BS: Why?

Subject: Why?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 08:35 PM

In the (very recent) past, I thought I understood some of the arguments and have made myself unpopular for trying to argue for things like means of allowing views of the forum to be different for users who like or dislike BS. I'm beginning to feel like I'm just an idiot who tried to stand out for things like that (not to say they wouldn't of happened) for nothing and I do not understand.

Part of Max's post in the letter to guests says:

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.

Are there any Guest issues that could be addressed or is it all a game for no purpose other than at a mimimum to annoy Mudcat?

Jon (expecting to get flamed)

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 08:45 PM

Well, the Mudcat censors are busy censoring my posts, so I don't know how long this will last in the thread Jon. But this excerpt sums up my feelings about the ways things are rapidly going downhill, especially since Max's letter. Max is becoming more and more intolerant. He has certainly been verbally abusive. And more than a bit irrational. Anyway, here are the excerpts germane to the problems here, IMO:

The best boards are good because they remain on-topic and the communications between individuals is civil and useful. A good moderator works to ensure that this remains true so that everyone can benefit from the community as well as contribute to the discussions in an intelligent manner.

The best moderators work with the board members to create an environment which is enjoyable and beneficial to all. A bad moderator can produce the feeling that one is being watched by the Gestapo or secret police, where every word is watched and postings are often deleted without apparent cause or need.

Members of the board need to feel that their comments are desired and valued. Randomly deleting large numbers of postings for no apparent reason other than the moderator disagrees will certainly cause a board to become useless and empty of life. In fact, one of the things that can make a board truly outstanding is lively (not insulting or demeaning but lively) discussions about various topics.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 08:50 PM

Ironic, isn't it, Jon, that a GUEST should quote something which refers to "Board Members" to try to justify their non-member attempts to destroy the Mudcat? Make no mistake about it, that is all this latest round of guests is after, destroying the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 09:05 PM

I will comment on the Guest business one more time and then not again. Then I'll put on my flame proof suit.

I don't care what a Guest has to say or how they say it. It is a freedom of the press issue basically. But I do resent highly someone with an opinion that they are only brave enought to promote from the anonymity of no name other than Guest. Pick a Non De Guerre and have at it in a stand up debate so I can call a poster a friend or a jackass without the fear of calling some other person who is using a onesizefitsall handle an undeserved epithet.

Max runs this show and any editorial policy is his to use as he so chooses. I think an editorial policy should be stated at the get go (One probably is, I can't remember that far back) when a new member signs on. Signing on means you agree to civility, courtesy, and common decency defined in the most simple of terms. And you show that you agree to that policy by picking your own name or handle that can't be construed as any other person but the person signing on.

Regards,

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 09:07 PM

No it isn't what this is all about kat. If you want to see how flamers destroy forums, have a wander on over to alt.flame.mud and see how it gets done.

What is going on here is Max feels so threatened by the legitimate complaints about the way the forum is run, that he has been behaving like a bad moderator. It really is that simple.

Jon--no guest issues are going to be addressed fairly in this forum now, or in the future. It is too easy to use guests as the scapegoat for the deeper problems here.

If you have a look at the rest of the excerpts posted from the Internet Tips & Secrets site, one of the points made is that forums which are successful in the long haul limit the BS to the bare minimum. Max has chosen not to do that. It seems Max is going to be stubborn about all this, rather than do what is best for the forum. His choice, it's his baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 09:11 PM

Judge from the replies you'll probably get from guests, Jon. See whether they have anything constructive to say, or whether it's all just snide commentary and insults - that's what all of the recent stuff has sounded like to me. See if they provide any evidence, or just make allegations.

It's like someone who, as a child, learned that "criticism" is a slap, or "shut up, you stupid brat" and now that's what they call the verbal variety of the same sort of message. Almost all of the recent "criticism" has consisted of inflamatory and unsupported generalization and speech designed to provoke an emotional reaction in readers. This doesn't show the slightest hint that they actually want anything changed. They just want to abuse people.

