 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 01 May 05 - 08:23 AM (Sorry Roger, couldn't resist stealing that one from LF or Ted) In truth, if this forum mirrors the outside world, we need both self control and some (light) policing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 09:22 AM Possibly the 'light policing' is in fact now more of a problem that what it was set-up to deal with? Yes it is well-intentioned - but is it now possible to distinguish this from the original problem? 1 Do abusive personal attacks from our volunteers - protect posters from abusive personal attacks? 2 Does anonymous posting (and imposed editing) from our volunteers - protect posters from anonymous posting? 3 Does bullying by our volunteers - protect posters from being bullied? 4 Do threats from our volunteers - prevent posters from being threatened? As no one has any control over what others choose to post Is it not about accepting this and setting the example for others to follow? If the example set by our volunteers (and their supporters) is one of making abusive personal attacks – anonymous posting – bullying – and threatening and all this is excused and justified – is it any real surprise if things just get worse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 01 May 05 - 12:19 PM Have you discussed your concerns with Max? If so, did he respond? If not, why not? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 04:01 PM He may have said - OUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK? But whatever Max says - Joe now says tells us that we should not take anything that Max (the site owner) says - too seriously. Joe also tells us that our volunteers are now the most important priority on our forum - perhaps they are? But perhaps even if they are not - it is not wise for ordinary posters to openly question this? But your attempts to make rules for the volunteers are not appreciated. We are rational, responsible people; and we do not need your supervision. -Joe Offer- Unlike our volunteers - who appear to have a low opinion of ordinary posters - I know that the vast majority of Mudcatters are "rational, responsible people" (with a few notable exceptions). They don't need your newly imposed 'rules' or your supervision either. To be fair Joe why don't you take your 'rules' and your volunteers and go to Jon's site and leave the rest of us in peace? We may just survive perfectly well without you.............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: gnu Date: 01 May 05 - 04:33 PM OUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 03:40 AM This is sound advice - coming from a GNU? *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 02 May 05 - 03:45 AM Crossing a gnu with an aardvark - hmmmm, let's see. Something horny that can suck the ants off your pants? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 05 - 04:53 AM A song about the life of the gnu (or the wildebeast). Born on the run |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 03 May 05 - 05:12 AM Objection to Joe Offer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 03 May 05 - 12:33 PM Wolfgang ... It is a sad day on our forum when folk post and encourage others to shout these honestly held and moderately expressed views down or to gang-up and play elaborate and silly games to ridicule them. It is a sad day indeed on our forum - when this sort of treatment of the views of fellow posters is thought to be acceptable. (Shambles) Shambles, I agree mostly. My whole point was and is that you are the one engaged since ages in this game of ridiculing etc. I did the selective quoting, the juxtaposition of thoughts without any meaningful connection, and the repetition on purpose. You play the same game but sadly you seem to be serious about it. You write the best parodies of meaningful posts here, we can only add to that in a way not comparable to the original. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 05 - 01:12 PM Shambles, I agree mostly. My whole point was and is that you are the one engaged since ages in this game of ridiculing etc. I suppose I must answer? Yes Wolfgang - I am ganging-up with myself. Perhaps anyone reading this thread from the start will be better qualified than you or I - to judge the truth of your statement? Yes I am serious about the loss of basic freedoms on our forum - as I am about this happening elsewhere for no good reason. Unlike you - I am playing no games and I would question why you so keen to join in with games that you (mostly) agree with me - are sad? I will be happy just to be able to express and evidence my views - as best as I can - and to leave the final judgement of these views and suggestions to them? And to try and address any views made on the issue - rather than to concentrate on judging the worth of those who post them on a discussion forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 03 May 05 - 01:21 PM hey shambles! How many have chimed in on this or the other censorship threads agreeing with you? Now compare the number of comments that have disagreed with you. consider. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Date: 03 May 05 - 01:29 PM "Perhaps anyone reading this thread from the start" Shambles - You've GOT to be kidding ?? 911 posts of you going on and on about a NONISSUE and you expect anyone to read all of this from the beginning ? If you had used half of the time you've spent on this nonsense doing something constructive - like writing letters for Amnesty International { now thats a job for you } or making sandwiches for the needy at your local soup kitchen - do you know how productive you would have been ? But no - you're concerned about "censorship" on the Mudcat. One definition I've heard for insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over expecting different results. If thats true - could you be insane ? I'm worried about you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:05 AM Shambles - You've GOT to be kidding ?? 