 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why closed threads?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Why closed threads? From: John P Date: 05 Apr 12 - 07:21 PM I've just seen yet another thread get closed. Would it be possible to explain to us why this happens? If it is because of obnoxious people, is it possible to have a way to exclude specific people from threads so the rest of us can keep talking? With no explanations offered it feels like censorship that's pointed at a group instead of the individuals who are causing problems. Can Max or an elf communicate with the membership about why and how the decision gets made? Can we, as a group that includes both members and the Mudcat powers-that-be, have a conversation about what to do about trolls and bullies? Anonymous and unexplained deletion of posts and closing of threads isn't sitting very well, and I say that as someone who thinks Mudcat would benefit from having more official moderation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Hookey Wole Date: 05 Apr 12 - 10:04 PM "Imagine a small remote country town where the the founding mayor owns all the real estate, dictates all the laws; and appoints powerful unelected officials who secretly monitor and police the communications and behaviour of all long term residents and visiting strangers.... In this community, it is not unknown for citizens to experience their phone lines being suddenly and mysteriously cut off mid conversation for unknown unaccountable reasons. Mail and newspapers regularly arrive with random lines and paragraphs erased and inked out. From time to time folk notice that one of their more troublesome and unpopular neighbours, who frequently came to the attention of town authorities, has quietly dissapeared, never to be seen or heard of again. Most of the population are content with their lot. For them this town is a haven of good neighbourliness and happy clapping singing and dancing. Why would they ever even consider questioning the rules and values of their caring and benevolent Mayor and controlling officials ? Be a good citizen and prosper. Unacceptable trouble makers and misfits will not. Welcome to Mudcat...." I think I've seen a modern gothic horror movie just like this, It did not end well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: gnu Date: 05 Apr 12 - 10:24 PM You gotta be shittin me. You've been here for 12 years and you don't know the rule yet? One rule. Simple. No personal attacks. And, if you don't like that ONE rule, take it up with Max. Of course, if you feel that was not the rule you broke, take it up with Max. The mods are not gonna discuss this shit with you publically... nor SHOULD they. You, nor anybody else, have NO say in how this site is moderated or run in any way. Only the owner does. You are allowed to post here by the owner. Pay him some respect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bill D Date: 05 Apr 12 - 10:27 PM "With no explanations offered ..." I've seen what happens when 'management' tries to explain every decision. The forum then becomes a debate over the rationale FOR the decisions. It has happened right here in years past. If it were a matter of a democratic debate before a vote, it would make sense... but this forum is a privately run place. It IS very free & open on most issues, but when rampant bickering and name calling take over a discussion and the original topic is drowned in seas of irrelevant personal diatribes and accusations, there is often little choice.... like your parents saying, "If you kids don't settle down in the back seat, we are going HOME...not to the beach!" My father didn't even say anything... he just turned around and drove home. That probably won't satisfy those who 'think' total freedom of speech is a good idea...but some of us remember how tedious it was when 'they' tried to wait out the nastiness..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bill D Date: 05 Apr 12 - 10:28 PM ..and gnu said it faster & simpler than I |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: John P Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:01 AM None of which actually answers the question of why closed threads instead of banished trolls. I essentially agree that the people who make the site get to decide how it's run, but I also think that anyone who sets out to create a community has some responsibility to that community. gnu, why the strongly negative response to me asking some questions? Why made you think I am being disrespectful of the owner of this site? If the only rule is no personal attacks, why isn't it followed more uniformly? I've left here twice for extended periods because I got sick of trying to have conversations with people that behave boorishly. Remember, I would like to see more active moderation here. I really DON'T think that anything goes on an internet forum or anywhere else. I'd be willing to pay money to be on a site like this so we could pay people to shut up the bullies and trolls. Well, I know that a paid Mudcat wouldn't be the same thing at all, but a more polite and respectful Mudcat would be great. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:38 AM Well, John, The trolls just come back as somebody else, so banishing doesn't work at all. Usually, if it's just one person causing the problem, the moderators will try to control that person. But when it's a general conflagration, it's worthless to try to sort things out and decide who's right and who's wrong. Better to close the thread and let people make a new start. But yeah, when a thread gets out of hand, the best thing to do is just close it, without explanation. It's fairly obvious to most people what the problem was. And if you're "trying to have conversations with people that behave boorishly," you're in the wrong - you're feeding trolls. You're better off not conversing with them at all. You're not going to change them. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you do it privately. -Joe, no longer involved in "disciplinary" moderation, and happily so- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Musket Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:08 AM Ah, separated b y a common language. Methinks some (Max for one) on the other side of the pond mistake British taking the piss for real aggression sometimes. Each and every time I am in the pub with mates, winding each other up and having a laugh, we would be called trolls by some on this forum if you transcribed the words. Whilst there are people who seek to destroy debate for argument's sake and love the power they perceive in spoiling others' day for them, banter and love of outrage can be part of the tapestry, as our burned out hippy friends would say. Lighten up, because every time someone accuses someone else of being a troll, it is usually because they plain disagree. Troll [noun] An excuse to police and belittle others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:14 AM Ah John, you mistake this site for a democracy. Bear in mind it's run from a country where money takes the place of political acumen. So the usual rules don't apply. It sometimes seems that those who were here first have more rights than the latecomers, especially when the latecomer isn't American. However, being there first didn't work for the Native Americans did it? So there's hope for you yet ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:24 AM It reminds me of a school playground, if the ball owner doesn't make the team, he takes his ball and goes home. No ball, no game. No opposing opinions, no debate. Max is a sound guy, laid back and easy going, I was in contact with him through email some time back regarding an issue with the site, he was unaware of the extent of the number of posts that were being deleted. Sometimes putting power in the hands of certain little people makes a mockery of democracy and freedom of speech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: John P Date: 06 Apr 12 - 07:18 AM I have not suggested this site is or should be a democracy. That would be a god-awful mess. I was suggesting a conversation. Joe, I must have expressed myself poorly. I was talking about being in a conversation that has been invaded by trolls, not having a conversation with trolls. And sometimes they don't make themselves obvious until one is already engaged in the conversation. I know I engage with more often than I should, but sometimes it becomes difficult to have the conversation around them. I generally don't like "talk about this privately" solutions to public problems, but if that's the way it is, I'll shut up and deal with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 12 - 07:23 AM Gnu, When there ARE attacks, and the elves allow attacks BY those they agree with, and delete any response or defense, AND any discussion of those deletions, by those they disagree with, the fairness of the deletions is called into question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Newport Boy Date: 06 Apr 12 - 07:47 AM Mudcat is not a democracy, and "freedom of speech" should mean freedom to express an opinion on a topic, not freedom to abuse others. I like it the way it is, and I deal with the problems using my own rules: 1. If anyone abuses me, I don't reply. If the same person does it more than once, I no longer read their posts. 2. If a thread descends into abuse, I no longer open it. 3. I rarely post on religious or political topics - both are likely to generate more heat than light. (I have strong opinions on both subjects, but I can argue politics elsewhere, and religion is not arguable.) Phil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Rapparee Date: 06 Apr 12 - 08:17 AM With freedom comes responsibility. It's the flip side of the coin. The solution is simple: have everyone act responsibly. Good luck with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Apr 12 - 08:25 AM I see both wilful blindness and material that should not be here on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Apr 12 - 09:05 AM Don't wory Richard, it will soon be closed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 12 - 09:11 AM " But yeah, when a thread gets out of hand, the best thing to do is just close it, without explanation. It's fairly obvious to most people what the problem was." Joe, here is the ENTIRE thread that I posted and saw REMOVED, not just closed. "Subject: BS: Moderator supports attacks on minorities From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:00 AM The Mod. has been deleting