 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:37 PM Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened? From: Big Mick - PM Date: 19 Sep 04 - 10:31 PM Why do you feed this creature?? I just read the whole thing and find 99% of it just fodder for this poor guy to continue to feel relevant with his waffle twaffle approach. I am going to suggest that all of us shun this and all of his posts, with two exceptions. I would suggest that only Sir john9 and Catspaw answer him from here on out. Let's give it try, eh? This ought to be fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM I agree, Roger. I think that your hauling out this old post is your subconscious way of acknowledging I am right. Why don't you just try contributing like you did in the old days. You had some relevance then. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:03 AM I do always try to contribute as positively as I can. But as everyone can see from this latest personal attack by you upon me - made just after my plea for a better example to be set - my 'relevance' - mental capacity and just about every other part of my personality are judged on the basis only what I post. By you and your other nameless and numberless volunteer 'posse' members - who directly and by setting such a poor public example from this special postion of responsibility - are encouraging other posters to judge others in the same needless fashion and to post personal attacks also. Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:15 AM Another 'editorial comment' made in this thread (and not refreshing this thread) when there was no editorial action taken. The thread where I spoke of contentiousness wasn't particularly contentious. I was speaking of other threads. -Joe Offer- The thread referred to as 'wasn't particulaly contentious' - was still subject to two 'editorial' contributions to this thread - neither of these contributions - refreshed it. Why? As it it was not judged as a 'contentious' thread - why not set a good example and contribute to it in the conventional that is open to everyone else and refresh the thread. Or ignore the thread - if you did not wish to refresh it?
You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:59 AM The facts are all here - it is up to those reading this to judge. In the use of these so-called 'editorial' comments - all that is being politely requested (and ignored) - is they are always confined to accompany some 'editorial action'. Where there is no such action imposed upon us in the thread - any contribution (or judgement on the worth of the thread))that any volunteer wishes to make - can then be made under the same conditions as everyone else. By either refreshing the thread or not doing - so by ignoring the thread. In both these cases - the volunteer in question had chosen - earlier made a contribution in the conventional manner and as a result had already refreshed the thread once. Clever reasons and justification have already been given and can probably continue to be made for the defence of this double standard. It would be nice if they were not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:42 AM There, now, Roger, don't get your hinder in a binder. Try to think back on what it was I said about my reasons for posting editorial answers within the message that asks the question. Avoiding refreshing a contentious thread was a secondary reason, an advantageous side-effect. Can you think of the major reason I gave? You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown. -Joe Offer- It matters little what colour these 'editorial comments' come in. My request - that has been ignored in order to present yet more 'spin' - is that in order to set a good example to others - this practive be confined to only when some editorial action has in fact taken place. For the other advantage of this privilige given to our anonymous volunteers and in my opinion abused by them - is that having placed their so -called 'editorial' comment - if they are later not satisfied with it - they can come back and change or add to it (as was done above). Again without refreshing a thread that (in this case) was already posted to and refreshed in the conventional way. The rest of us ordinary mortals would have to either simply accept what we had originally posted or have to post again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:20 AM I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. Our preferences may be thought by some to be completely perfectly valid - but sadly our preferences are not completely equal. As your preferences are not open to the rest of us. Like many other posters - I prefer NOT to make abusive personal attacks on others and prefer not to incite others others to do this. Unlike our volunteers who do prefer to do this and will use any 'spin' to later justify these attacks - no matter how hypocritical that setting this poor example appears to the forum. Setting a good example by never indulging in this practice - no matter what the provocation - is a preference that would hope that should 'hold sway' if the entire purpose of all this imposed volunteer judgement was really as stated. And was not - as I suspect that it now is - (well-intentioned) people who simply do what they prefer to do (in other words - as they like) and will defend and justify all of their imposed judgement of others - by the use of clever-sounding but hollow 'spin'. As I said - I do not expect our volunteers to volunteer to stop or to volunteer to set a better example. But the facts are all here for all posters to judge them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:09 PM Is a benign dictatorship a reality Can closed threads be re-opened |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:39 PM You're drooling all over yourself again shambles... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:47 AM why is it that GUESTS are never censo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:59 AM the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 16 Feb 05 - 01:11 PM Ah, but that's PLUS I am sure |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:59 PM the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible. What I demonstrate is that the reality of all this (probably well-intentioned) censorship - is not the same as the 'spin' and justification that is given by those volunteers who mainly wish to continue to impose their reactive judgement upon others. I suggest that this form of imposed censorship is just creating another unecessary problem, setting the wrong example, creating more division and making little difference to the problem it is supposed to be addressing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM Deleted post |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:02 PM I can't be arsed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM Personally, i don't think we should need censorship...we're adults, right? We should be able to know what is likely to cause trouble, and not post it. And when someone does it deliberately, we should be able to ignore it and deprive them of the attention they're looking for...but hey... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:43 AM http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2645&messages=94 To save going over it all again - you will find most of the detailed argument in the above thread. Questions that I had to ask many times in this thread - were eventually answered by Joe Offer. Please explain to me why it not possible, polite or desirable to obtain the originator's permission before making any changes to thread titles? Why is imposition thought now to be the first, best and only option? As for your question that you have repeated ad nauseam, my answer is that I do not believe it is necessary to expend so much time and effort on a simple editorial action. If the thread or message originator wishes to object or to discuss an editorial action with me, they are free to do so. Like many such answers to many similar questions on this subject – the answer can probably be summed-up as 'because that is what I (or sometimes 'we') choose to do' - live with it...... All I can do is to try and ensure that contributors are aware of the reality of what is happening to our forum - under the 'spin' and leave it for you to judge if this is really the right direction. Now I always had thought that what a thread was titled was a matter for the originator. I also thought that using a prefix or not – was an option for the originator. This is not the case – Joe Offer tells us that these are for our anonymous volunteers to change at will – and without first obtaining permission from the originator. Song Challenge; Camilla and Charlie were lovers The Song Challenge bit - was added anonymously – without first asking if I minded this change. I do mind this imposed change - because it was a thread parody song – with the intention of folk being invited to add to and finish this song. A song challenge is for different songs on the same subject. I asked (in this thread) if this could be changed back. The choice that Joe Offer now presents me with is to leave it as it is - or for him to remove the Song Challenge bit – and this will then result in this musical contribution being placed with the BS…………….. Not perhaps the biggest single issue facing the world - but perhaps worth bringing attention to and sensibly debating in this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:49 AM The events surrounding this thread may be of interest too? Sing Song Banned |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:59 AM My recent Accordion thread got stuffed around with too - changing it from a nonsense thread to a BS thread - instead of putting the 'serious' posts into the previous sensible thread... sigh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:07 AM The horrors of Darfur This thread - (perhaps one that should be brought to everyone's attention) did escape (for a while) with a FOLKLORE prefix - before being confined 'below decks'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Feb 05 - 02:51 PM You know, Shambles, you're absolutely correct. Things could be done differently. Sometimes, though, choices are made that are not your choices. Such are the vicissitudes of life. The editorial actions you question were performed for good, honest reasons. These actions may not fit your criteria, even though your criteria may be perfectly valid and commendable - but what else is new? Thread titles are changed to make the Forum Index more understandable and to make threads easier to find. Threads are given titles that will help people decide whether to open or not to open a thread. If we change a thread title, we usually try to do it by adding a word or a tag, leaving the original title mostly intact - we do this out of respect for the intentions of the person who originated the thread, but also with the intention of making the Forum Menu a more useful index. While we respect the intent of the thread originator, a thread is a community creation and not subject to the control of the originator. Let's take an example. Somebody started a thread the other day and titled it Phil Ochs. There are several other threads with the same title, and we've included