BS: For Fuck's Sake

Subject: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 03:56 PM

Is there any subject we're allowed to discuss?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 03:58 PM

Folk music tends to go down quite well.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:07 PM

Yes, in the music section, I agree.
But in the BS section, what?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:13 PM

"To the primitive mind, everything is either friendly or hostile; but experience has shown that friendliness and hostility are not the conceptions by which the world is to be understood." 
― Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:20 PM

Why was my thread closed? Did it offend some USAian???

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:24 PM

I saw nothing in that thread that any reasonable, sensible person would close it for. Just a bunch of people batting thoughts back and forth.
What the hell is going on in some moderators' heads?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:27 PM

I quite agree, it's absolute nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:33 PM

Well we'll probably never know whether the thread was shut down by a high priest or a high priestess of the forum. Live with it. A shut thread is hardly ever worth moaning about. Forum clever clogs can always get round it. It wasn't a great idea anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:37 PM

It's the lack of an explanation that irritates me, Steve. In my working life, I managed many people and I made it a practice, whenever I had to enforce rules,mthat I explained what I was doing and why. It's the decent, civilised thing to do. You will never get respect if you treat adults like children.

---

Sorry, that doesn't work. If explanations are given it provides a catalyst for the arguers to then attack the moderator who made the decision and makes that moderator the subject instead of the flawed discussion that was truncated. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:40 PM

And I always ensured that those affected by rules knew what the bloody rules were.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: gnu
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:45 PM

I am shocked! The use of "'s" in the thread title is CLEARLY inappropriate. Either you use punctuation and grammar appropriately or I'll write a Dog damned letter! >;-)

Have fun.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:52 PM

I pride myself on my ability to spell, punctuate and write grammatically-correct English, gnu!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:52 PM

Unfortunately a sign of the times Bonzo.
I agree with your opening post but this idiocy permeates the whole of society.....god knows where it will all end......"gender deniers" there must be some protest group we could join to stop the fuckers?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:55 PM

Soon having kids will be a criminal offence.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:08 PM

Allow me to offer a humble solution. Why don't you Brits start your own forum where you all can call each other all the names you like, discuss all the inane topics you desire, complain about the moderation as much as you like, carry out all your personal battles to your hearts' content, etc., etc. and leave the rest of us in peace. FOR FUCKS' SAKE!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:15 PM

Just when Putin is being a nice bloke too!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:15 PM

There were none of those in the closed thread. Just a bunch of people throwing ideas around.

No-one has complained more than I have about 'A Certain Clique' who do those things and wreck threads, but nothing like that was going on in the closed thread - which is why I don't understand what the mods closed it for.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:20 PM

GUEST - presuming you are American ?

thank f@ck many of our USA mudcatters are decent sensible erudite witty fun loving folk..

they prove that not all yanks conform to the crude stereotype of belligerent pea brained isolationist armed to the teeth nut cases... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:21 PM

The thing is, we don't know if there were posts on that thread that have been deleted and if it was targeted by someone making it their business to ensure it was closed. We never will know but it is a possibility and, if that is the case, it may be difficult to be open about it. Still, I know what you mean :-(

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe_F
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:25 PM

What is "that thread", please?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe_F
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:28 PM

Oh. Now I see.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:31 PM

I don't. What thread?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:40 PM

"they prove that not all yanks conform to the crude stereotype of belligerent pea brained isolationist armed to the teeth nut cases... 😜"

You forgot the bit about them not getting our jokes.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:59 PM

"The thing is, we don't know if there were posts on that thread that have been deleted and if it was targeted by someone making it their business to ensure it was closed. We never will know but it is a possibility and, if that is the case, it may be difficult to be open about it. Still, I know what you mean :-( "

Yes Dave, that's precisely why I've made the suggestion a number of times that, rather than deleting whole posts (thereby leaving no comprehensible 'audit trail' so that we mere mortals might understand what happened), or summarily closing threads without comment, it would be helpful if the metadata of deleted posts was left in place, but the body of the post deleted and replaced with 'Post Deleted By Mods', or similar wording.

I completely believe in the Mods having power to moderate, but I also believe that they should ensure that members understand what is going on when moderation takes place. Failing to do that is just low-grade moderation, perhaps even abuse of authority.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:00 PM

I thought about adding much more, but left off where I did
when I considered the possibility of a smart missile armed drone circling several miles above my house.... 😨

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:34 PM

I don't understand what the mods closed it for

If its any comfort, you have a lot of company.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:42 PM

I long ago gave up hope that the sensible trustworthy mods could still exercise any control
over their narrow minded trigger happy control freak team mates... 😣

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:46 PM

In general, threads are closed when they get out of control, when deleting individual messages won't settle things down. In extreme circumstances, threads get deleted.
But I can't figure out what thread you're talking about.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:55 PM

What kind of fuckery is this?
Amy Winehouse

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:55 PM

This one Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:02 PM

Joe, if we don't know that individual messages have been deleted, and certainly don't know why, how in the name of God do the Mods expect those deletions to 'settle things down'? You and I have had this conversation before - it's sloppy, lazy moderation, nothing more, nothing less.