postings when minority opinion members try to defend themselves from attacks. This has been repeated, and is UNFAIR. The original attacks are left posted, WITH NO INDICATION that they have been replied to. IF WE CANNOT DEFEND OURSELVES against such attacks, we should just shut down the entire site." This was after a number of posts of mine defending myself against Greg F postings had been removed , WHILE THE ORIGINAL ATTACKS ON ME WERE LEFT IN. If we cannot defend ourselves against lies and attacks, and cannot even let others know we have been removed, what i the point of pretending Mudcat is capable of having a discussion? Why not just let the Mods tell us what opinions to have, to be "acceptable" ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Apr 12 - 10:32 AM The rule about no personal attacks is often ignored. The rule that certain political parties must never be mentioned is always applied. I am not complaining about it. Just pointing out what happens in reality. I also agree that the treads should just be closed when they become too difficult to moderate. My 2-penn'urth. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Hookey Wole Date: 06 Apr 12 - 10:51 AM Max is a benevolent dictator, Mudcat is not a democracy. Fact; end of.... Mudcat life goes on business as usual; behave well and cross oceanic and cultural friendships grow and flourish. Fair enough, we're all mostly adult enough to accept these fundamental ground rules and conditions. But there always remains one main issue stemming from this benign totalitarian status quo, that results in occasional member discontent and public protest. That is the secretive anonymous nature of the 'mod/clone' close-ranks inner elite club. There have been too many instances of deletions by occasional apparently 'rogue' mods that seem to members to be unfair, arbitrary, biased, patronising, and downright arrogant & provocative. We may not have any right to know the identity and 'behind closed doors' methods and reasons of mod behaviour and internal disciplinary procedures; but we do need reassurance that any appointed mods are not to be tolerated abusing their privileged positions & power. to the extent that they would have been well suited thriving as corrupt Stasi Cheifs. It is this that seriously annoys and inflames, and often causes 'difficult' but acceptable within reason threads to spiral angrily out of control. Bad mods spoil the system and undermine our confidence in all the other decent hard working 'firm but fair' mods we respect for maintaining Mudcat as a forum of first choice for many hundreds of regular visitors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bill D Date: 06 Apr 12 - 11:07 AM Bear in mind that 'personal attacks' are like rain.... there are light sprinkles where no one bothers to even open an umbrella or go under shelter, and some people continue about their business with equinimity, even when it gets pretty damp. Others cannot stand the idea of a few drops. The whole process is a continuum.... there is no simple & obvious line/place where 'bantering' and reasonable disagreement become contentious arguing with insults and major personal attacks... but we all know when it has become such. Some cannot seem to express difference of opinion without their hackles rising and becoming *personally* offended...and offensive. This place has many different personalities and opinions about not only what 'facts' and 'truth' are, but about what is fair in offering those opinions. When threads that become more heat than light are allowed to continue, those --on either side-- who refuse to 'cool it' or back down soon decide "anything goes". WE HAVE BEEN THERE! It was not nice...or fun. I, personally, would like to have the freedom to debate serious topics... it helps ME organize my thoughts. Many of you know I am not shy about expressing reasoned opinions on many topics... but if you look back for 10-12 years, you are unlikely to find me calling anyone stupid or hateful ....or being called such! I know personally a number of people with whom I disagree on some issues... and I try to keep the online debate to a level that would not prevent me from being uncomfortable meeting those people at a party. I don't know what else to say to those who want **the threads left open and no deletions**, but who cannot debate in a manner that makes this possible. "Know Thyself" Socrates |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bert Date: 06 Apr 12 - 11:29 AM Joe, you say, ...Usually, if it's just one person causing the problem, the moderators will try to control that person... Unfortunately, when posts are deleted without explanation, then it becomes impossible for members to tell whether or not it is the Moderator who is causing the problem. It also makes it impossible to follow the thread when somebody responds to a post which is later deleted. You also say, ...It's fairly obvious to most people what the problem was... How can it be obvious to anyone, if the post was deleted and we don't even know that the post was there in the first place. I know that the place is not a democracy and that what Max says, goes; but it is a discussion forum after all, and we should be free to be able to discuss things and state our opinions, without arbitrary deletions.