This is really poor

Subject: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 02:59 PM

No, it's really, really poor.

I've been coming to Mudcat for over 15 years. I thought that it was a place for the open exchange of views.

Clearly not.

I have no idea as to the identity of the individual who is closing threads. But he or she is making very poor decisions.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:08 PM

She keeps coming on and telling us. It's the mod who calls herself SRS isn't it? She really does seem to be a pernickety one. I have sent a formal protest to Mudcat about some posts of mine that have been taken off for no reason I can identify. Awaiting a response.

~M~

---

Wrong. --mudelf

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:08 PM

I agree totally Ed. I'm considering not coming here any more. Threads which are going well with many posters are being closed suddenly. Also, a post from someone using my name has been appearing. Musket found the same thing happening.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:11 PM

while this thread is still open.....

I've been coming here 10 to 12 years.

Today's duty mod is well out of order.
Just like the bad old days when a minority [?] of mods
were very antagonistically petty and arbitrary with deletions and unjustified interference.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: MMario
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:12 PM

if certain threads are attracting spammers or spoofed identities that could be the reason they are being closed.

MudCat is one of the least moderated forums I have ever attended on any sort of regular basis.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:13 PM

I expect this will be closed too in a minute.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:21 PM

"if certain threads are attracting spammers or spoofed identities that could be the reason they are being closed."

maybe, but today it seems more like a pretext for a cranky ill tempered mods poor instant decisions.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:26 PM

Well, to be fair, we don't yet know the reason for the closures. Maybe the moderator will explain.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:26 PM

Comment from moderators please.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:34 PM

Okay, I've seen one of the threads that has just been closed.

Points
I personally don't think this particular forum is the right place for discussing judiciary matters no matter how strongly people feel.

If they were to be discussed they are surely nothing to do with folk music. Yes, Rolf was involved on the fringes of the folk scene in Britain but as far as we know these issues do not concern his folk involvement. They certainly do not belong above the line if at all.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:45 PM

Very fair points Steve.

We could spend forever debating what should be discussed at Mudcat, or what should be 'above the line'

However, officious editing strikes me as wron

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:46 PM

If so, Steve, maybe we could be provided with a list of acceptable types of thread before we waste a lot of time and thought posting to 'unacceptable' ones!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:19 PM

BS, or below the line is open for any type of discussion and has had some very interesting and informative threads. which have raised many different issues. Unfortunately this area also attracts some who just enjoy argument rather than discussion as well as the odd hysteric or two. Because the site is not heavily moderated there is of more a preponderance of these types, which can spoil it for those who just would like to find out different views on a subject without having to wade through a load of invective from others who believe that they have the only valid view on a particular subject. When there are two or three of this type joining a thread it's time to bale out because it is clear that there will be nothing of any real value happening there again.

I don't know why the thread in question was closed, but it was becoming very circular and seemed to be attracting trolls who were usurping the identities of Mudcat regulars and I guess that factored into the equation.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:20 PM

You guys crack me up. You complain about fake guest posts, you complain about each other, you attack and point fingers and call names, you write to mods protesting the poor treatment, and the moderators who end up having to read all of this spew finally see the "discussion" puddle into a morass of back and forth accusations. At that point it is closed, and someone starts a thread to ask about it. If a moderator says why, they are attacked. If they don't say why, they are attacked. Everyone is a critic and these days words are cheap and everyone is talking at the same time. Then there are those who do huge cut and paste entries, or post search results and expect participants to accept that as proof. Some of you need to learn about logical fallacies. Circular reasoning, ad hominem attacks, appealing to beliefs, burden of proof, and many more.

Use your heads. There are a half-dozen people, more or less, who have a hand in moderating these threads. They aren't all me. Most of them aren't me. When any of us have to read this to take out the really mean-spirited stuff it's pretty clear when the gloves have come off and the discussion is over.

Is there REALLY another single thing that Lizzie can say about Mr. Harris? This seems to me a graphic illustration of "she protests too much." And some of you, Guest, 3:21pm, and all of your Guest appearances, are particularly dense. If you keep bringing up the troll red herrings and trying to discuss them even after they have been deleted several times, don't keep trying. If you can't be bothered to log on so people can contact you via PM, then don't be surprised if you're not consulted on the reason your posts are deleted.

Most of this place is great - but you who are in there duking it out on this thread and several others, you're the reason a lot of people have left Mudcat. It isn't the moderators taking away your precious right of free speech, it's your inability to participate in intelligent discourse.

Acceptable threads? How about those that stay on topic and are conducted politely. In another short-lived one Lizzie protested that we should be able to see and block the bad guys. If it could have happened, it would. Some folks are blocked, accounts are closed when they are spoofs, but it's the Wild West out there and here's a new flash for all of you: some of the more argumentative folks who are attracted to the site are looking for targets who whine about their treatment. It makes them feel good to make others unhappy.

