 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat Chatter
|
|
|
Subject: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,I'm from Venus & Mudcat is from Mars? Date: 27 Jan 02 - 09:37 AM While reading through the "bitter" babble, I got to thinking again about what Mudcat has become in more recent times. I am on the side of those with long experience here. Until recently, I had been a lurker for years, but never became a member. I choose not to join because I opposed the member/guest "solution" as too divisive and clannish, which is exactly what I think Mudcat has become. It seems to me, the reason for so much bitterness is the above mentioned solution, and the fact there isn't a happy balance between posters of off-topic chatter, and posters in music discussions. I have seen a very real decline in the overall courteousness of the forum, especially since those bitter rows about a year ago (which good Mudcatters now apparently won't discuss, just like the member/guest log-in). I say this with one finger pointing at the forum, and four back at me of course. So, my question now is, is it futile (as in pissing into the wind futile) to honestly discuss forum problems with the intention of helping now? I am very bitter about this place because it seems that a certain group of members become more and more entrenched every day, and non-members and members who complain of the plethora of problems which some of us feel are the result of sustained warfare mentalites of the entrenched membership, just get shouted down by the majority of posters who come here almost exclusively for the non-music "feel good" chat. I go back to the earliest days of this forum as a frequent lurker. I come for discussion of music and loosely related chat. While I have long enjoyed the narrower music-only focus of rec.music.folk, I'm beginning to realize the reason why I prefer that forum more and more, is because of the bitter and obnoxious tone here. Yes, Internet forums do reflect "real life". I think that just as in "real life" it is significant that many former posters to Mudcat voted with their feet and left, when the member/guest log-in and the witch hunts began here. In real life, I don't spend much time in places with elitist membership rules and clannish witch hunt behaviour. I have spent time posting rather than lurking here in the past six or so months. Initially, I began posting to try and point out the negativity which seemed so prevalent last summer about virtually everything. When that was shouted down, I did become quite bitter. Since I've seen no positive change in the forum dynamics, and I see no hope of the forum dynamic changing any time in the future (especially with the "privleged" log-in system), I thought I'd at least ask people here if they think it futile to bother with Mudcat reforms at this point, or whether it really is time for those of us with a different vision of what Mudcat could be to just fade away? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: MMario Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:03 AM rec folk music - 100 threads takes one back to the 12th of January. Over two weeks. Mudcat. 100 threads takes one back slightly over 24 hours. Face it - the volume of traffic on the 'cat is what causes some people problems. It's a lot easier to overlook an off topic discussion if it is the only one you see for days. But with a hundred threads in 15 days - I see rec.music.folk as a "play by mail" chess game more then any kind of forum. the mudcat, on the other hand, frequently approaches realtime communication. My opinions.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,in the Mudcat Observatory Tower Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:08 AM My own theory is that Max Spiegel rather enjoys all the guest/member fights that have become the most constant feature of Mudcat in the past year or two. Almost all member-based forum on the Internet require a registration process before someone can post. Mudcat Cafe, home of constant battles over the issue, does not. Max could fix that in an instant. He CHOOSES not to. Hence my theory that he enjoys watching the battles and the constant praising of Mudcat as "the greatest website since Al Gore invented the Internet" that ensues.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:11 AM MMario, I mentioned rec.music.folk because it is the only other discussion forum on-line I am aware of that doesn't have a specific ethnic focus, and which welcomes posters from many different backgrounds. I compare that (slow as it might be for some) to what seems to be an increasingly narrow music focus here. I'm not trying to quibble, as your opinions are every bit as worthy as mine, but clarify my comparison between Mudcat and rec.music.folk. I'm trying to use it as an apples and apples analogy. For me, it seems easier than dragging in the oranges to prove the apples are right! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,Don Meixner Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:22 AM There are some areas of discussion that can't be broached with out hitting someones hot buttons pretty hard. Generally speaking they are politics and religion. And we meet at a rather large and diverse table where the after dinner comversation is going to cover potlitics and religion and countless other sources of irritation. There is alot to be considered with this thread you have posted Names: If I have a thread on any topic going in this forum and there are ten people contributing, five have creen names and five are in simply as Guest, and each of the guests is showing different opinions and styles of writing, How does one reply to one Guest with out offending four others? Or all five for that matter. I think a clear identification is essential. I always avoid "Guest" when i see that name in the threads because of the vitriol the name suggests. How many good and interesting topics have I missed I wonder? And is the trip back looking for Guest in archive worth the mileage? The bitterness that I hear mentioned frequently is there. Saddly a lack of tolerance from the self proclaimed sophisticates towards Newbies and poorly stated questions. ( 53- BOB asked some pretty unusual question but didn't deserve the treatment he was handed by many of us. When he left the thread appoligies were give by several people. Hopefully he has heard them.) Bitterness is here in the threads. Created by abuse and feed by people with an agenda I have yet to name or really discover. There is the clique question. Is there one? How can there be when there is no place to gather or a means by which separtion and segregation are possible. If it is assumed that every post except those with obvious personal ridicule agendas sees the light of print then everyone is allowed in to the talk. By virtue of time on task by some of the posters here shouldn't cause anyone to think there is a clique. Just people with time to burn. There is certainly too much for me to cover and discover on Sunday morning. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Don
