has happened in the last 5 1/2 years? Where does it say that Roger sets the rules? Again I ask you:

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM

This was the answer that I gave earlier in the thread....

As you [Catspaw] make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business.

This was what you gave as response to (among others) Jeff's question.
Can this be considered - as we all know that Max gave this site to us - and we all can only set a better example by the content of our posts instead of passing judgments on others - as the unknown clones do in brown colour in order not to refresh the thread so that others cannot read their contributions and Flamenco Ted cannot claim an innocent 1000th post - that is censored by a clone imposing his personal taste while Joe claims he cannot see the censorship - an honest response to Jeff - when you yourself shortly after that gave him a completely different reason as response - just as Xander the Troyan gave completely different opinions under his second handle as Alex the Greek in the same thread ?

Wolfgang (hoping that his intention on the 27 Apr 05 - 05:11 AM post is now clear enough)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM

I never spat! *smile*

Seriously though:

Roger clearly remains unconvinced by the arguments/logic of myself, WYSIWYG, Wolfgang, Catspaw, jeffp, Gervase and others. We (same names) remain unconvinced by his evidence. Stalemate - might as well settle for the long haul.

There is something that Roger alluded to a few days ago on this thread, that would concern me: In response to somebody's pointing out that he (Roger) appears to be alone in holding the views he does, Roger suggested that there are many more dissatisfied members, some of whom have PMed Roger to express their support, but they are afraid to post their views on this thread for fear of being "attacked" as Roger is.

If that is so, it would be a shame. I wish such fellow 'catters could find it in themselves to brave an opinion in this thread, posting as GUESTs if necessary; it would be a comfort to Roger, and would provide a better view of the difference of opinions - which right now seems one-sided.

Not that our (anyone's) opinions matter terribly, in my view, as this is a privately owned and maintained forum open to the public. But I would still like to know what the views are.

George

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM

oh for god's sake Roger!

I still await convincing that my concerns about censorship here are unfounded and my suggestions for improvements are too complicated

People have been telling you nothing BuT that for months!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM

Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression.

I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here.

Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 08:08 PM

No Wolfgang - I have tried but I still have no idea what you are trying to say in your last post. If it is any consolation to you (and perhaps it won't be) - I did PM jeffp.

Roger suggested that there are many more dissatisfied members, some of whom have PMed Roger to express their support, but they are afraid to post their views on this thread for fear of being "attacked" as Roger is.

El Greko - I do not think that I ever publicly stated that I had PMs expressing the support of others. I may well have informed you of that in a PM. Perhaps you will show a little more care with the information you post publicly? I certainly did not ever state publicly that the posters of any of these PMs had stated that they were afraid to post publicly for fear of being "attacked".

However, from my experience - posting a minority view on this subject is not one that I would currently encourage any other poster to do on our forum - in the current climate. Whether to post publicly - must be a matter for each poster to decide. However, a little public support - for balance - would be as welcome as it would be surprising - under the circumstances.

Perhaps someone can count them - but of the total of over 500 posts to this thread (so far) how many individual posters have made a contribution? For some posters have contributed many times. I am not sure but I would be surprised if the total was any more than 200 individuals. So however unlikely you may think it - it is still possible that the vast majority of Mucatters may in fact be in perfect agreement with all of my concerns and suggestions.....

But if that were to be the case - would it change your view - if your view were to prove to be a minority one? I suspect not - so why would anyone think that I should be persuaded to change mine - only by the suggestion that it was a minority one?

My view is that even one voice of disatisfaction on our forum should be accomodated - if possible. They should certainly not be subject to campaigns of the sort of personal judgement (that sadly has now become all too common on our forum) and told to go somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 09:12 PM

Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here.

If as you say - things are a matter of choice – when they are - will it always be a matter of your personal choice being imposed?

Joe whether you or anyone else judges that my concerns are legitimate or illegitimate - they will remain my concerns and be perfectly legitimate to me or any other poster to express. Will it remain the case that Mudcatters have the choice to read my concerns - or not?

For as long as they are moderately expressed - they will find a place somewhere on our Public Discussion Forum - whatever your judgement of their poster's worth may be. So perhaps you could set the example of NOT passing judgement on the worth or right of a poster to post - but confine yourself to either responding to or ignoring what the poster actually says? As I will now.



You could perhaps argue that public libraries are for the reader. But you would also have to equally accept that without the writer - there would be nothing for the reader to read or information for them to find.

However, any library that showed so little respect to its authors by considering that its employees could - as they wished - re-name the authors works - in the name of 'indexing' – and this took priority - would soon find its supply of books and information drying-up.

Perhaps anonymous volunteers imposing these changes to thread titles as a matter of routine - without the poster's knowledge or agreement - will now stop on our forum? For I am sure that if the required change is in the best interests of our forum – I am sure that permission to change it will be granted. I am sure you will agree that it would show the correct respect to the poster – to always be asked first (where this is possible)?

Max has stated that he sees his role as only to facilitate. Joe our forum serves many roles - do you now see your role on our forum as to rule on which role will take priority? For in this case are both considerations equally valid and is it not just a matter of personal taste and one for the community to decide?