What are YOU going to do about it?

SRS

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:27 PM

Yes jaqui c, thanks, we understand, and are well aware of all you say;
and despite all that, we were coping reasonably well with no real need for all of today's heavy handed uneven mod interventions.

Who was actually causing the most disruption and antagonism - the cowardly ID imposter, or the over officious mod ???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:32 PM

Very well put, jacqui.c. I'm not sure what can be done to stop trolls faking identities and pretending to be us. I was very angry when my name was used, as the post did not at all reflect my opinion. And one of those which pretended to be Musket was exceptionally crude and disgusting. It's a technological problem and I don't know if there's a way round it. I do feel that one is perfectly capable of scrolling down past a long, rambling, 'hysterical' post and ignoring it if one wishes.
I do hope I'm not driven from Mudcat by all this, as I've so much enjoyed the discussions and found the majority of folk here so likeable and interesting to have contact with. I hope that I've always tried to be polite and courteous, if sometimes drifting off-thread a bit. But for an old lady, perhaps that's forgiveable!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:34 PM

In case someone doesn't know, those pretending to be other people have been here for a long time. That's why Max created memberships, so you could join and no one else could be you as a member. We'll delete the fake posts if we see them, but know that interrupting a thread to talk about them serves only the troll/spoofer.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:39 PM

I have been a Mudcat member for many years and I have made some great friends on this forum! I have posted often when I thought that I could help others with music questions and have in turn have found great help with ones I posted myself. I have not always agreed with other members and at times have let my temper show, but my intent was never malicious! That being said most of those internet friends have passed on or have left this site because of the crap that keeps surfacing in recent years. I post under my own name although in the past I have used a pen-name also.
If Mudcat is to survive I believe that stricter moderation is required! Anyone wanting to comment or crap on others below the line should be signed members. Guests should be allowed to query or post information above the line for music related issues only! Otherwise I fear that Mudcat will not survive as the great resource that it was!
I implore Max and Joe to tighten, not loosen, the moderation on this forum! From someone who considers himself a socialist and a free thinker these comments pain me but my desire to see Mudcat survive as a music resource remains paramount!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:39 PM

But Musket is a member and his name was spoofed by a troll.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:47 PM

The "spoof" was of "GUEST,Musket". The troll can't sign is as a specific member.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:51 PM

Ah, I see Jeri, thank you.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:56 PM

I know who some of the mods are but probably not all. Mostly they do a good job. I don't always agree - I'd have banned Teribus, KeithA, and Akenaton long ago and I'm not sure about Bobad. Or indeed Bearded Bruce. I know which side of teh Spanish civil war I'd have been on and I believe they'd have been on the other. Some of the anti-British ranters (only one I still often see) I think go too far in suport of terrorism and I's personally mod them down a lot more. I definitely agreed when Martin Gibson went. I was saddened when Bruce Murdoch (under his member name) was discouraged at the height of the troll saga (the correct name being not to be used) but glad when Gargoyle was. The long since past decisions to ban MLC were IMHO then right and allowing her back is a mistake (as indeed seems now to be evidenced). I'd personally have a special category of ban for the other wholly irrational - eg climate change deniers and evolution deniers.

BUT, whatever one feels is right, the mods have decisions to take and the only person they take orders from is Max (with whom I don't always agree either).

Without them we would not have the simplest to navigate, easiest to read, and best informed acoustic music site on the web. Let them deal with trolls as necessary, chaps and chapesses. It ain't a democracy.

It does even have some effect. The recent thread on the Irish famine, while a bit leery in places, was very informative - and (shhh!) altered some of my views about that event.   

Remember, if sonar is picking up noise from both left and right, the captain is probably on course.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:02 PM

Hi Jeri, that's a reasonable explanation.

Over the years, you and Joe are the fair minded mods I most respect.
Other mods may have more prickly dismissive superior attitudes and temperament

Here I submit a revised version of my earlier post today:....

Folks are right to be upset at noxious imposters attempting to discredit members & named guests IDs.
But please don't get too carried away in anger at the antics of a minority of cowardly creeps
abusing the privelege to post as 'Guest'.

I applaud Max for championing [ or at least accepting ] the condiderable positive value
of anonymous guest status.

I for one prefer to post as either 'Guest', pick a jokey 'one shot' disposable name related to a particular point I am making,
or adopt a temporary name for consistent use in a thread I anticipate continuing to post in.

Please don't conflate the 'good' reasons for anonymity
with the imposter scumbags who hijack members names to cause disruption and rancour.