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:26 AM FWIW, it isn't necessary to log-in to post to Usenet discussion groups, just private discussion forums hosted on websites, like Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Allan C. Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:31 AM There is hardly any hide left on this dead horse, my friend. The only way to bring about positive change is to act positively! Sure, there are some folks who seem to have a way of subverting even the best of the music threads; but most of the time the good stuff is gleaned easily enough. There are still many positive threads to be posted. For many of us who have been here for a long time, a lot of the discussions that aligned with our interests are now part of the Mudcat history. It seems that we have already discussed the majority of the songs that are dear to us. Even the non-musical threads are often not as stimulating as they once were. This is because a lot of the responses are not only predictable but are also often only re-runs of previous discussions. As an illustration of something I have said before in the threads, I will say that one of my favorite quotations defines fishing as: "the ever constant renewal of hope". That is to say that the next cast might be the one that catches the fish you've been wanting. It is with that same kind of hope that I come back here hour after hour, day after day. Yes. I am here almost all the time; but it is not often anymore that I find something to which I have anything (new) to add. I know there have been some fabulous friendships that have formed by way of the forum. I know how important that has been for me. I have seen the spirit of the Mudcat in many more manifestations than are obvious to the casual visitor. That spirit still remains here even though it might be buried at times under some of the vitriol and shallowness that some folks bring to the forum. I still see that spirit. I still feel it. I continue to experience it through the music shared, through the friendships and camaraderie, and through the incredible hospitality to which I feel quite qualified to attest. Yes, the forum has changed in some ways. It is not unlike some rivers I have fished. People would tell me, "You should have been here yesterday. The fish were almost jumping into the creels!" Maybe my experience today will not be the same as it was yesterday; but the river is still beautiful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Bat Goddess Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:36 AM It seems to me that any "cliques" on Mudcat are just frequent posters who, well, "play well with others." It doesn't take a long time spent reading posts to discover which Mudcatters are generous with useful information and opinions. (And the time spent searching for information!) That's what identifies the "inner clique" to me, at least. Linn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:45 AM I agree Allan C, that there is little hide left on the dead horse, which is why I'm asking if it is futile to dredge this subject up yet again. I am pleased for you that you have so much hope about Mudcat. But what I am asking--or is it who I am asking for--is those of us who have lost hope for Mudcat being the kind of on-line folk music community we are seeking. For me, it has strayed very, very far from what I once thought was going to be the best on-line folk music forum on the Internet. I wish I did share in your hope and vision for Mudcat, but now, I'm just feeling defeated and bitter about it. But perhaps that means it is time for those of us who feel that way to create a totally new forum for folk music, and no I don't mean Jon's annexe, well-intentioned as it is. That is what I'm feeling at this point, and am wondering if others have reached that point of impasse here as well. Maybe it is time for a totally new folk music forum, where we can learn from the mistakes and shortcomings of Usenet, the folk music mailing lists, and Mudcat. It seems to me, that maybe Mudcat is trying too hard to be more than it really can be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:55 AM Maybe you are right Venus but for my part, I'd rather wait and see what the new Mudcat changes bring. Re: the Annexe, it is NOT my attempt at a folk forum - in fact I specifically exclude conversation on that subject so as not to run against Mudcat. The well intentioned but largely ill received attempt of mine was to provide more space for non-music in a vain hope that it may help Mudcat gain a little more music focus while allowing a community. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Date: 27 Jan 02 - 11:24 AM Jon, I wasn't trying to suggest that you had created another music forum, and hope my remarks don't get contrued that way. I appreciate what you tried to do for the music. But that said, I also don't feel a strong sense of allegiance to Mudcat or Max. I deeply appreciate what Max and Dick Greenhaus have accomplished with Digital Tradition--it is a great resource. But to be brutally honest, I don't appreciate what Max has accomplished with the forum. Far from it. I don't wish to seem ungrateful, though. I'm no more or less grateful for Mudcat than I am the free Usenet music newsgroups and the free music mailing lists I've participated in over the years. You get what you pay for, especially on-line. My gut feeling is, it is time for a new private mailing list for those of us folk music fans who are disillusioned both with Mudcat and rec.music.folk. If that means a new forum will be viewed contempuously as a threat to Mudcat's survival by many Mudcatters, I don't think that would necessarily be such a bad thing at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 11:59 AM Allegence and loyalty are funny things Venus and I can't explain them. It is quite weird sitting where I am and realising some time ago, there were problems here and also realising that some new music thing was an option. It is perhaps even wierder that although I became argumentative and bitter, my attempts were to try to help this place and "community members" but at least to get some recognition of problems to enable what I percieved as "forward movement". Overall, my gut feeling is that the so called "inner clique" will never look at themselves and will only be interested in occupying a form of "centre stage" in a community that they to some degree hijacked - I think the Annexe proved that to some degree... If there ever is a split, I will be sad but feel that perhaps it was something that needed to happen as (what I think are) maybe your feelings that my ideals over comminity and music could never be achieved are right. What will sadden me most is that the so called "inner clique" members, the ones who supposedly are interested in community can only look at thier "fun" rather than a more complete picture and other alternatives were never given a chance because of their desire to be "centre of attention", etc. I hold out for now but maybe, in time, I'd like to join a list if it started or alternatavely, if you wished, you can have my software for free to operate on your terms of memberhip and to tailor as you want (and their are plenty of other good free options). It would be a sad day for me if it ever happened but as time goes on, I seem to become more and more distant from the community I care about. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:02 PM "My gut feeling is, it is time for a new private mailing list for those of us folk music fans who are disillusioned both with Mudcat and rec.music.folk. If that means a new forum will be viewed contempuously as a threat to Mudcat's survival by many Mudcatters, I don't think that would necessarily be such a bad thing at all." Why not go ahead and do it? This keeps coming up by some and it's as if Max might be hurt or some of us would be pissed or something..........What's the big deal besides doing it.....Go ahead!! I can't imagine Max giving much thought to it or actually caring at all. Why keep harping on the need for something else? Just do it if you want. Don't be blaming the "not doing" on some kind of respect or lack of it for Max or anyone else. It's a big net...Have at it! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: MMario Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:07 PM venus - why not just bring the conversations you want HERE? What topics do you want to see? Start a few threads. Yes, there is a lot of side chatter and off topic discussion. But there is also an incredible volume of musical information flowing through here. Or start a project of some sort that is music based and which can either be added to the DT or maybe a seperate page for itself. there are a number of songbooks that have entered the public domain that could be indexed and the tunes posted. There are numberous threads that could be indexed and linked. There are still over 1900 tunes "missing" from the Oct. 1999 version of the DT. There is a thread on unanswered requests that has led to answers. Some of the personal remininsces of posters have been incredible. (And I'm talking about the music related ones) One of the problems with "members only" forums is that you miss out on the visitor who contributes gems; e-mail lists likewise.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Pterry Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:12 PM Well,I'm what you people call a 'newby'. I had been lurking for some months before I decided to become a member; largley because I felt I was intruding. Truth is ,I have little musical interest but you people seem like nice folks and you have some really interesting convesations. So here I am!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Steve in Idaho Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:13 PM I agree with Spaw here. It's like the music on Paltalk. There were a lot of folks that made comments about how it wasn't happening and that they couldn't find it, it wasn't this and it wasn't that (me included). So someone stepped forward and did something about it. Actually several someones. This has been so hammered that it is beyond redundant. Even the government couldn't beat this horse anymore than it has. If it isn't working for some - make the change and if it flies it was a real issue. If it doesn't - then it was only the problem of a few. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Naemanson Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:18 PM The Mudcat is a community. Just as in a real community there are some people who get along and become very good friends and those who irritate each other. Once upon a time we had two people in our office who just could not get along. They couldn't be in the same room together. Each of them individually were great people but together the chemistry was all wrong. We have the same problem here. So quit worrying about fights and cynicism. If you see a thread developing along those lines just ignore it. Some people just don't get along. Now, I believe that those people could meet, face to face, over a beer, they would change their tunes (Does this make it a musical thread now?). But that won't happen too quickly. Let those who want to argue alone and let them spend their energies without upsetting the rest of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Devilmaster Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:34 PM *sigh* are we still on this? NEWS FLASH: DATELINE - INTERNET Mudcat is not something made by the people, for the people. Its made by a man, Max, for his love of music, and the chance to meet and talk to people of the same love of music. This is his place. I liken it to a house party. You wouldn't go to somebody's place and walk in and say the drapes suck and start changing everything, its not your place. Since this is Max's place, if Max feels he wants to change it, he will change it. Perhaps he really likes those drapes. So at the end of the day, I will answer your question. YES ITS FUTILE. If you don't like the tone or the direction of the Cat, build your own website with what you want on it. I am in total agreement with Spaw. Stop whining here and do something about it. I personally like it here. I enjoy it. If I don't want to read something, I don't. If someone flames me, who gives a f***! I've been called worse by better. And to all the other members of Mudcat, just because a few people whine and bitch, does not mean we have to start looking for a problem with the way we do things. Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem is with the whiner, not the others or the Mudcat in general. People we are given a free service here. Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:37 PM steve, you are quite wrong over Paltalk, it was happening. Historically, a group of people decided to push for a Member only room, there were rows and those like myself who favoured open rooms went elsewhere while the usage of the only remaining Mudcat room dissapeared to almost nothing. What your proposals and actions appear to be doing is restoring what once (and you have a long way to go to keep it open for as many hrs per week as it was) was but with a fresh face. It is easy for people to accept your lead and pretend it is something new but rather difficult for people to admit that the closed room and the way it was achieved ended up removing lots of hrs of a folk/blues room always admined by a 'catter being availible. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,Don Meixner Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:53 PM I don't particularily want to see a members only room. What I would like is to able to identify, by name at least, whoever it is I am replying to. Topic and conversation are less important than being able to address an individual directly. Not for purposes of starting flames, but because it's simple good manners. We can't recognize each others voices so a screen name is all that we have to know who is talking. I've always viewed the Mudcat forum as a wide open space to view all types of music and opinions and interests. Particularily I like the technical questions that help performers to perform better. I can learn stage craft from a gothic rocker just as easily as I can from a folk singer. All levels of performer and skill should be given the same weight of importance. To exclude beginners because they have beginners questions denies the availability of a wealth of knowledge that can be found only in a forum like Mudcat. This may sound off the mark regarding this thread, but if you look back to where all the argument and bitterness seems to arise, it appears to come from some people not wanting to deal with questions and opinions they believe to be amatueristic and simple. Don Meixner |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Jan 02 - 12:53 PM I see this as the continuing struggle human beings have with control issues. I'll use myself as an example. Once upon a time I discovered Mudcat. At the time, I was a relatively new folk performer and a longtime lover of folk music of many sorts. I found Mudcat looking for blues sites for my husband, to surprise him when he came back from out of town. I posted some lyric requests and looked around. I liked what I saw and I started posting. I was brand new to the internet too, and I didn't even know that longtime users were kind of clannish about net users in general. I didn't know there were dues to pay, see? So I was coming out of my way of relating to people, in a setting where "how it's done" is that each one took their turn to say what they thought, and others said what they thought, and people just heard each other out, and took whatever was useful from what they heard and left the rest. At the time I was directing a local unit of a large and prominent non-profit. That job put me in a position where I had surrendered my free speech in favor of the neutrality that the organization chooses as a higher value. It is a small town. Speaking my mind "on my own time" was a practical impossibility... wherever we go in this place, we are "working." Well, things I wanted to discuss and share had gotten bottled up. They found an outlet here. In the meantime I was learning more about my new craft-- music. Some people-- a LOT of people-- immediatately assigned a perceived agenda to me, because of my posts, that had nothing to do with me, my values, my goals. They attributed to me an intentionality that was entirely lacking. I was just.... discovering Mudcat, and, in the process, a lot of what I thought and felt about a lot of things. I also, however, shared the little I DID know, about music, when I saw a place where that made sense. And very early on as a Mudcatter, I welcomed a lot of newcomers, because where I come from (ALL the places I come from), newcomers are valued very highly, and I am good at incorporating them in whatever venture is at hand. Guess this comes from years, as a child, of moving into new towns every October or so and having to be the new kid on the block-- and learning the things that help, and the things that hurt. So to "give back" for what I was receiving, I started looking out for newbies. Well I had no idea that "more members" was exactly what some longtime members LEAST wanted. I also did not know that certain wounds had been dealt people here, by other members who might have seemed to wear the same face I showed here most readily. I ALSO didn't know that I had just joined the most "unhealed" commiunity I have ever encountered-- one that had had much hurt in its own internal relationships and had not moved past them. The only people who tried to tell me about it did it in terms of trying to control what I posted-- they never had any actual information, and when I asked I didn't get very far. So this was not terribly helpful. It also didn't help that at the time, there was no document that said what was usual around here. There was never a message, for instance, that said, "Hi, my name is so and so, and my job around here is such and such, and please be aware that such and such is not done, and so forth." Just what seemed to be vague mutterings about "don't do this or else because I know why you're doing it;" or "Oh please don't do this, it's too scary to say why, just take my word for it that you'll be sorry... I can't TALK about it, etc etc...." Things quickly got out of hand, for me-- I became quite a target, from a number of different quarters. People who DID have an agenda decided they were entitled to try to control what they had chosen to perceive as mine. Others who have problems themselves with control issues decided that it would be sensible to accuse me of trying to control things. It's funny because in real life, what I am known for is helping to move things forward so that EVERYONE'S goals are addressed... and what is often the result is the empowerment of the very people who had been left out of the process. Another funny thing that happened was that a lot of people ascribed ALL of my posts, feelings, goals, opinions, etc.-- to one single thing they had identified about me. I had said I was a Christian, and I contributed to threads from that view some of the time. But people never seemed to realize that some-- a lot-- of my experience was being shared from my times as a pretty radical secular homeschooler... or from time spent as a peer counselor who led liberation support groups.... or from a single mom (unwed!!!! oh my! and unapolgetic about it!!!) who has stood by friends and strangers making tough dscisions about pregnancy... In other words, because people tend to see others pretty one-dimensionally, they had "pegged" me and they read the urge to proselytize into just about everything I said. And yet if you look at these old posts, I don't think you can find anywhere that I say or imply that people oughtta get saved. This is because I believe deeply that people have to decide those things for themselves, and I put that belief into action. We do another funny thing around here. Sometimes we say, "Post what you think, from your own experience. Use I-messages." Well, around here, when you do that you also open yourself up to accusations of self-aggrandizement, and so there really is no way to "win." You have to decide, I think, that it isn't about winning at all, it's about doing the best you can in any given moment, to live by what you believe, and to extend yourself from what you know into what you don't know quite yet. You learn that it helps to see everyone being in a process of doing that, and you see that people give each other a hand where that seems to make sense, and you do that too, as you can, and you let the rest float along. But human beings find it so much easier to point to someone else and say what THEY oughtta be doing. To do this you have to be trying to control them so they can either do what you want, or-- even better!!