It is at the heart of my (legitimate) concerns that our forum be shaped only by its contributions and the personal tastes of ALL its contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:14 AM

Max has stated that he sees his role as only to facilitate. Joe our forum serves many roles - do you now see your role on our forum as to rule on which role will take priority? For in this case are both considerations equally valid and is it not just a matter of personal taste and one for the community to decide?

At which point shambles, your concerns cease to be legitimate.

Once again, you don't not know what Max's view is now but presume on a nearly 6 year old post.

When I asked you why you didn't ask Max, you told me it was "our" (all posters) fault and now you go back to blaming Joe inflicting his personal choice on the forum.

Joe has said he consults with Max and even if you don't believe him, it is ridiculous to think that Joe has been kept in a senior position by Max if he is not acting in accordance with Max's wishes.

Ask Max what his current policies are.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:35 AM

Jon

Max has shown that he can make his feelings very clear - as he has of you. If Max were to be stating the things that Joe has stated here publicly - I would be able to publicly ask the same questions of Max. Max has not- so we are left to discuss them with with Joe.

Joe

Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression.

Why do I get the idea from this that we are being served with the notice from Joe – that the Mudcat serving many people well as a means of self-expression is about to come to an end? *Smiles*

'Most of us'- - I suspect don't share anyone's elses's perspective for has it not been made very clear that posters to the Mudcat Discussion Forum are individuals with many different perspectives? Enabling all of this to be pooled equally– has been the Mudcat's strength. My priority (if I indeed have one) is only that this can continue to be the case.

Let us be clear. Joe are you informing us that your wish to 'index' the contributions of others – should now take priority over what is freely contributed by them?
And to the extent that you will now change the titles that the originators have given and combine many threads together under a title of your choosing – as a matter of routine and without the originator's knowledge or consent?

That is what it looks like from the following.

I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information.

You may think that – but how do you know if this is true? And if it were true – should not your role only be to facilitate for ALL contributors – and not just for who you see as MOST of them?

As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here.

Are the fine search facilities not sufficient for finding our way around the 'maze'?

My concern is less over these proposed changes – which may well prove useful – but the fact that these changes MUST be imposed. Even if this 'indexing' is considered to be so important – is it really so very important that any changes like these MUST now be imposed by you – without the originator's knowledge or consent as a matter of routine?

Would it not be more in the spirit of The Mudcat to always ask the originator's permission first and if this is not possible – to leave their contribution as posted? I am quite sure that if the change was thought important enough – that consent would be as freely given as the original contribution was – but I feel that it would be showing the correct respect – to always ask first. What would be the problem with this approach?

Other than the fact that you personally don't want to adopt it?

The point you appear to miss – is that on our forum the readers ARE the writers. The same people are entitled to the same respect – whether they are writing to or reading from our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:50 AM

Max has shown that he can make his feelings very clear - as he has of you. If Max were to be stating the things that Joe has stated here publicly - I would be able to publicly ask the same questions of Max. Max has not- so we are left to discuss them with with Joe.

But Joe has told you on many occasions that he works in consultation with Max. Why do refuse to believe him?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:03 AM

"Joe whether you or anyone else judges that my concerns are legitimate or illegitimate - they will remain my concerns and be perfectly legitimate to me or any other poster to express. " Quite - but is there really a need to post to the point where those concerns make you either a laughing stock or a major pain in the posterior.
Surely by now, if there was genuinely a silent majority which agreed with you, it would have spoken. As it is, of the many thousand registered users and the many hundred regular posters, I see no rush to stand by your side.
Which leads on to your claim that "on our forum the readers ARE the writers". I'm afraid that isn't the case.
There are many more passive readers than active writers, and that reflects the purpose of the Mudcat as I understand it. An enormous number of people simply browse this forum and the DT to find information. I would imagine the majority of them couldn't give a tuppenny fart about our witterings on politics, Hull or William Shatner, but we are able to do that because Max Spiegel (who owns the server on which all this wittering resides) allows us to. He has invited us - a bunch of disparate lunatics united by a love of blues and folk - to come and play in his sitting room, but it remains his sitting room to do with what he wishes.
That there are so few rules is astonishing (as Catspaw has pointed out), and I have absolutely no problem with Joe's housekeeping. In fact the only person who does seem to have a problem with it is you. If you genuinely feel that you are being censored and that you have something important to say which isn't getting through to us, why not go here and create a web page on which to make your point and then bung a link to it on this thread.
Then we can all see if your claims have any validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:01 AM

I like your idea, Gervase - that would indeed be a way to bypass any unwanted censorship, making this whole discussion moot.

I also lean towards the emphasis on readers for Mudcat. That has indeed been historically its purpose (see the discussion in "Mudcat Ecperiment Works"): as a resource, akin to a library, where indeed much of the content is contributed by (some) of the readers. Over the years it has become a place to meet socially, and as more and more Mudcatters have met each other physically, new levels of communication have been reached. These levels include the occasional sharp langage and judgement, just as you would in outside life. But the original purpose - to be a resource - is not invalidated by that. So, if there was ever a need to choose between what is good for reader and what is good for writers, I favour the former.