911 posts of you going on and on about a NONISSUE and you expect anyone to read all of this from the beginning ? Any poster that posts their opinion to this thread now - without reading the entire thread - will probably not be commentating in knowledge of all the evidence so perhaps the worth of any opinion expressed without this knowledge - is questionable? In truth - it will not take very long to read this thread - for perhaps less than half of the posts do actually address the evidence. The one's that don't - tend to be short. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 04 May 05 - 04:21 AM Hey, Roger, here's a challenge... Can you condense the evidence you have for unacceptable* censorship on the Mudcat into one 250-word post? That means cutting out all the equivocation and indignation and just putting the FACTS down. Instead of all the waffle and huffing and puffing, try to convince us. Then, if anyone agrees with your manifesto on censorship, they can say so here. If they don't, you must surely accept that it's a dead duck and go and lie down in a darkened room for a while before saddling up your next hobbyhorse (Amnesty would indeed be a worthwhile one). *And I mean unacceptable - arbitrary deletion of multiple posts of the same message, spam and porn links is surely acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 05:59 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:40 AM At this rate - you are looking well set for the 800th Ted. Perhaps a look back again at the evidence at this point would be a good thing - for the benifit of the more recent arrivals to judge. Without too much effort - there have been two imposed editing actions - that after being brought to light here - have been judged to have been wrong. 1. Flamenco Ted's claim for the 100th post which was deleted (from this thread) by a still anonymous volunteer - when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team was not even aware that any editing had taken place. This had to be changed back again. 2. And the change imposed by a still anonymous volunteer to the title of a B/s non-music related thread. This had to be re-re-named. Now you might still think all this does not amount to a bag of beans - (you may not feel like this - if the imposition had been made upon your contributions). Which were in no way abusive (unlike many other posts here - which have been safe from any editing action). But if bringing these mistakes to public attention is thought to be a fuss about nothing - then in my view - so must the initial imposition and all the factors that lead to this now routine 'tinkering' upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their knowledge or agreement? Is it really 'too complicated' to review and finally sort this out - to show equal respect to all contributions? Is not rather that the whole current system too complicated, secretive and divisive? There is clear evidence that it is not under any effective control and also that those who feel qualified to impose judgement upon their fellow posters do not wish to change anything. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM The evidence requested. Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bert Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it. -Joe Offer- [in brown] -------------------------------------------------------------------- It would appear that it far from covers it. Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain....... Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so. -Joe Offer- Here's Ted's (deleted) message: Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: flamenco ted - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM 200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again! ------------------------------------------------------------------ The title that the originator gave to the following B/S (non-music) thread was changed. I blame the Romans… It was thought important for some unknown reason - for some unknown but trusted volunteer to change the thread title to – I blame the Romans….(for Rabbits). Not sure that we can blame the Romans for this, or indeed the Greeks? As this concerns me - I will do my best to bring attention (in this thread) to the routine tinkering to contributions like this and any other form of imposed censorship action - but as these seem to be increasing - I will not see them all. Perhaps when you see evidence of these - you could bring attention to them in this thread? Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM Unless of course you would not feel safe in posting a view that could be thought in any way to be a criticism of the semi-official line of our current trusted volunteers and their supporters and also become the subject of their displeasure? If that is the case - then you can send the details to me in a PM and I will post it here to inform other posters of the reality of what our public discussion forum has sadly now become. For example....... Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- From the following thread. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819 Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important. The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 04 May 05 - 06:50 AM WAY more than 250 words there Roger. Bong! Try again. And think about the word 'unacceptable' The copy-paste stuff above is piffling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 05 - 02:31 PM Piffling = small and of little importance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 05 - 07:06 AM Some more interesting discussion on this subject - can be found on the following. Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu Imposed changed from 'Objection to …. …[named poster]. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 08 May 05 - 12:57 PM Oh, shut up, you boring t*it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 05 - 06:21 AM If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 10 May 05 - 07:09 PM shambles...they won't give in... just leave it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 10 May 05 - 11:46 PM This is turning into the Mother of all Censorship Threads. I won't be posting again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:06 AM The imposed closure of 3 threads is discussed in the following. Complaints vs mudslinging |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 11 May 05 - 06:15 PM One person on this thread seems to be inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity to the detriment of the site as a whole. I have sometimes had to eat dirt on the "Cat" as I have said things I should not have....may do well for one or two others to do the same! What a shambles!!!!!!! Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 12 May 05 - 01:26 PM The closure of the three Damien Barber threads should have been discussed here, rather than diverting the discussion of the issue in the Barber threads by turning it into another self-serving Shambles campaign. It would be nice if I could be able to admit that I wasn't completely happy with the outcome of the Barber fiasco, and it would be nice to have a calm, reasonable discussion of what should be done the next time. If I had to do it over, I would have re-titled the first thread to make it seem to be less of a direct attack on an individual, and then I might have left it at that - but hindsight is 20-20, they say... But no, discussion of things like that is not possible at Mudcat, because Shambles sees a campaign issue in every click of the "edit" button. I can't admit misjudgments, because Shambles saves my every word for future "ammunition." He doesn't really care about free expression or improving things around here - all he wants is to impose his will by bullying everyone with his smothering blanket of copy-paste babblings. He'll go on and on for weeks about the how unfair it is that certain titles get ten spaces and others get 14 (hint: if you use a preformatted tag like "lyr req," you don't lose those 8 spaces in the title box, so your title will be longer - and there are still two spaces for the editors to play with). He paints even the most innocuous editorial action as some sort of conspiracy. There ARE valid editorial issues that I'd like to discuss with the community in general, but any such discussion gets buried in the babblings and accusations and repetitions that Shambles dumps on us. I'd really like to answer valid questions, but Shambles has forced me into a corner where I can't answer any of them because he asks the same question in three different threads on the same day - and then raises the very same question in three more threads, three weeks later. That being the case, it's best for me to just keep my mouth shut, and just let Shambles babble on without my answering. But that means that people with reasonable questions don't get answers. The worst is that Shambles took his campaign from the Help Forum to the general forum, and now he thinks he's entitled to hijack other threads with his campaign. So, in his perverted campaign to promote his narrow vision of "freedom," Shambles makes all of us a bit less free. It's too bad, isn't it? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 12 May 05 - 01:36 PM yep |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 May 05 - 10:24 AM Yes - I have to admit - its all my fault. I am really sorry that I now appear to make life so difficult for our volunteers...... However none of us ordinary posters are perfect and as someone who felt qualified to do this - whilst imposing judgement upon their fellow posters - once said 'learn to live with it'. Someone also said: 'If you don't like the heat - why don't you get out of the kitchen'. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Re The Mudcat I asked the following question in the above thread. Not had an answer yet. Perhaps I will get one in this thread? Subject: RE: BS: Re the Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 19 May 05 - 03:16 AM Clinton...and all you cowardly assholes who won't USE your names...shut the fuck up and let 'em work on it, and be glad you can use the place MOST of the time! Perhaps it can be explained why the abusive personal attack and anti-social behaviour above from Bill D - is safe from censorship - when the following in the same thread is not? Subject: RE: BS: Re the Mudcat From: Martin Gibson - PM Date: 18 May 05 - 11:11 PM Ebbie, I believe you when you say you are slow. I also [bleep] (for antisocial behavior) believe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 19 May 05 - 10:31 AM *sigh* ALMOST seven days |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 May 05 - 10:34 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 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- Are they still - officially "fair game" for our anonymous volunteers? Or has something changed? If something has changed - perhaps this can be made clear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 19 May 05 - 10:40 AM Why? despite anything you may think neither Max nor any of the people HE has delegated the right to perform work on this site owe you any explanation for any action of theirs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 May 05 - 10:43 AM Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- From the following thread. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 19 May 05 - 10:47 AM yep |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 May 05 - 10:57 AM From: brucie When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Re the Mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 19 May 05 - 11:29 AM It's back from holidays, refreshed and reinvigorated. Civilisation is safe again. Excerpt from Cavafis' "Barbarians": "Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion? (How serious people's faces have become.) Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly, everyone going home lost in thought? Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come. And some of our men just in from the border say there are no barbarians any longer. Now what's going to happen to us without barbarians? They were, those people, a kind of solution. " Hai shiktir |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 19 May 05 - 03:43 PM shambles is bloody moan to mutch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 May 05 - 03:44 AM Another closed thread - despite some fine music being linked from it. Bobert v. Martin Gibson Pickers Duel.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 May 05 - 03:54 AM This one hasn't been closed (yet). Despite having no music links. Please close this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 May 05 - 04:18 AM I see this scum has risen to the top again! Can one die of terminal boredom? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 23 May 05 - 04:30 AM Another closed thread - despite some fine music being linked from it. Bobert v. Martin Gibson Pickers Duel.... The last post is: Subject: RE: BS: Bobert v. Martin Gibson Pickers Duel.... I try again Shambles (read the post and) ASK MAX |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 May 05 - 06:54 AM Perhaps it is a matter of who is asking - and who is being asked? And who is not being consulted at all? But why ask for a thread to be closed or deleted? If you don't open a thread and do not post to it - for you - the thread is is closed. Why deny other posters the opportunity to try and improve it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: JennyO Date: 23 May 05 - 06:57 AM I think terminal stupidity is more like it. my post on "Please close this thread" And it's not lost forever. It was only closed, not deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 May 05 - 07:18 AM There is a sound clip of some fine guitar picking by Justa Picker in an otherwise pejorative BS thread down below (Bobert/MG slugfest). I would like to see and hear more of this type of music posted up here in the Music Section. Justa Picker's sound clip |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 May 05 - 02:03 PM You may suspect from its title that the following thread The piano man is a music-related thread. However, perhaps partly due to not wishing to have our anonymous volunteers rush to impose their judgement and demote this thread to below the line - the originator used the B/S prefix. Is it possible for our anonymous volunteers to move this thread from the B/S section to join the other music-related threads? Or is this not possible? It seems to work quickly enough - the other way around?
Current policy is that if the originator of a thread designates it as BS: it is left as BS , or moved there if the tag wasn't set. This complies with volunteers not imposing their judgement on others. I would think you would be pleased joeclone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 May 05 - 03:11 PM There's no pleasing some people. G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 May 05 - 03:42 PM No - they just please themselves. Or did I mean "pleasure"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 May 05 - 07:47 PM Current policy is that if the originator of a thread designates it as BS: it is left as BS , or moved there if the tag wasn't set. This complies with volunteers not imposing their judgement on others. I would think you would be pleased joeclone So if an originator does not make the optional choice of a prefix - volunteers can rush to impose their judgement upon others - to send a thread to the B/S section without the originator's wishes. All for the common good But the current policy is that even when the originator later posts to say they were unsure and now wish the thread to be in the music section - our volunteers will ignore the originators wishes - this request and the fact that the thread is obviously in the wrong place? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 May 05 - 08:12 PM Shambles, you seem to forget that there are old threads marked BS: that don't have the tag set. Also (at least last time I looked) if someone, not realising, omited the prefix but gave the thread title as BS: it would not have the tag set. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 25 May 05 - 08:20 PM Congratulations! A NEW ISSUE!!! This one makes no fuckin' sense either but who cares? It's bullshit of the first magnitude all laid out to make perfect sense in Roger's World. Anyone who has ever watched this place for any period KNOWS that when a non-music thread is posted in the upper section, within 15 minutes someone has posted on the thread and also generally in the Help forum that they are incensed and that the thread isn't "Music" and should be moved. Invariably this happens well before Joe or a clone arrive. I've posted back on a few of these myself saying, "Relax and give them a chance!" Ask Uncle Dave-O. Add in Jon's point above plus the stretch you had to go to to even imagine this one as an issue and I figure you're worn to hell out! Put this one along with the others where the sun don't shine and go do something botanical or metallurgical or just mecahnical. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 May 05 - 08:25 PM The fact is that this thread is in the wrong place and the originator has requested that it be moved to the right place. It is a music-related thread subject yet our anonymous volunteers seem to think that they should ignore the originators request and seem to think that current policy means that this thread is destined to stay down in the B/S. If it was judged by them to be a B/S thread on the music related section - our anonymous volunteers would have rushed to move it - on the most flimsy of excuses and without the oginator's knowledge or consent. The loyal defence of this 'jobsworth attitude' is simply making our forum look even more silly by the day.
I looked at the thread when it started and decided it was a human-interest thing that could be considered either music or non-music - so I left it where it was. I just checked the thread now, and there still is very little music information in it. So, no, it won't be moved, even if somebody asks me to move it. -Joe Offer- |