-- NOT do it, so that you can keep looking at theat failure instead of at your own failure to live by your own beliefs. That's why I think Mudcat periodically goes sour. I think it's because enough people at one time are stuck in that spot where they are uncomfortable with the way their lives are working, and it's easier to expect someone else to deal with that, than to deal with one's own need to keep growing. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 01:00 PM spaw, what I feel you underestimate (or perhaps are well aware of and view as a strong point) is the power of the dt in Mudcat. Mudcat is a major collection point for new lyrics, a major (the best) resource for finding lyrics and a forum where many people come in search for lyrics. If it wasn't for the dt, with the attitudes that previal from certain "clique" members, Mudcat would have lost any musical meaning long ago. That is perhaps the biggest reason (apart from loyalty issues) that people are reluctant to move into new musical territories. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Ebbie Date: 27 Jan 02 - 01:42 PM Susan, when I write something that people misconstrue, I have to accept that I did not communicate properly. I cannot blame others for what I failed to get across. IMO. That said, I assure you that I enjoy the 'new' Susan a great deal. I don't think you changed, I feel you simply are communicating better. As for Mudcat not meeting everyone's needs, we come here, imo, for different, non-competing things. The DT is of immediate and continuing importance to some, for others it is the chatter that is their main connection to Mudcat. I fail to see that there is a major conflict in the two aims. If I am looking for lyrics, or want to post lyrics for others, surely that is important. If the chatter, music-related or not, is what I resonate to, then it is valuable to me. It is my own decision as to which venue I frequent. It seems to me that the flamers/whiners/trollers are people who simply are not comfortable in a non-controlled environment. (And, Jon, I am not including you or others like you in the 'whiners' label. I think people trying to make something better are valuable.) This is all my own opinion, of course- but it works for me. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Jan 02 - 01:49 PM Certainly you're right on the DT Jon. Now we seem to have two kind of intertwined threads going now also and on the other I read from you: Mudcat is overall a friendly place but that does not mean it couldn't be better and that issues don't exist. The real question to me is "Can the 'core' members recognise this and try to help become part of a bigger and greater Mudcat than before or are they going to continue to argue that everything in the garden is rosey?" Alright.........First, who exactly are the "core" members you reference? Then, what is it exactly that you expect the core members to do to improve things? I'm not being flippant or sarcastic Jon, but I am asking specifically what is expected and of whom. As far as the "rosey".........Lenny Bruce delivered one of my favorite lines: "There is only what is; what should be never existed." Thinking about that, Max started this about Blues and Folk Music and the folk took over from just about day one........probably not what he had in mind either, but he went with it. A lot of folks just kinda' roll with it around here now besides Max. The place has changed and continues to change through the dynamic of the group that's here. Now if that group has gotten too far afield for some, then what is it that's supposed to happen? And......Do you have any reason to believe it will? If not, then why do we (not you Jon....no accusation, I'm on this thread too as are a lot of others and we keep the things alive...not accusatory of you) keep harping on it as though it will or won't or whatever. Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 02:26 PM spaw, for the purposes of this discusssion, I will define the 'core' members as those of us who do use Mudcat as a community gathering point and those of us how perhaps "shout" loudest or more often than others. That could include both of us... The real question to me is can we try to recognise that at times there can be some degree of validity (although frequently overblown) in some feelings or perhaps recognise that a certain musical area of memberhip does diminish over time? I guess my big one is to ask people to question and to be imaginative rather than have the repeated accusation/denial and people leaving situation. So here's a question: I don't believe Mudcat has reached its full potential and that it may be possible for both community and music to expand. How can we help other people, all with differing needs and ideals get the best they can out of Mudcat while still enjoying it ourselves? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Rolfyboy6 Date: 27 Jan 02 - 03:00 PM Having read all the above posts I am reminded of these songs:
TRY A LITTLE TENDERNESS
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: nutty Date: 27 Jan 02 - 03:42 PM I've heard all this before and till now have refrained from commenting but..... I run a folk song weekend ....It is something I started because I wanted to get singers together....I do all the organising and correspondence. I put up my own money to make sure it happens and that everyone is happy and well looked after yet every year there are one or two people who try to tell me how the weekend should be run. Like Max, I'm very polite and ignore the comments but privately I am very irritated by what I consider to be appalling bad manners. Amazingly, these people expect to be invited back. My feeling is that when I am invited to an event that they run then I may feel that I need to listen to what they are saying but one day I might just tell them to find somewhere else to go.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 02 - 03:46 PM Ain't that the truth! And here's another wee thought, guys: all you ever see on the 'Cat is derived from individuals. Each person on the board is communicating from a single point of view, and likewise Max' contribution is his own. The design and architecture of the site -- how messages and threads work and what colors things are and the scripts that get called -- is all Max' baby, with a lot of help. Everything else can be traced to other individuals. Your challenge, if you find yourself discontented with things, is to determine the exact source of your difficulty and imagine and propose a remedy thereto. For example, you could tell Spaw to jump off a tall building, or you could suggest to Max that he require 76.5% of all threads begun be about music; or you could try to persuade our deep expert geniuses on various subjects to write more. The minimalist design imposed by the site architect means you have to exert your best influence in the best possible way and that means being specific and clear in your requirements, not whinging about atmosphere. There is no "atmosphere". It