them all in our Phil Ochs crosslinks. The thread originator wanted to know if anyone had seen Ochs perform live - so I changed the title to "Phil Ochs - ever see him perform?." Doesn't that make sense - to differentiate this thread from all the others with the same title? The Horrors of Dafur thread started with a "Folklore" tag, but it was not related to folklore in any way and it did not belong in the music part of the Forum because it had no music information in it. It's understandable that the originator wouldn't want to put a "BS" label on a thread about a tragedy. The originator could have left the tag blank, but it's no big deal either way. In situations like that, we just remove the improper tag and move the thread to the non-music section - without the "BS" tag. We do the same with non-music obituaries - move them to the non-music side without adding a BS tag. These are common-sense things done to make Mudcat easier to navigate. Changing a thread title is not an earth-shaking decision, and there's no need to discuss every such action. If we stopped to discuss each thread title change we make, we'd never get anything done. Usually, we use common sense, and nobody objects. Note also that when we change thread titles, we ordinarily leave the message title of the original message unchanged - another attempt to honor the intention of the thread originator (we do occasionally change message titles for indexing purposes, particularly when messages contain lyrics or other music information that needs to be indexed). Non-music threads go to the bottom half of the Forum Menu because they are not related to music - not because they are "bad" threads. Sometimes, a thread will be moved from top to bottom or vice-versa as the thread develops in one direction or another. It may start out as a chit-chat thread and end up loaded with songs. I suppose one could argue that some people don't notice threads in the bottom half of the Forum, and so "important" threads should be kept up top. One could also argue that if we keep "important" non-music threads on the bottom, maybe people will learn to take a look there on occasion. Many of the editorial decisions made here are arbitrary - but most of the decisions we make in life are arbitrary, aren't they? We make choices, and life goes on. We could choose other things, and life would still go on. Or, we could stop and debate every step we take until we all come to agreement - and life would come to a standstill. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:24 PM Roger - I would never dispute your sincerity, but I would always rather have Joe moderating events than you. Joe is pushed in when people may be stepping on toes. You step on toes when no-one ever pushed you in. Go figure.... Nothing personal. I look forward to buying you a pint some time. But... Joe & the clones let the board breathe. I'm not saying you'd asphyxiate it, but despite your talk of freedom, I suspect you'd struggle to resist the temptation to strangle it... Regards, Rædwulf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:39 PM Yeah, well since there was a previous Accordion 'serious' thread - I started a 'silly' one for some fun, but it turned into a serious one - my frustration is not with the editors, but all the posters who didn't read closely or think on the right wavelength.... this place does have a life of it's own.... which is why I keep coming back. Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Pauline L Date: 24 Feb 05 - 09:15 PM I hang out at another forum that uses a Moderator system. People who post frequently are sometimes given three points to award that day. The points are "recommend" or remove." "recommend" and "remove" points are shown on the screen. Most people use their "removes" to target personal insults, which most of us don't like and don't want on our website. When a post gets a certain number of "removes," that post is deleted, but the thread remains. The method works pretty well. The group is much smaller than Mudcat, and that contributes to the success of this method. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:34 AM Shambles, I far prefer your previous, positive attitude on this forum, as exemplified by your post to the first thread I ever started on the Mudcat, nearly 5 years ago. You seem pretty exclusively negative these days, which gets very wearing for even the most tolerant people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 25 Feb 05 - 07:34 AM Sadly we ALL (at some time will) have to accept that we have no control over the postings of others. Noreen I prefer Joe's positive side and I try to keep my postings as positive as I feel his less than positive control over every aspect of the current set-up will permit. Why IS imposition thought now to be be the first, best and only option? Is it really so very necessary that the thread song that I started - should have to have the title that Joe Offer imposed upon it - or else be confined to the BS? Is this really positive? Or is it something else? I will leave you to judge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Feb 05 - 09:08 AM It's something else Rambles... Joe is in a position of authority here - a position Max has kept him in for years - the only reason I can assume for that is that Max believes Joe does his job well ... but come on... "control over every aspect of the current set-up". Your lines of reasoning are insane, This time I will try to ask you to explain to me how come Joe has authority above Max? The only logic I can see in your arguments remains that Max is either in control or out of control at your