In the thread in question, there is nothing untoward going on (except for one aggressive USA-Ian post which, I believe, everyone ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:05 PM

It's past midnight here, I have to be up early in the morning, I'm going to bed now. I'll be astonished if this thread's still here in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:08 PM

Now don't get me wrong. I often don't agree with what mods do to threads, but what I do know is that it is unreasonable to expect them to micromanage threads by deleting bits of posts and trying at the same time to leave the discussion still looking coherent. Don't worry, chaps. I'm not changing sides, I'm just sayin'!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:50 PM

OK, so it's the "Vital To Preserve Gender" thread. Was the closure capricious? If so, why?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:56 PM

Seems odd to me, despite my double-click post at the very end. It seemed quite good humoured, even if Bozo is a twot (which is, of course, the male of "twat").   Note to mods, I'd expect this to be within the bounds of normal humour by UK standards too.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:06 PM

Another dumb-ass thread by Bonzo3legs, one calculated to start a fight, was closed.

Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:32 PM

well actually the point about actresses was an interesting one. one season at Stratford they did an all male version of Marlowe's Faustus.

it was thought that the fact of Marlowe's sexuality would reveal different shades of meaning. the main thing i remember was Vincent Regan playing Helen of Troy.

also Fiona Shaw played the title role of Richard II made a great job of it.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:33 PM

I take a slightly more charitable view of our buffoonish old adversary bonzo...

some folks need to learn the difference between 'starting a fight'
and 'starting a tongue in cheek exchange of politically cartoonish contentious pantomime piss take banter'...

.. of course I could be entirely wrong..

and bonz could actually be the outrageously obnoxious clueless right wing antagonist he portrays himself to be..


Besides which... bonz plays electric guitar and likes classic 60s rock..

see.. I like to seek conciliatory common ground with entrenched opposing enemies... 😫

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:16 AM

Yeah, pfr, I get that. But the moderator(s) in this case don't. Waddayagonnado?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:31 AM

Waddamagonnado?...

eff all really... just enjoy the absurdity of it all... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:34 AM

The problem is, we don't know why the thread was closed.

If your child misbehaves, you don't just punish him/her with no explanation, do you? Surely you tell the child why he/she is being punished - punishment without an explanation of the reason is meaningless and serves only to breed anger and resentment in the punishee.

If, as has been suggested, the Mods were pissed off with the OP (or anyone else who has transgressed their secret rules that mere mortals like us aren't allowed to know), wouldn't it make more sense to block further posts from him/them and, so long as the thread remains reasonably good-humoured, allow everyone else to continue to contribute?

Anyhow, after a good night's sleep, I've resigned myself to the notion that 'none are so deaf as they who will not hear'. I've got a dog to walk and a song to write, time to leave...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:42 AM

Anyway, "sun's fair blazin' innit!!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:42 AM

But, before I go, one last thing - Joe, what's 'capricious' is a set of 'club rules' that the members are forbidden to know, and the deletion of posts and closure of threads without editorial comment. You know it, I know it - it's counter-productive if you want lively, civilised discussion and, after all, isn't that what a forum is supposed to be all about.

Now...gone.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bert
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:27 AM

Bonzo3legs, I have no idea why your thread was closed or who did it. Joe may be able to find out. It seemed to me to be quite a reasonable discussion.

I have fought for years for some degree of openness in Mudcat moderation. I personally think that it is underhand, sneaky and downright dishonest to moderate any thread without saying, why and who did it.

Every deleted message or closed thread should be accompanied by and explanation and the name of the moderator. Anything else should be unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:32 AM

Jings have heard less moans frae a set o bag piped than you lot o moaning Minnie's. You do not own the site if you don't like how it is run no one is forcing you to stay.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bert
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:48 AM

Now, now, Megan L, If I were to go and delete your message, without any explanation, do you think that it would be fair? No of course it wouldn't. There is nothing wrong with your opinion except that I don't agree with it.

But that would not be a fair reason for me to delete it. And if I were to delete it, don't you think that it would be reasonable for me to give an explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:56 AM

In defence of the mods, there has been so much trouble here over the last few years, that admin cant be expected to give rhyme and reason for EVERY deletion, some are self explanatory.
Regarding Bonzo's thread, probably the mod who deleted it thought that it was a "trolling" thread and decided to remove it before it became nasty.

Alternatively it is possible that the sentiments expressed angered the mod and they used their "veto"........we all make mistakes move on.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 04:40 AM

Bert if you owned the site or were a moderator for the site and deemed my post a candidate for deletion you would do so.

I might scratch my head for a moment and think about what I might have done wrong,but it would have been your decision to make and whether or not I agreed, provided the site was not doing something dangerous I would accept the decision and get on with my day. Life is short far better to keep it sweet.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 04:55 AM

[Notes to self:] Not my gig. Not real life. Post vanishes? Lessee. Short post, who cares? Middling post, mildly cross. Long post, less mildly cross. Keep crossness to self. Hope remembered to copy. Revisit later. Expect mods to explain every move apropos of every troll? Don't be such an arrogant git, Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Ian
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:17 AM

Can the mod not put a note on the post expressing concern and saying it is at risk of deletion if the problems continue.

I frequent a football forum. On there from time to time a mod will delete a post and leave a note eg post deleted for unacceptable content.