They pushed the limits, and I guess they found out how far they could indulge themselves before Max decided to take action. Any valid complaints may now be moot, because I think our willingness to believe in their sincerity is gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: Tone d' F
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 09:20 PM

Guest if your so upset about the way this forum is run by all means don't bother comming back

and your posts have what to do with music?

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 10:08 PM

Jeri generally sums things up pretty well and indeed she has again. In the future the registration will undoubtedly do away with the "Guest" moniker and that will not be the issue..but then again it really never was. The changes, outside of Max's letter, are ones which will improve many things about the site and I'm led to beleive they will resolve some of the longstanding nitpicks and larger issues as well, such as filtering. I think we will see these fairly soon.

The "issues" brought up most recently such as the entire guest thing and all of that are simply, as Kendall put it, "Red Herrings." We have had folks trying to discuss this logically and truthfully but as soon as one issue is countered they move to the next red herring and then to the next and the next until they come back to the first. This is trolling at it's finest and we have some people here who have shown how adept they are at it in these past few days especially. They are trolling....they aren't interested in the 'Cat. They are trolling.....they know what buttons to push. They are trolling......and they get what they want here.

Even after Max makes whatever changes he intends, some of these trolls will continue to circumvent the program and they will still be with us. There will be fewer, and Max will handle many of them, but the bottom line is......We must be able to handle the trolls ourselves. No matter what has been tried or said in the past, there is only one way to do this.....DO NOT RESPOND TO A TROLL. This we seem to be almost unable to do, and until we do, the trolls will feed here.

Shambles started a thread asking in short, to take the pledge, so to speak, and not respond to them. Many of us have done so. Others have found reasons to feed the trolls......."They're living on stored up fat so I figure I might as well have my say."-----and in doing so we give them more fat. Or, "I just want to correct the record in case there are any lurkers."-----the record is what it is and plain for anyone to see. Attempting to correct it just feeds the trolls. The first of those was by Bill D., a good friend and I know exactly how he feels and the second by WYSIWYG, another friend, I know exactly how she feels too. The bottom line is that no matter how good the reason for responding, any response feeds the trolls and they are not interested in the Mudcat, in Max, in you, in me, in music, in discussion........They are interested in trolling and they are doing a good job of it! WE allow it because we RESPOND and as long as we do, no matter how much we want to defend something we love or the people who have made it so, we will have the trolls.

Let's all stop feeding them NOW!!!

I have said before that for words to be injurious you must have respect for the person saying them and have some belief that they may be correct. Do you really believe what they say?----Obviously not because we keep wanting to explain why they are wrong (secret:they aren't really interested anyway). Do you respect their opinion?----Personally no. They are strangers and I really don't have any reason to give them any credence at this point.

Good Friends........Most of us care deeply for this place and for the music, knowledge, friendship, and camaraderie it has spawned. We look forward to the latest visits of 'Catters whether it's at Stony Stratford or in Toronto. We look forward to sending Kendall back to the UK and having Bill Sables and Micca back in the USA. We care because, rightly or wrongly, we have invested ourselves here. The trolls haven't, they won't, it's not a part of their agenda. To rid ourselves of them we must stop feeding them.

Try it now. Do it now. Have the willpower to read the stuff they have to say and let it die.....DO NOT RESPOND! Let them make their "arguments" for all their red herring positions.....DO NOT RESPOND. Let them call you names.....DO NOT RESPOND! It really is that simple, but it takes two things.......Willpower and Time. If we start now, it will happen.....not tomorrow and not next week, but down the road it will work. Take the pledge and do it now.