In this context, many of the editorial decisions that are being disputed here, make perfect sense.

By the way Roger, I betrayed no confidence - you did mention your knowledge of the feelings of others in the terms I stated, sometime in March; it was around the time of the discussion of the meaning of "we". I know this, because I discussed it off-line with someone (not the editorial team, by the way).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Spaw
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:41 AM

So Joe throws out an olive branch and Shambles rips the leaves off, strips the bark, breaks it into small pieces, pisses all over it, and finally runs it through the shredder....LMAO.....Right, then!

Roger, there is no doubt in my mind and should be absolutely no doubt in yours that those who are posting here in this thread are crystal clear as to your concerns. You have often rambled as is your wont and added in additional concerns, but in essence I think this may be your position:

You believe that what is written here bu anyone posting here is sacrosanct and not to be changed for any reason without the approval of the author. You see an extremely limited number of reasons why this should ever occur. You think the way to keep things flowing and pleasant and smooth is to set the example through our own postings. You believe that any real concerns can and should behandled by Max himself who has said we are the ones making the rules and he only wishes to facillitate the process. Now I am not wholly sure of this, but I think that you also believe that Joe is and has been taking actions of which Max does not or would not approve and his Clones anonymity creates a bad message sent to the membership. The fact that at times differences have occured between Joe and the Clones which many view as a good check and balance (speaking as one who has both won and lost fights with Joe), you see as the fallacy of the system and/or/also that Joe is imposing his will upon the membership outside of what Max has stated in that post from '99.

I am sure you can elaborate on this and add in additional concersn, not to mention getting in all of the nuances of each thought and word. I think though that I have captured at least the basics of your position as simply stated as possible. My take on all of this is that you're wrong. Had I said "full of shit" I know that you would consider that a personal attack rather than aa attempt to lighten the mood as I would, so again I say, you're wrong.

It really doesn't matter whether either of us is right as long as our statements are on record unchanged as you wish them to be. Are there any of your thoughts that remain unexpressed? If so, please post them. Understand this.....Nothing that anyone here can say will change your mind in the least (it certainly hasn't so far) and the only final answer to any of your concerns must come from Max and not be based on your interpretation of a 6 year old post that I seriously doubt he ever believed would turn into your own personal vision and mantra.

I think that others posting on the thread might be in agreement with me, but I would invite them to add, subtract, or completely disagree on anything I have said. Even though I am Big Bad Spaw, controller and dominator of this place and the baddest ass in the joint, I assure one and all they will suffer no repercussions nor wake up with the head of Mister Ed in the bed beside them. You might Roger, but they won't.

Point is this.....If we all understand each other and we have each made our feelings known, then I think the only thing left to do is await a word or two from Max. Is there any point in repeating the same things over and over? Really, is there?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:46 AM

So, if there was ever a need to choose between what is good for reader and what is good for writers, I favour the former.

I note the use of the word 'if'.... But is there now such a need?

If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion?

To my mind - any changes here to a contribution that are imposed by a fellow poster without the original poster's knowledge or permission - is censorship.

There may be rare occasions where such imposition can be justified - but is this 'indexing' really one of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

Well put, spaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:14 AM

Is there any point in repeating the same things over and over? Really, is there?
Not sure – perhaps you should repeat it – like you did the following?

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Spaw---still waiting

Whose advice to others in this thread – but which he can't appear to follow himself - includes QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!

Well put, spaw. Me too.

LOL *Smiles*

If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:21 AM

"The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought"
Unfortunately there seem to be some around here so prolix and prone to logorrhoea that seeking their consent would result in an exchange of PMs so prolific that it would bring the server to a standstill! Talk about being like a terrier with a sock...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:27 AM

If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion?

Anyone think that this is such a terrible suggestion - or too complicated - and would like to explain why?

Or is anyone brave enough to post publicly and accept that there is no reason why this suggestion should not be implemented and that it would in fact be a good idea?

Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for election clerks to be able to change your vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:49 AM

"Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for election clerks to be able to change your vote?" What? What absolute twaddle!
You can go off and post what you like somewhere else and then tell us where it is and we can go and read it in its uncensored entirety. If, that is, you're being censored.
Joe, however, states above that every word you have written is available somewhere on the Mudcat - all he has done is delete multiple posts and combine threads.
Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for people to be able to vote several times in the same election?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:55 AM

Steady on Gervase - you might 'bring the server to a standstill'. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM

Gervase is right - the comparison with election clerks altering votes is facetious, and can only be treated as a joke. And his suggestion about posting "censored" remarks somewhere else and then telling us opens the doors completely and invalidates the arguments about censorship, irrespective of which view we each hold. It kills the thread, and no 900 post need occur.

I hereby invite anyone who feels they have been unfairly censored in the past to act on Gervase's suggestion and "let us have it".

If no such actions take place in the next few days, this clearly and irrefutably is not, and has never been an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:25 AM

Come on George, only another 51 to go, and it would make Ted or Terry's day!