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bill D Date: 06 Apr 12 - 11:38 AM Bert... reading your points tells me exactly why threads ARE closed. I can't see how we can (or dare) make public certain things. "...it becomes impossible for members to tell whether or not it is the Moderator who is causing the problem." Do you really want THAT to become part OF the discussion? "It also makes it impossible to follow the thread when somebody responds to a post which is later deleted." Yep.. exactly... and thus, threads get closed when it isn't worth the trouble of 'explaining' what was in deletions.....and then arbitrating all the contentious complains as to why "my post was censored and not his" Joe used to do a valiant job of TRYING to sort things out, and I wondered at how he stayed sane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Megan L Date: 06 Apr 12 - 11:40 AM Of course if they did away with the BS section it would half the problem |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bert Date: 06 Apr 12 - 11:55 AM All it needs in most cases Bill is for a short note "message deleted because of a personal attack" But when (as beardedbruce says) some personal attacks are left in and responses to them are deleted, it seems that some moderator or other may be getting out of line. This reflects on the integrity of all moderators. I little bit of openness and honesty would go a long way to resolving these problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:12 PM I know my views on certain subjects seem to attract flack from the narrow minded. Still it is an opinion, and I feel a valued one at that. If someone posts against my comment, all well and good, that is their provocative, they are fully entitled to their opinion, if a moderator removes it, I feel they are denying members the opportunity of response or debate. Calling people trolls is childish, if you disagree with a post, respond in a positive sense, don't stamp your and run crying to mother mod. I admire and respect many members here, if I caused offense, please accept apologies here and now. Go enjoy your Easter weekend Keith |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bert Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:15 PM Megan, ...Of course if they did away with the BS section it would half the problem... It would also do away with the better half of the Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:15 PM Sorry about the spelling error "provocative" sounds funny but wasn't meant to be. Keith |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:20 PM I appreciate that apology and if I have not offended you Blues, I must try harder........... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:27 PM Nice one Spaw, lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:37 PM "religion is not arguable" Now that is an assertion that invites argument... We should value the way the Mudcat manages to steer its way between thre prevalant faults of most web forums I've come across - those being the ones that are so frightened of censorship that they turn rancid and the ones that are so frightened of chaos tat they freeze out any kind of real discussion. It's possible here to have genuine discussions about serious matters on which there is real disagreement. That's pretty rare on the Internet, or indeed off it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Apr 12 - 01:12 PM Newport Boy/Phil's remarks are so sound, they bear repeating: Mudcat is not a democracy, and "freedom of speech" should mean freedom to express an opinion on a topic, not freedom to abuse others. I like it the way it is, and I deal with the problems using my own rules: 1. If anyone abuses me, I don't reply. If the same person does it more than once, I no longer read their posts. 2. If a thread descends into abuse, I no longer open it. 3. I rarely post on religious or political topics - both are likely to generate more heat than light. (I have strong opinions on both subjects, but I can argue politics elsewhere, and religion is not arguable.) There are some threads that when started (or strongly inhabited) by people who habitually fly off the handle or stalk others, I simply don't participate. I've noticed that some of the worst have burned out or moved on. Naming names might resurrect their interest or presence, so I won't do that, but the initials "MG" come to mind. . . SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Apr 12 - 02:35 PM there certainly appears to be a lot of childish abuse on some threads and i just dont bother to respond anymore to such individuals [usually!].often this is from people who are otherwise very intelligent. some disagree agreeably and its nice to debate and offer opinions each to other in such respectful manner pete.