is a composite of individual communications with which you may or may not wish to take issue. If you can't identify the real issue you want to address, moaning will not further your cause. A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: little john cameron Date: 27 Jan 02 - 04:01 PM Ah'm still at a loss tae figure oot why anybody wid read a post that disnae interest them an' then complain.Tae me it is like gaun tae a resturant an' eatin the meal then complainin aboot it efter it's bee eaten. ljc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jeri Date: 27 Jan 02 - 04:36 PM "I thought I'd at least ask people here if they think it futile to bother with Mudcat reforms at this point, or whether it really is time for those of us with a different vision of what Mudcat could be to just fade away?" I assume you're talking about the way people behave here? You'll have to get enough people to agree there is a problem. You'll have to determine what the specific problem/problems is/are. You'll have to get a majority to determine what behavioral changes are necessary to fix the problem. You'll have to convince all (or most) posters, members and guests alike, to behave the way the majority believes they should. You'll need some way to enforce these rules. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see any problem with starting another folk forum or e-mail list. If you really dislike it so much here, creating your own forum or list would make you a lot happier, and that's what it's all about, isn't it? If you hang around someplace you dislike, you'll wind up just getting more miserable. If you start a private list, you may have to think about whether it may be perceived as being even more elitist than a forum anyone can join. You probably won't have to deal with any complaints, though, since the complaintants won't be able to read or post messages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Jan 02 - 06:11 PM I dunno'..........Jeri's last two paragraphs pretty well summed it up. Yeah, I admit that the focus has changed and continues to change, but I really don't see a way of correcting that if in fact it needs corrected. I don't want to say "If you don't like it, go away, but going on and on over the same issues isn't helping anything either is it? Max is making some structural changes that we may see in a few months and that will probably please some.....or not. Sure, some have left......I didn't tell them to go and maybe the place had changed from something they liked to something they didn't. Others will leave in the future for the same reason. I'm just not real sure you can get all these folks to agree. Not even a majority on a majority most of the time. The place is what it is and unless Max is willing to bring in serious structure and a full time moderator, it will be what it becomes. That's not saying it's bad now or that everything is rosey. I'm willing to acknowledge some are unhappy....bitter even. What can be done about that short of saying, okay, it's your way.......or putting in fulltime moderators and a lot of rules. I swore I wasn't going to get involved in any more of these discussions as they have no end and no tangible solution. Why doesn't one of you who hates the joint so badly, open up a website and announce what your intent is and post it? Start small and grow and build what you want. Keep out the riffraff like myself and some others and make your world better. Go for it. I guarantee nobody would censor any thread started to announce another forum as long as it didn't say "Fuck Mudcat" or something....but saying an alternative and new music lover's only forum would be no cause for censorship or any concern. Just do it. Mudcat may have been a place to discuss music, but now it's place for music lover's to discuss whatever. I can think of no simple way to bring back the past and I really don't care to as it suits me fine now. But if there is a way to satisfy everyone, I'll roll with that too. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 02 - 06:15 PM There is no way to bring back the past, except to try and live in it, not a recommended solution. You can, however, flood the forum with the kinds of dialogue you most want to see. Get real, get responsible, communicate with clear intent instead of murky discontent, and you'll get somewhere closer to your desire... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Cobble Date: 27 Jan 02 - 06:34 PM Folk music is life, yesterday, today and tomorrow. The lyrics of folk music are all around, what people say and do, the issues of the day. This is a marvellous site to pick up all these things, so stop talking BLOODY CRAP. Cobble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 27 Jan 02 - 07:13 PM I'm still new to Mudcat, so I'll just pose a question. Do you have any suggestions what personal (not enforced) guidelines should be between posting messages in threads, sending messages to Personal Pages, or e-mailing? In the short time I've been here, I've found myself wanting to discuss things further that seem too unrelated to a question raised in a thread, and didn't feel a new thread was necessary. If there's someone I want to carry on a further discussion with, I post a message for the person on their Personal Page. If that evolves into a more long-term conversation, it seems dumb to just keep sending messages back and forth through the Personal Pages, and I exchange e-mails and don't go through Mudcat at all. Is that the way you suggest people do it? There are times when conversations wander so far off the original topic of a thread, and seem to become a personal conversation with one or two people that I wonder why the people don't just carry it on through Personal Pages, or e-mail. Not a major irritant, but there are times when a thread I was initially interested in wanders so far off the subject, or becomes a personal exchange between two or three people that I wander away myself. That's all right, too. I'd rather have threads wander, I'd rather have the occasional over-the edge insult than to have this place heavily structured. Maybe I'll feel differently after a year. But I kinda doubt it.
So far, for the length of this thread, the only suggestions I've heard seem to be to start a new site, or pretty much keep going on the way that it is, with more and more people becoming disattisfied. Like a variant on "My country, love it or leave it." :-) Remember that one?
So c'mon "Inner Core Group," you have been at this a lot longer... any suggestions about when to post and when to e-mail, guidelines about common courtesy in exchanging posts? I've really enjoyed meeting the people I have since I came on, and expect that I'll meet more. I can also see why someone new would think that there is a clique of "inner core members." When you're new, you often feel that way. You're the outsider. Witty interchanges don't include you because people don't know you. No reason to feel that you're an outsider. Everyone started out as an outsider.
