 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Thanks Max
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Mar 16 - 09:06 PM Well, Terry - guests can no longer post to non-music threads. You got here because I moved you here. But you gotta log in if you want to post in BS. Send me an email if you need your password. -Joe Offer- joe@mudcat.org
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: BS: New Rules ? From: GUEST,Terry Silver Date: 28 Mar 16 - 08:59 PM Whats new in the rule book ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Mar 16 - 07:58 PM Raggytash says: I do think there is something that has escaped our American cousins and that is that we, on this side on the pond, can slag each other off day and night and still shake hands at the end of it. We can share a pint after all the vitriol then go our own ways without the recourse to taking a gun to try and kill each other. I do wonder if this lack of insight is the cause of some of the moderation we have seen. Before people start to chorus that they are fed up with the rancour of some threads may I remind them they are at liberty NOT to read the threads, as we are at liberty not to partake in them. I'm the person listed as the "contact person" for Mudcat, which means I'm the one who receives the complaints. I got a complaint last night from a Mudcatter in the UK about a particularly vicious remark made by one of our "usual suspects." No, I can't name names - although I'm sorely tempted to, to show you what a hypocrite this bastard is. He has attacked a number of other people over the years. The recipient of the remark was deeply hurt, and had a right to be. You people may think your combative messages are just harmless banter, but that's not the case. Real people get hurt by them, and hurt badly. Some of you are just cowardly bullies. Believe me, there are many people here at Mudcat who have no desire to share a pint with the likes of you. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Doug Chadwick Date: 28 Mar 16 - 05:57 PM Blaming it on Americans not understanding "our" British sense of humour just doesn't wash Raggy. I'm in the UK and I find the petty name calling and personal attacks by some of my fellow countrymen, on all sides of the arguments, childish and annoying. I made a suggestion in a recently deleted thread that the BS section should become members-only. I don't claim any credit but I do heartily approve of the action that Max has taken. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Ed T Date: 28 Mar 16 - 05:54 PM "It was you that chose your due, You built a maze you can't get through. I tried to help you all I can, Now I can't do nuttin' for you, man!" Flavor Flav |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Raggytash Date: 28 Mar 16 - 04:20 PM Bill D, I do understand what you are saying, but firstly can I correct your spelling. Flavour is spelt Flavour not flavor. Bill, that in the UK would be seen as humorous not as a nasty aside, it's just the way we are. We understand it, for the most part accept it and get on with the rest of our lives. I really think some of the "problems" that occur are down to a lack of insight by American Mods into the weird, obtuse and sometimes downright belligerent nature of British humour. (with a U, please note) It's the way we are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Bill D Date: 28 Mar 16 - 04:08 PM "I do wonder if this lack of insight is the cause of some of the moderation we have seen." I'm sure it has, Raggy.... but Jeri's comment "The world is not British" is relevant. To those who are NOT British, the game of trading insults is not always clear.... and even less so in print. I have said as much at times for 10 years. Of course some from this side of the pond "talk shite" at times, but the 'flavor' is different when it is a dozen posts long than when it is just a nasty remark or two. The mods can keep up with simple bad temper and foulness occasionally, but ongoing oneupmanship to prove YOU are just as witty as He is can be very hard to interpret.... AND it sometimes leads to genuine rancor when someone steps over the line. I 'think' the new rule, while a nuisance for a few, ought to tone down the totally gratuitous blather to something the mods can handle... in in the long run, MUCH less censorship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: keberoxu Date: 28 Mar 16 - 02:40 PM Hear! hear! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Jim Carroll Date: 28 Mar 16 - 01:55 PM Personally I am delighted with the changes and I'm not unhappy with the fleas in our ears that some of us have received - it really did have to happen if we were going to have access to this invaluable section of Mudcat. I have been as guilty as anybody in going over the top when it comes to things that concern me deeply - that is no excuse for indulging in personal abuse, as I have on occasion. I have to say that this doesn't happen in a vacuum - it is what this section of the forum has become of late and those who have complained the loudest have been just as guilty as the rest of us at times. The only way these changes are going to work is if all those guilty of shoddy behaviour recognise their having done so and agree to stop it - just pointing fingers doesn't hack it - glass houses and throwing stones and all that - let's ALL make an effort. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Jeri Date: 28 Mar 16 - 12:41 PM That letter from Max was written 14 years ago. (Long time brewing.) His posts in this thread are current. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 28 Mar 16 - 11:00 AM Thanks for resurrecting that post of Max's, Rap. I remember it. It's worth reprinting here, for those of us with slow computer connections. I trust Max won't mind: Dear GUESTS, The Mudcat is a place that like minded people communicate and share their knowledge and their lives. We come from different backgrounds, different countries, different ideals, different religions, morals and lifestyles. With these differences, it amazes me that we have so much in common. The format, technology and philosophy of the Mudcat design have been carefully crafted for almost 6 years to facilitate this very diverse community. I have steadfastly or stubbornly held to an ideal of openness since our beginning because I thought that was what was necessary to mimic the real world and to make it easy and comfortable for new folks to discover and learn about our community and ease their way into it. For the first time since I started this whole thing, I am very thoughtfully considering an alternative. With GUESTS posting as they are today, I have no interest in continuing as I have. You are hurting me. Not just my feelings or my pride in what we have accomplished here, but also in a real concrete way. As many of you know, the economy is in the tank, and Onstage can no longer finance the Mudcat. The members have contributed a great deal of money, in January specifically, that will keep us running for at least 6 months to come. We are up for 2 grants from Folk Song Societies come March and April. All of our sources of financing are highly deterred by the behavior and ability of GUESTS. Probably about ¾ or our income comes from people and organizations that care about us because we are a Music Resource with no equal. The other ¼ is because of the community. Zero is from GUESTS. So, in these times of necessity, I need to prioritize in gratitude for those who care about the Mudcat in real ways. Real ways are the contributions of money and the contributions of knowledge. Neither comes from GUESTS. Please stop this behavior, I ask nicely, nay, I beg of you. There is no point to this. This forum is not just words on a page; these are people behind these posts. People who are here to share themselves, their knowledge, their time and even their homes. What you are doing is littering in the park. A free place we can all come to and do our thing, whether we want to meet people and discuss our interests or just sit on the benches and read. You are also personally attacking me. This is my creation, and you are ruining it. You are jeopardizing the only financing we have. If you do not hear my plea, and find some human compassion and stop this now, I will have no choice but to put a fence around my park to keep you out. Flamers and Trolls of the past always seemed to want something. They would flame BS, Prayer, Healing, etc. threads in protest that this should be a Music-Only Web site. Or they would pick on specific people they did not like. I cannot figure out what you GUESTS want or why you do this other than some egocentric joy from destruction. If I knew what you wanted I could deal with this issue in a surgical fashion and address only those issues without changing one of our core philosophies. But, I do not expect that you want anything. Nor do I suspect you will grant me my plea to please stop this. If that is the case, I have no choice but to implement measures to deal with you. That is, no anonymous postings. At a minimum, you will have to be a member, you will receive your password via a valid email address and your IP address will be recorded. Any behavior that I don't like (no jury, no trial) and your cut off. A technological challenge that I am looking forward to. MEMBERS: We are discussing our options and our technology now, and will post an Open Letter to Members in a week or two to explain what we have decided. There will be no debate, I've heard all there is to hear about this issue. I will do as I see fit. Sincerely, Max D. Spiegel Publisher |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Mar 16 - 09:13 AM I really don't see this "loss of Guests" business. There is an exceedingly simple solution: choose a username and register. You can be just as anonymous and you can just as easily get up people's noses. I use my real name and I get up people's noses all the time. But I've stopped swearing at people and, on the whole, I try to not call people names. I've never used f*** or c*** in my posts. In real life I do, all the time. I don't like being shouted at by mods, receiving angry messages from them or having my posts struck off, you see, and I'm not proud of the occasions when I've resorted to that kind of behaviour. Knowing all that helps me to moderate my own behaviour (somewhat). It doesn't improve my opinions or make my style less acerbic. And I hate religion and I'm always going to say so whenever I get the chance. Tough. I lose nothing of value by forfeiting my anonymity. I still do what I want. No-one can PM an anonymous Guest to tell him to shut up because they're all rolled into one and they're fly-by-nights anyway. Max wants the place to reflect real life and I get that. But in a real-life pub, for example, you don't allow roaring drunks to intimidate the other customers. You don't allow thugs to come in to insult people. Occasionally, you just may have to make a rule. I think this one is a good change and I fully expect the place to improve. If it doesn't, I'll eat my hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Rapparee Date: 28 Mar 16 - 08:36 AM As you all mourn the loss of GUESTs "under the salt," I would like to point out a post from Max more than 14 years ago. I also suggest that you might send him some donations. He keeps this place running pretty much by himself. I put some CDs in the Auction a while back, have going to Max, and the response was "Huh? What's the Auction?" Yes, I still have to send him the money (USD 10.00). But I shall, and I'll probably make it a bit more. You can do this as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: vectis Date: 28 Mar 16 - 06:12 AM I presume that Secret anta stuff will have to be above the BS in the music threads from now on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:10 PM Gosh, Jeri, and here I am being a bit sniffy with you! :-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:09 PM "The planet isn't British". What a mean-minded remark. There are plenty of non-Brits hereabouts who talk shite, Jeri, and plenty of mild-mannered Brits too. You really needed to qualify that comment. Sanity can just log in if he wants to, along with all the other anonymous reprobates who haven't been contactable by PM nor, worse in the case of "Guests," had their posting history available to us. In the brave new world, you never know, even he (she or it) might find himself sidelined by a more civilised ethos if he persists in posting with his present demeanour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:06 PM thanks max! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Jeri Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:59 PM Steve Shaw, thanks. I actually agree with you about moderator comments. If I comment in someone else's post, it will be to provide information only. I've always believed that my opinions should come with my name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Smedley Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:57 PM If this change means that I can look at this page without fearing that the latest spouting of illiterate bigotry from GFSanity is going to endanger my blood pressure, then hooray for that. I might even become a contributor more often, instead of a mostly-lurker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: DMcG Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:55 PM That last line only works, Raggy, if the row is "on topic", as it were. But very often there is a good and interesting topic that people are trying to discuss when a rowdy group arrive and start insulting each other about something that has little, or nothing, to do with the thread. Saying we don't have to read it is a smidgen like saying if I am enjoying a lecture and a drunk arrives and starts shouting it is ok because I can always leave the lecture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Jeri Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:51 PM Two things, Raggy: There is the assumption that Americans "don't get it". I get it. Sometimes it's funny, and sometimes it's pathetic because there's somebody who thinks they're flying under the radar, while I'm often wondering why they aren't embarrassed for being a truly epic and hard-to-achieve degree of "smug" and "clueless" at the same time. The problem with the lack of insight happens because those who do the slagging off don't understand that assorted people with different degrees and tolerance of those who come off as "more enlightened than thou" are reading what they write. They seem to believe all of those people should adapt their thinking, instead of the individual slaggers trying to be easily understood. The planet isn't British, and it makes more sense, and is definitely kinder to consider other people when you write than to be a persistent snot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:50 PM It may sound bloody odd coming from me, but I have sympathy with the moderators, whose backs are to the wall all too often. I get that they're volunteers and I get that they're human beings. They've made some bloody awful decisions (as well as doing a damned good routine job), but in large part that is to do with the open-door policy of allowing unlogged-in, anonymous guests to post. I get that some of us logged-in types can get up Max's and their noses even more than the former, but the policy has engendered a wild-west ethos where anything goes and in which you can say anything to anybody, and it rubs off even on some of us more honest brokers, unfortunately. That's humanity for you. This is not our gig, and we haven't got rights, but I should like to politely request that moderators who delete or close with comments should post under their names. "Mudelf" is great for glitches and corrections, but mudelf for deletions and closures accompanied by censure, plus public bollockings, is someone who is operating under multiple identities. If it were me, which it should never, ever be, I'd just do it without comment. Easier. One bloody click, gone! But not my gig! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Raggytash Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM I do think there is something that has escaped our American cousins and that is that we, on this side on the pond, can slag each other off day and night and still shake hands at the end of it. We can share a pint after all the vitriol then go our own ways without the recourse to taking a gun to try and kill each other. I do wonder if this lack of insight is the cause of some of the moderation we have seen. Before people start to chorus that they are fed up with the rancour of some threads may I remind them they are at liberty NOT to read the threads, as we are at liberty not to partake in them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:23 PM Maybe you didn't understand the sentiment behind the comment. Move on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: keberoxu Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:17 PM I'm darned if I can sympathize with the "clenched" exclamation. For me this thread is permission to exhale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: michaelr Date: 27 Mar 16 - 01:20 PM Max is absolutely correct in his indictment of certain registered, named forum members who are just as guilty of shit-stirring as unnamed Guests. Therefore, I hope this is only a first step. Robust is the word that comes to mind when I think about what sort of moderation and enforcement is needed at Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Charmion Date: 27 Mar 16 - 01:02 PM I'm impressed. It looks good. ch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Amos Date: 27 Mar 16 - 12:13 PM Here's to the Balls of Max, now hear them clang! (The opening line of a sonnet of which the rest is left as an exercise for student completion.) Good job, sir. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:34 AM I like aggressive flavour in my espresso. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Ed T Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:55 AM "Robusta contains nearly twice the caffeine of Arabica, if taste quality is less of a concern than bang for your buck. What's more, if a blend happens to be roasted dark and its coffee grounds are measured by weight prior to brewing, a brewed cup will deliver the biggest caffeine dose of all. It all depends on how you compare them—by bean, by volume, by weight, or by coffee varietal." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:24 AM Robust doesn't mean aggressive in my book. One relates to tbe discussion being taken on, the other relates to the person being taken on. I hope I've made that distinction robustly enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Ed T Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:15 AM It's never too late for a wise move, like this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Dave the Gnome Date: 27 Mar 16 - 05:07 AM Absolutely, Keith, and I hope that those who complain of abusive language notice that Max's terminology is suitably robust:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Mar 16 - 04:47 AM I am grateful for this site and the forum, and am proud to say that I have never criticised the moderation. I hope those that do get this message, " remind yourself this is a free web site that you can stop going to any time you want, treat your moderators better, or get the fuck out." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: DMcG Date: 27 Mar 16 - 04:43 AM We want to be robust, we want a robust place to argue the fat, insult each other occasionally and go to bed pissed off Tricky little word, 'we'. Some want that, but I don't, especially if 'robust' is a euphemism for 'aggressive'. And I don't think I am alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Kampervan Date: 27 Mar 16 - 03:45 AM Yeay. Way to go Max. 100% with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 16 - 02:14 AM By the way, if anyone forgot their password or needs to register, you can email me, joe@mudcat.org -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Bill D Date: 26 Mar 16 - 09:42 PM gee gosh and gol-durn! You mean Pete & I can't 'discuss' evolution any more.... why we had each only made the same point less than 87 times! ;>) ☺☺☺☺ (Y'all oughta come to the FSGW Getaway sometime.... Max usually is there, and I will be giving him a big smile this Fall) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Mar 16 - 09:22 PM Grand, Max, but you're hardly ever here. You probably hate the likes of me but I revere you for setting this place up. I think I might even have given you money fer chrissake. You may be ripe for a top-up. We may be a bunch of arses but at least we're hairy arses. Read between the lines of our nastiness occasionally. We want to be robust, we want a robust place to argue the fat, insult each other occasionally and go to bed pissed off. What we don't want is some arsehole calling us antisemitiic or Jew-haters. Anyway, you know what I mean. Cheers for the change. You won't regret it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Jeri Date: 26 Mar 16 - 09:03 PM Punkfr, LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Rapparee Date: 26 Mar 16 - 08:57 PM I wondered how long it would be, Max. I remember the last time, when Clinton Hammond and Martin Gibson and others were deservedly axed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: punkfolkrocker Date: 26 Mar 16 - 08:48 PM Hi Jeri - actually you're not that far wrong... .. except I have to take my glasses off and hold my eyes about 2 or 3 inches from anything I need to read.. or keep my glasses on and stand back about 2 to 3 feet.... This accounts for many of my confused typing errors, and why I'd make much use of an edit button.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Max Date: 26 Mar 16 - 08:13 PM Announcements, as Ed mentions, are talking at you. I'd rather talk with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Mar 16 - 07:52 PM Jesus bloody Christ, Max, shut this thread. If my poor buttocks were any more clenched than they are now I'd be calling an ambulance that had a crowbar on board. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Mar 16 - 07:46 PM I was indeed posting tongue in cheek, as Akenaton says. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: akenaton Date: 26 Mar 16 - 06:57 PM Thank you Max and BWM.....that seems to clear things up. I always thought that several people using one username was confusing and abuse of the forum. Max doesn't pull his punches, lets all take on board what he says....I'm sure Little Hawks comments were meant to be tongue in cheek.....he was the biggest loss ever to the forum and I know he would be welcomed back by most of the members. Hope to see more of the US catters back as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Mar 16 - 06:44 PM Jaysus, Max, that post of yours is in danger of getting this thread closed... ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) (Fearfully, he ducks...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Mar 16 - 06:19 PM Indeed, DMcG. But as there are at least two sides to every argument who decides which ones are blocked? Max certainly has my vote seeing as he owns the site but will everyone will agree? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: MartinRyan Date: 26 Mar 16 - 06:13 PM Sorry to hear you so vexed about all this, Max - but glad you have taken the necessary action. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Max From: DMcG Date: 26 Mar 16 - 06:01 PM Quite so. Any of us members who don't behave as Max suggested should expect to find themselves blocked, and rightly so. We can't say we haven't been given fair warning. So maybe you are right Dave the Gnome that members have always been the ones who row but we have every reason to stop it. |