Also consider, if a post that could have taken anything up to 1/2 hour or more to write is apparently arbitrarily deleted
because a minor part, a sentence or 2, can be regarded as 'troll serving'
you might agree that is frustrating at the very least....?

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:02 PM

Musket is a member but he frequently posts as a GUEST because the device he is posting from won't take cookies. That, unfortunately, leaves him open to impersonation. You are also open to impersonation, Eliza, because you haven't joined up and always post as a guest.

The best way to prevent impersonation is to prohibit GUEST posting. Something I'd welcome.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:06 PM

I only have this laptop and it doesn't take cookies either. So I'm afraid I'd sadly have to bow out if it were made compulsory.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:07 PM

I have another suggestion or two. When a thread is "closed" delete it, all of it, immediately. And enforce the rule (it used to be a rule) that a thread protesting a mod decision (or resurrecting a closed thread) will be immediately deleted. IF there is room to argue about a mod decision it should be done by email or PM.

I also fail to see why MLC is frequently permitted latitude that no-one else is.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:14 PM

"When a thread is "closed" delete it, all of it, immediately. And enforce the rule "

No.. that is always an open invite to deliberatley disrupt a thread positing argements one disagrees with,
with the intention of getting it closed down so all contents are 'disapeared' from posterity.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:18 PM

"Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza - PM
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:06 PM

I only have this laptop and it doesn't take cookies either. So I'm afraid I'd sadly have to bow out if it were made compulsory."

Eliza, you wouldn't be prevented from being a member, but you would have to log in every time you came to Mudcat. I think in Musket's case (and he'll no doubt correct me if I'm wrong) his GUEST postings are made from a device which is related to his NHS position, and which is subject to their security restraints.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:23 PM

Eliza's laptop may be set to not allow cookies, ever. She could probably figure out how to change it, but she may not want to. THAT really is the point. I wouldn't want to see her not be able to post. Having cookies doesn't seem to stop anyone from being nasty.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:24 PM

I see, Backwoodsman. It sounds a bit complicated if I had to log in every time. This all seems such a shame. For a few years now, there don't appear to have been any problems like this. (Well, not during the time I've been posting on here.) I expect it will all come right in the end. Things generally do!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:32 PM

'...figure out how to change it...' I'm smiling at that, Jeri. I can just about turn the thing on and off and do a bit of Googling. My husband's a bit better than me at this techno stuff, but not much.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,gnuonlaptop
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:37 PM

Yes. I am gnu. I am watching Germany destroy Brazil in the World cup so I don't have time to log in. Just now 7-0 for Germany... holy crap!

Max and the mods do a great job. The best site I have ever seen. You don't like it?.... piss off.

One more thing. How can anybody name a mod and point an aimless finger at them? Bullshit.

Piss off ya broke dick fucks.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:38 PM

Suggested Methodology for cleaning up Mudcat:-

1) No GUEST postings allowed - prevents impersonation and trolling by non-members.
2) Strict enforcement of the rules re: ad hominem attacks, abusive language etc. - all posts falling into the proscribed categories to be deleted immediately.
3) Strong action against perpetrators of (2) - e.g. 'three strikes and you're out'.

The rules are already there - they just need a bit of beefing up, and strict enforcement.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:42 PM

Somebody here (or there) could probably help you, including your husband, if you wanted.
Frankly, I waffle about mandatory membership for posters in BS. Sometimes it sounds like a good idea, and sometimes it doesn't. The mods have differing opinions as well, and Max, who is the ultimate guy, hasn't wanted it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:43 PM

4) personal attacks against moderators to be deleted immediately as in (2) above, and strong action against perpetrators as in (3) above.

Thanks gnu.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:43 PM

or.. having fixed members only names makes it easier for stalkers and ad hominem attacks...

Posting as GUEST - either anonymous, or named - places emphasis on the points being made,
not the identities and personalities of those making them.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:45 PM

Well, sad though it is, as I'm obviously not welcome here as a guest, I'll bow out now and stop posting on Mudcat. I've enjoyed it, and wish everyone well. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:47 PM

Jeri, seems to me it's the only logical way to control GUEST trolls, and make life a bit easier for the mods.
It's the old syndrome of the many being punished for the sins of the few but, hey, shit happens.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:48 PM

No Eliza - don't let the bleak minded miseries drive you out.
You are one of the few remaining jewels here.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:50 PM

Not at all Eliza - the debate here is about badly-behaved GUESTs. Nobody puts you in that category, exactly the opposite. I apologise if my posts have offended you. That was absolutely not my intention.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:57 PM

Guest,Eliza,
You say "I'm obviously not welcome here as a guest"
You have posted here over 5000 times and your comments have often been insightful and welcome! If you feel that have overstayed your welcome as a guest please consider being a member!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:58 PM

You're welcome here as a guest, Eliza.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:06 PM

It's probably not the laptop, Eliza, but the browser. Check the security settings or get someone to do it for you. Not a bad little article on it on ehow

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:16 PM

Eliza... you ARE a decent, honest poster who always identifies yourself. Max allows GUEST postings to make sure that new folk, those who can't log on because of cookie or work restrictions ...and those who simply forget... to have access.