convenience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:44 PM Changing a thread title is not an earth-shaking decision, and there's no need to discuss every such action. If we stopped to discuss each thread title change we make, we'd never get anything done. Usually, we use common sense, and nobody objects. If changing a thread title is not considered (by our volunteers) to be 'earth-shaking' – then by the same token - leaving it as the invited contributor intended - will not shake the earth either. For at this point, the imposed change may well be considered to 'earth-shaking' by the contributor and a little prior discussion may not go amiss – as this is still a discussion forum. Some may consider this to be common sense and more in keeping with the spirit of our forum. I am not sure what other things are needed to get done – but I do feel that whatever is done - should always take enough time be done properly. As in cases like these there is no earth-shaking hurry – is there? So there is no real reason why the originator cannot be first consulted about any proposed action. As in this case – when somebody does object to the anonymous imposed judgement and action – perhaps they should not then, just be presented with more – take-it-or leave-it - options? For this was a positive musical contribution – why should there ever be any question of it being sent to the non-music section? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fu#kin' Censor THIS! From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:46 PM What a friggin' drag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:50 PM What load of blather |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:55 PM I want Clinton Hammond censored! He is insensitive and has strong opinions that are crap. He also had a hit done on a skunk once. He is deeply evil. His remarks should be censored, so as to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people and animals... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM "to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people" Falicy... no such being... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:13 PM That's "fallacy", Roscoe... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:16 PM Yer right it is... I blame my state of under-caffeine-'dness... :-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:19 PM Which reminds me...I need to log off and get some lunch. Thanks, Clinton! Shambles...? Carry on without us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 25 Feb 05 - 02:56 PM He usually does, & never notices that he's the only one talking or listening... :-/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM I'd imagine it's pretty difficult to pay attention to the rest of the world, with ones head so far up ones own ass... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:00 PM LOL! I love you deep down, Clinton... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM I don't care, I'm not GOING deep down! :-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:05 AM You two wanna be alone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:09 AM THIS heralds censorship. THIS ain't what happens here, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:11 AM ... so you provide a link to it... Very good, brucie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM Thank you, GUEST. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: RichM Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:40 AM Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:12 AM Looks like an old Scandinavian 'magic' symbol to me, brucie... And a Far East 'magic' symbol... That it was at one time co-opted by the insane should not be held against the symbol... Context is all I don't see what it has to do with the thread though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM People who complain about censorship have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis. That was censorship. Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship is absurd, IMO. That's what it has to do with the thread, Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:51 PM " Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship" I guess it's just a matter of degrees brucie... If my neighbour builds a fence that's a foot over my side of the property line, should I not complain, because in the past white people stole the whole continent from the natives? hardly... "have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis" And unless you were there, neither do you... "absurd" Absolutely... THERE we agree 100%! LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM 19 posts in a row on this thread and none of them from Shambles moaning about how Joe Offer pooped his party. That must be a record! Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:19 PM Clinton, The stuff that gets 'pruned' here deserves it. Many moons ago someone posted to say that he/she (it was a GUEST) would like to kill an elected official who is in Washington. It was one of thos posts where stuff got outta control. That was a breach of Federal law in the USA. I said so within a few posts. The GUEST post was deleted. Good call on someone's part. My ex-father-in-law was a guest of the Third Reich in one of the camps. His wife was in Belgium during WWII, and I listened to both of them when they talked about it. So, in a manner you are right. I, personally, don't know. However, I personally DO know--if you know what I mean, and even if you don't. The fence analogy: there are laws to handle the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:23 PM I seem to have censored my Name !! |