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Crowhugger Date: 06 Apr 12 - 02:37 PM From time to time some of us mistake Mudcat for a cross between a democracy and a miracle. Then we learn, or are reminded, that it's simply Mudcat and that we don't get to make the rules. For some of us apparently that truly stings, and it has left some in denial, some angry and others wanting to bargain. I hope none of us have bothered with the depression stage and that all who wish to do so will move easily and quickly to acceptance. According to Wikipedia one is not required to go through all 5 stages. Since I'm not in least motivated to fight a losing battle for something I don't need, I'm choosing to jump right now straight into acceptance. That'll free up some time & energy to go make music, maybe learn a couple of new songs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Crowhugger Date: 06 Apr 12 - 02:39 PM Oh my, I could proof read a little better couldn't I? "...something I don't need..." = a say in Mudcat rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Apr 12 - 02:55 PM I remember Mudcat mods getting their knickers in a twist about a certain poster. There was a general note went round the mods, to delete all posts by that person. Then not long afterwards there was another one to say, "DO NOT TOUCH ANY POSTS BY ******, AS THEY ARE NOW BEING DEALT WITH BY ONE NOMINATED MOD". I was one of those who found this poster a PITA. Then I looked at, and read their posts, and I found them to be witty, and cogent, and since then I have stood up for said poster, in fact I am a fan: now. That was in the days when I was a mod, but sadly I didn't toe the line in that position, so I was ousted, by someone with more clout than me who said, in effect "It's either him or me" In retrospect, he may have done me a favour, because I no longer get PM's asking me to delete, or alter posts, made in error, or in anger, and later regretted. I only closed/deleted one thread, which was in such bad taste, that I would do it again, in similar circumstances. I agree with the sentiment that deleted posts should have a note inserted in their place, saying why it has been removed. I also think that a mod when responding to a Mudcatter's plea to remove an offensive post, would read all the posts before it, and after, and delete them too, if they provoked, or added to,the offending post |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 06 Apr 12 - 03:02 PM I am glad to see the word "democracy" coming up in many of the posts above. If something isn't a democracy, then what is it ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Apr 12 - 03:11 PM Post by Ian Mather- British taking a piss- Should be prosecuted for indecency in a public forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Don Firth Date: 06 Apr 12 - 03:21 PM Bluesman, Max owns this site. And it, like my living room, is not a democracy. If I invite—or allow—people to come into my living room, I rightly expect them to act in a civilized manner. If they don't, I reserve the right to ask them to leave, or if they don't leave when told to do so, to boot them off the front porch. There is nothing wrong with lively debate. In fact, it can be highly educational IF one keeps one's brain in gear and actually considers the points that one's "adversary" is trying to make before simply dismissing what they're saying. The problem comes when some folks' stomachs get all knotted up if they don't get instant agreement (or surrender) and indulge in name-calling and personal abuse—which often includes deliberately misstating and mischaracterizing the other's position, then uses this mischaracterization to attack them and their position ("Straw-man fallacy"). This is practically guaranteed to make the other person angry—which, I'm quite sure, is the whole point of doing it. There are a couple of people here who do that a lot. And then there are a few people here—usually unregistered and posting as GUEST,(whatever)—whose primary interest seems to be in being as obnoxious and insulting as they possibly can. As long as they are sitting safely in isolation behind their computer keyboards--and their anonymity—they seem to feel free to say things that, were they to say the same things to someone in the 3-D world, might very well result in their spitting out teeth. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:08 PM When you can reasonably expect anybody in this world arriving in your living room, then your argument holds water. Otherwise the comparison is invalid Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Paul Burke Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:12 PM Exactly right Don... almost- Mudcat is not quite a living room, more a good, well run pub. Quite often people are intoxicated, creatively often, sad drunks or sometimes even nasty drunks at other times. Things are sometimes said which should not be, and the landlord is quite correct to object, and send a barman, waiter, curate or whatever to warn the offender. And to ask them to leave if too obnoxious. The wise customer accepts the rebuke, shuts up and drinks up quietly. And when tempers have calmed, realises that the pub is a place of good cheer, witty conversation, and fair exchange between diverse minds. And rejoins the banter without bile, or decides he's had enough and goes home to sleep it off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:32 PM Don, if you or Max left your front door open with a sign above it, welcoming anyone in, it should come as no shock if one or two visitors express a different opinion to their host (s). As I said earlier in the thread, Max is actually fine with the content of debate here, he expressed surprise at the number of deletions in the thread we discussed. Being asked to leave the living room of your or Max's home is one thing if the debate get heated, getting kicked in the balls when the lights go off by moderators is something else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: gnu Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:40 PM Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From:beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 12 - 07:23 AM Gnu, When there ARE attacks, and the elves allow attacks BY those they agree with, and delete any response or defense, AND any discussion of those deletions, by those they disagree with, the fairness of the deletions is called into question. ******************************************************** TAKE IT UP WITH MAX. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE AD-FUCKING-VISED? Stop whining and do the right thing. Don't get me wrong. I ain't pissin on you... I'm just sayin, eh? Bluesman... "Calling people trolls is childish, if you disagree with a post, respond in a positive sense, don't stamp your and run crying to mother mod." *A* post? ONE post? No... it's post after post. It's a clearly calculated, slow, methodic progression in BAITING for one's jollies. Cyberspace bullying is simply what it is and I find it sickening. I have never run crying to mother mod. I call the trolls "trolls" when they are rude and idiotic for their own twisted "fun". Trolls and just downright nasty assholes have been banned from this site in the past and they did it to themselves. Their posts still exist for all the world to read and be disgusted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Don Firth Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:56 PM Bluesman, it's not a matter of getting bent out of shape "if the debate get heated," it's when people get nasty and start shouting base insults at each other. Then, the pub-keeper or the host has the right to tell them to either "cool it" or leave. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: Bert Date: 06 Apr 12 - 07:14 PM Then, the pub-keeper or the host has the right to tell them to either "cool it" or leave. Right Don. But it wouldn't be cool for him to just delete them without warning or without giving them a reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Apr 12 - 07:15 PM If something isn't a democracy, then what is it? Any number of things. Most things in our lives aren't "democraies". When Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others he wasn't just making a joke. The fact that in public life we have to settle for putting up with the flaws of democracy doesn't mean we have to do the same in every other aspect pf our lives. Most aspects of our lives aren't forms of government, fortunately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: gnu Date: 06 Apr 12 - 07:49 PM "... delete them without warning or without giving them a reason." There is only one rule. Break the rule, pay the price. Ignorance of the rule, especially since it's the rule of society in general, is no excuse. The rule is well known herein. It may even be in the "newcomer's thread" which I read over ten years ago. Then again, I also read therein not to feed the trolls... guiltyyyy... as charged, more than once. I'm of Irish decent (sic) and sometimes restraint just ain't an option for me. In any case, once again, ya can't fight city hall and city hall here is better than any other that I am aware of. I too have been attacked illogically and for no good reason and those posts were not deleted... and *I* LIKE it. I have actually asked a mod at times to make sure such posts were NOT deleted. I did not want those posts deleted. I wanted them to remain for everyone to read and for them judge the posts for what they were... a condemnation of the poster. That is the ultimate "revenge" - allowing a troll or a nasty to impale themselves with their own words. Been there and done it many times over the years. Some of them left Mudcat for good of their own accord, slinking away in shame they brought upon themselves. In any case, there is only one sherrif in town. If ya don't like a deputy, speak to the sherrif or be on the train at high noon. But, I'll yell ya pad'nah, them there deputies do the best they can so unless yer aim is deadly, listen for the train whistle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: John P Date: 06 Apr 12 - 08:32 PM Except for a very few sad examples, I have seen the mods consistently doing as well as can be done at a very difficult job. My admiration and thanks to everyone involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: gnu Date: 06 Apr 12 - 08:40 PM I'll second that, John P. "They" have messed up. I only know of one case in over ten years that was sad, but 99.9% of the time they do a good job and get very little credit for it. Heck... when they are doing a great job, nobody even knows it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Apr 12 - 12:55 PM I'm of Irish decent (sic) and sometimes restraint just ain't an option for me. The first part of that sentence has no relevance to the second part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why closed threads? From: GUEST,Bluesman Date: 07 Apr 12 - 01:15 PM I would like the position of moderator here, any chance of consideration ? |