Those who use multiple guest identities, trolls, and spam entries can easily sneak in under those rules. Also, I believe blocking 'usually' involves blocking an entire range of IPs, which 'could' block innocent parties.

As SRS says, (and THIS thread shows), some want more moderation, some want less... and many are willing to argue incessantly for their viewpoint.

There is no simple answer. Max said years ago that his job was to provide the forum... keeping it decent was largely up to members and those who care. He realized that some moderation due to spam and genuinely nasty posting was necessary. It is easy to decide about the very worst posts... but how can a moderator cope with those which are slightly less than that? Who draws the borderlines?
The only way to be sure your post is left alone is to **monitor yourself**. It IS possible to debate without cursing, personal attacks and repetitious crap... try it.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:23 PM

"It IS possible to debate without cursing, personal attacks and repetitious crap... try it."

Absolutely correct, Bill. Sadly, not everyone agrees - I made that very point some time ago to one poster who regularly resorts to abusive language and name-calling, and his response was that he reserves the right to abuse those whose opinions (in his own opinion) deserve it.

This world would be a wonderful, blissful place if everyone in it pursued their differences in a civilised manner. Some hope!

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:36 PM

"There is no simple answer. Max said years ago that his job was to provide the forum... keeping it decent was largely up to members and those who care. He realized that some moderation due to spam and genuinely nasty posting was necessary. It is easy to decide about the very worst posts... but how can a moderator cope with those which are slightly less than that? Who draws the borderlines?
The only way to be sure your post is left alone is to **monitor yourself**. It IS possible to debate without cursing, personal attacks and repetitious crap... try it."

Well said Bill !!!

I would politely point out how some of the most vociferous 'anti-guest' proponents
can also be seen as those most keen to scapegoat guests,
perhaps, in order to distract & deflect from their own anti social tendencies...???

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:53 PM

As an aside.... think about various forums (fora?) .. where total moderation is employed! Some even require review before a post is allowed to be seen! These are usually 'special interest' place (you know.. the "Cannonball Collectors").. where there are a very limited number of posters.

Some..as noted.. require membership & cookies for ANY posting, even though this precludes some from registering.

Mudcat has a VERY wide following for various reasons... and as total numbers of followers rise, so does the total of disparate opinions...and as an obvious corollary, so does the total numbers of those who cannot or WILL not compromise or practice restraint.
It's just math... the more attending, the more chances for problems.

Would YOU like to moderate the United Nations or decide immigration policies for the USA & the UK?...well, perhaps you would, but you wouldn't expect to do it with no complaints....

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:59 PM

So........someone who has gone to the trouble of becoming a member, with a name that he can be identified by, and a registered email address that the moderators can use to verify his identity is 'antisocial', whilst a 'GUEST' who likes to skulk around and doesn't even take the trouble to follow the rules and post under a regular GUEST name isn't?

Sounds like false logic at work there, Sunshine. How does that work then?

No-one, AFAIA, is 'anti-guest', just anti-troll and anti-impersonator, that's all.

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:17 PM

No.. not really..

.. and anyone else care to help illustrate my tentative case for me.. ??? thanks ...

Subject: RE: This is really poor
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:33 PM

Sorry, that was a bit of a weak response, It's past midnight and I was not concentrating fully while posting.

I can only speak for myself as a GUEST.

"someone who has gone to the trouble of becoming a member, with a name that he can be identified by, and a registered email address that the moderators can use to verify his identity is 'antisocial', whilst a 'GUEST'"

Done all that in the past. Like many others I now prefer not to.

But I do try to never be beligerent, insulting, spiteful, cruel.. etc
Sarcastic ? yeah I hold my hands up to that one.. but a sense of the 'absurd' is essential for mudcat discourse.

Now rightly or wrongly, the way I look at it is that deep down in mudcat central admin bunker complex,
there are hi tech machines that constantly monitor my IP and geo location..

They could find me if they wanted too.. I aint got anything to hide.

---

Have already done that, but your insistence in pursuing troll topics makes those posts undesirable for the mudcat community. The stubborn pursuit of a topic by unnamed guests, guests who the moderators have to look up, merit less consideration than named members who post under their accounts. --mudelf