It just seems a shame to have this site so pre-occupied with wounded feelings and bitterness. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 07:23 PM ah but spaw, Max did post:
Subject: RE: BS: What annoys me about mudcat From: Max Date: 12-Jan-02 - 08:28 PM Shop: Anyhow We've been toiling with the issue of topic here for a while. We are a folk/blues/traditional/historical/folklore Web site, but to try to control it manually is an endless if not impossible task. I keep hearing the members-only recommendation, but am not comfortable with that. The fact that long-time core members, who seem to have the most to offer us, are visiting less often bothers me even more. That post clearly illustrates that the management does recognise differences amongst people here - it goes as far as to talk in terms of 1%ers and 99%ers. It also details concern over losses of people here and of the planned implentementation of features that look to try to address some problems. Seems to me that Max is trying to analyse and work out problems while you remain telling people (sort of) "if you don't like it - fuck off... Is Max right in trying spaw or are you right in your negativity? Jon
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Jan 02 - 07:44 PM Jerry, some interesting thoughts and here's why..... I didn't say love it or leave it.....I did say that if you can't roll with it, I don't have too many ideas to help you. Max has "rolled with it" since about day one and I have no ideas on how to do otherwise. I'm glad you're "rolling with it" because a big chunk of what you said is in fact the major irritant. You wrote, "There are times when conversations wander so far off the original topic of a thread, and seem to become a personal conversation with one or two people that I wonder why the people don't just carry it on through Personal Pages, or e-mail. Not a major irritant, but there are times when a thread I was initially interested in wanders so far off the subject, or becomes a personal exchange between two or three people that I wander away myself. That's all right, too. I'd rather have threads wander, I'd rather have the occasional over-the edge insult than to have this place heavily structured. Maybe I'll feel differently after a year. But I kinda doubt it." For you, at this time, it's not a major irritant. For others it is one of the biggest. To me, one of the best things about this format is the almost instantaneous responses and at times that leads to two-way conversations......However, those conversation can be a side bar to the actual topic and there might be three or four in one thread. Anyone can join in on those though or return to the main topic. Happens all the time and often someone else enters that part of the conversation with new info that a PM/e-mail would never have garnered since it IS only between two people. There are times that I take it to PM's or e-mails if it's personal or distinctly limited, but wnen it's on the thread, it's like hearing a conversation in a bar and jumping in saying, "Pardon me, but I might have something on that that might interest you." Sometimes I read threads where two people are going back and forth on a subject that they could have taken to PM's and I am glad as hell they didn't because I'm learning a ton just listening! I can't add, but I sure do enjoy the info! And if it was in PM's I'd have missed it. All good stuff you wrote there Jerry, just didn't want you to think I meant love it or leave it as I too remember that one all too well. But in the final analysis, all of those kind of situations get down to that point don't they? Perhaps a bit of more moderate language like roll with it or adjust, but if you can't stand it, what else can you do after you've bitched for years? Well the answer to that are these kind of threads. "I'm still here and I don't like the way it's gone or is going, so I'm going to continue to bitch about it and I ain't leaving!" And ya' know....that's fine! Just so it doesn't get personal and become a flame war. These BPM threads are running pretty regular anymore and I read them and have tried to avoid posting them for awhile, but I guess this time it just intrigued me again. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Jan 02 - 07:47 PM Jon. I acknowledged Max and read that very thing and said he was adding some features that will please some....but they won't please all because they never do. I'm not negative at all Jon.....just read the last post for an answer on your "love it or leave it" question.....And you ought to know better than to think in the negative ain't me.....but to try to acknowledge reality ain't a bad idea. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jeri Date: 27 Jan 02 - 07:49 PM Jerry, as to "love it or leave it," it's probably easier to change a country than Mudcat. People can elect new leaders and pass legislation. People can lobby and the majority decides what rules about right and wrong will be and they'll be enforced. Mudcat doesn't really have leaders, and there are few laws. Majority decisions won't stop the minority from doing as they will, but consensus is the only thing I see that even has a chance. I don't think it's impossible, just improbable. Hardly anyone seems willing to modify their behavior because others ask them nicely...not that many people ask nicely. As for me, I'll consider whether it's a reasonable request. I'm probably not going to change what I do because one person who isn't directly affected by it is upset. I might, if I think that one person's right. I don't think I post enough to be part of the "core group," but I sure have enough opinions! As to threads, I think if more than two people are involved in an off topic (for that thread) discussion, the best thing would be to start a new thread. It may look like only several people are interested, but perhaps quite a few more are reading. Just my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Devilmaster Date: 27 Jan 02 - 09:00 PM Acutally JonFreeman, are you right in your negativity? You and a few guests, are the ones that constantly msg about what Mudcat has become and how its not what it used to be. You have on numerous occasions, mentioned that you and you alone, according to your posts, don't like the way the forum is. You also said that you have offered suggestions, ideas, and in the end, an alternative, which was faced with mudcat being unable or unwilling to implement You like asking questions, so I pose to you: When you, as you put it, feel the mudcat has been 'hijacked' by an 'inner clique' that must be 'centre stage', describe for me please what you are doing? You constantly talk about how 'you' want it different. You complained about Max not doing anything, until you read his post about filtering. You easily offer that to Spaw, and yet in another post you had to mention that although Max is working on filtering, it was not the way you would have done it. Why did you have to mention that? You say that there is a bitterness. I read bitterness in alot of your messages. You admit to being the biggest critic. Is it possible that you contribute to this bitterness you complain about? My biggest question is, why do 'you' think the Mudcat HAS to be changed? You've said in msgs that you believe the end result will be you leaving. If you do, it will be of your own valition, my friend, not because of what someone said. You have always had the ability to say what you want, without ever being cut off from Mudcat. People like Max who have put in time of their own to make this site what it is, FOR FREE, probably do not enjoy your constant criticism. I know if I was Max I wouldn't. But I'm not. I'm here because I enjoy music in all its forms, listening, playing, learning etc. I also enjoy the msg forum. If there is something I don't want to read or respond, I don't. Voila! - filtering. When anyone says they leave Mudcat because of someone else, that is total horseshit. People leave of their own choice, their decision. If a member says he/she is leaving because what Spaw said,(just an example spaw) it is their inability to deal with or ignore Spaw that is the reason. No one forces these people to leave. If you decide to leave, realize that life will still go on here. It will not change, a few people will msg saying 'sorry you gotta go' and such and then like every other thread, it will drop off the bottom. At the end of the day, its Max's site. His rules. If he doesn't want to implement changes you'd like, or does something you don't like, its his decision on something he owns. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 09:29 PM Actually Devilmaster, you will find that the change I'd hope for and argued over is pretty much (I think) along the lines of the advanced filtering system that Max is talking in terms of introducing - just a different implementation. My complaints were not getting a reply of any sort from Max which is why I argued the points in the forum and not via PM. Those issues with Max are over and in this thread if you take the trouble to READ, you will find I'm supporting, not argueing with Max's moves. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Devilmaster Date: 27 Jan 02 - 09:36 PM I did take the trouble to read, Jon, I clicked on your name and read alot of your msgs. I wouldn't restrict myself to one thread, but do proper research and all my comments came from your former posts. You're supporting Max in this instance, i agree. Now waiting patiently on all other of my questions comments. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:03 PM Hey, Spaw: I never thought that you were saying "Love it or leave it." I thought that your remarks were very measured and not confrontational. You are right of course. If someone is really dissatisfied with something, whether it's a job, a church, mudcat, a musical group... you name it, there comes a point where it's best for all concerned if they do leave. I've seen too many people in churches who hate everything about the service and half the people there, and when I ask them why they keep coming if they're so miserable and make everyone else miserable they say, "I've been coming here for years, and this is where all my friends are." Deliver me from those kind of friends. Mudcat can't be all things to all cats. Sometimes, it IS best to move on. Not suggesting that anyone do that. That's their decision. I like it here. I only wish that I had been free enough to come here sooner. That's not saying, "love it or leave it." There are some on Mudcat who have reached a point of irritation where they'd say that, and I guess I wouldn't criticize them for that. I don't really know what's going on yet, to criticize anyone. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Date: 27 Jan 02 - 10:11 PM OK. When you, as you put it, feel the mudcat has been 'hijacked' by an 'inner clique' that must be 'centre stage', describe for me please what you are doing? The hijacking refers to history here: what was a music forum changing. All my arguing has been to try to get people at least to consider methods of a better fit here for everyone. And I have posted in threads where questions have been asked by others - I hardly consider trying to offer my view in threads started by others discussing Mudcat hijacking. You constantly talk about how 'you' want it different. You complained about Max not doing anything, until you read his post about filtering. You easily offer that to Spaw, and yet in another post you had to mention that although Max is working on filtering, it was not the way you would have done it. Why did you have to mention that? To try to show those that have accused me of setting design terms, etc. that I am in fact flexible in my outlook and what I support is the idea rather than a specific implementation. You say that there is a bitterness. I read bitterness in alot of your messages. You admit to being the biggest critic. Is it possible that you contribute to this bitterness you complain about? My bitterness has been that few have been willing to even give me a hearing. I did admit to being one of Max's biggest critics in a post where I also wished him well. I can't prove it but he sent me a PM after that, in which he said something along the lines of criticism can be healthy and called me a useful member. Is it perhaps possible that even though I went about matters wrongly that Max does respect honestey and realises that no ideas can come from mere sycophancy? My biggest question is, why do 'you' think the Mudcat HAS to be changed? It doesn't HAVE to be changed but I have witnessesd a course over a couple of years, a course that appears to have been acknowledged by Max... maybe I was right! Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Date: 28 Jan 02 - 06:42 AM Perhaps Jon and Steve could take this to private mail or PM? I agree that people who are unhappy with the forum should leave. The reason why so many of us stay is because there are only a few alternatives to Mudcat. Re: rec.music.folk There are reasons why I don't like that alternative either. The advertising. The spam. The lack of knowledgeable people, although like Mudcat, there is a handful of truly knowledgeable people there too. Re: Folk Alliance mailing list I'm a member of this one too. The focus of that list seems pretty narrow, and the content controlled too much by list owners. For me, the happy medium would be a forum, whether mailing list, moderated newsgroup, or website forum, which has all posters accessing the forum in the same way (ie no member/guest thing, which just creates unnecessary problems, IMO). I don't share the sentiments of some who feel a private mailing list is elitist. Between Mudcat and rec.music.folk, newbies are pretty well served in the public Internet realm. But for those of us with a more serious interest in discussing music, especially to have more scholarly, learned discussions of music without the BS, without the spam, without the advertising, without the domination of the performance questions (there are usenet forums for the instrument players for that purpose), without having to define folk music again and again and again ad nauseum, etc I think the best alternative is to look at beginning discussions about creating another forum. For me, it isn't just about bitching and whining. I am still willing to give Mudcat a chance once the advance filtering system is brought in. But I still don't know how much that will improve the problem of thread hijacking. And what I mean by thread hijacking, is what was mentioned in regards to the History of Irish Traditional Music thread. I'm sure others can provide many examples of music threads getting hijacked by the BSers. Who I see are largely staying out of this conversation.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Jan 02 - 07:35 AM RE: Thread Hijacking About three years ago there was a general agreement that the research/"serious" music threads would be off limits to that sort of thing. In the huge majority and I mean HUGE, that has been the case since. Perhaps this can serve as a reminder to that "agreement" and all, but you're harping on one specific example. It just isn't the case on a general basis.....not at all. So let's agree to do that again, remind a few people and let the new folks know....and drop it. It's a self policing action and it has worked quite well. Let's NOT try to take this up as your latest grievance. It doesn't wash. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Date: 28 Jan 02 - 07:43 AM Yes Spaw, since you were guilty of thread hijacking in that specific instance, you do need to police yourself. But don't expect the rest of us who believe thread hijacking is a much larger problem than the hijackers are willing to admit, to exonerate you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Jan 02 - 07:46 AM What specific instance? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Date: 28 Jan 02 - 07:53 AM The History of Irish Music thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Jan 02 - 07:57 AM Sorry. I don't see that at all. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Date: 28 Jan 02 - 08:01 AM And that is what makes you an example of the many problems with the Mudcat regulars. |