Spaw (Red Herring Alert-a troll will say I am hiding behind a pseudonym when everyone here knows everything there is to know about me because my life is on these threads)

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: khandu
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 10:23 PM

HEAR, HEAR, Bro SPAW, Preach it Brother! AMEN!

khandu

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST,catspaw50
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 10:26 PM

I don't know why so many people are up in arms about Guests not using a name. What is the point in that argument? Just so you have some fake name to attack them by other than Guest? That really makes no sense. How many "names" here are really names to begin with? We're all hiding behind a false name here. It's time that everyone realized that and just moves on from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: khandu
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 10:26 PM

I feel the need to clarify my last post...it is not sarcasm. It is total agreement.

I have taken the bait too many times and responded to these. They are sometimes hard to resist, but Spaw (and many others) are correct...DO NOT RESPOND!

khandu

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 10:30 PM

I knew exactly what you meant old friend........and you have it right!!! Think I can get a job down your way? We could open up our own place........The Church of No Redeeming Social Value.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: khandu
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 10:33 PM

HEAR, HEAR, Bro SPAW, Preach it Brother! AMEN!

khandu

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: little john cameron
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 10:55 PM

Right Spaw,ah've been sayin the same thing since ah came here.Time fowk payed attention tae us.ljc

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: leprechaun
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 01:01 AM

Talk about pushing buttons. The one that pisses me off the most is when GUESTcoward starts slamming Max. I picture GUESTcoward as some sleazy little snot-nosed dweeb who wishes he had the balls to be a face-to-face bully.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST,diff guest
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 05:48 AM

i'm not going to ignore guest - I think guest has some valid points - especially about the BS.
Sending all guests 'to coventry' is not a solution.
The guest does appear to be presenting issues that could be considered and could be addressed rather than being flamed & dismissed.
Its not a game, it should be a debate - but some members are so sanctimonious and insular that they don't want to debate. Most of the insults are being slung by members (suggesting guest is masturbating over posts for heaven sake!!!!) [with the exception of the fat'n'ugly red herrings].
Mudcat is in danger of becoming a cosy little club for people to bolster eachother's egos & reinforce some kind of common-denominator viewpoint. It is being choked by irrelevancies - yes there's still music, but there's music elsewhere too - and people leave all the time.
If we really do care about the Mudcat as a serious music forum then the bullet must be bit. Criticism is hard to take - but its usually worth listening to & acting on.
Of course since I am posting as guest this post will most likely be ignored derided or flamed. Such is the disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 05:58 AM

-unnamed thread

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 07:50 AM

OK Jeri, I've read through the thread, and I see no evidence of guests flaming. I do see guests being critical of the way the forum is being run, and how futile the effort is to discuss the problems plaguing this forum, which in my mind are the level of BS here, and the log-in. DT has a different set of problems not related to the forum.

Now, the only guest posts in this thread are not just snide insults. Can you see them for what they truly are?

As to the evidence--what evidence do you need that the membership, led by Max, are extremely hostile to guest posters? That there is a lot of BS in the forum? Is it that you haven't been reading the Mudcat of late?

Your demands for "evidence" are a silly ploy to distract from the issues being raised. It is clear to everyone there are some serious problems with the way the forum is being run. Max could change it all tomorrow, by making this a member only site, and eliminating the BS. He has chosen not to do that, so we are all stuck with the forum as it is. We all have to just live with it. Not because of what guests are doing--there just aren't that many of us. Members are attributing powers to guests that we just don't have. Max holds the power here, not guests.

So there is my response. I HAVE been contributing to the debate here. Offered really reasonable ideas that are being used successfully on other website message boards. Giving links to examples for people to see. How is that insulting and demeaning? I agree 1000% that members need to stop feeding trolls--and I've also said repeatedly that the problem members who ARE flame warriors and trolls need to dealt with effectively. Because it is all too obvious that the way the problem members are being dealt with now isn't working--if it was, this forum wouldn't be the way it is today.

You are all free to continue to dismiss everything that guests say regarding the forum, as an attempt to destroy the forum, be spoilers, whatever. But some of you will know that is not the case. I am not behaving like a malicious teenager. I'm offering legitimate criticism, aimed at improving the forum for ALL posters, regardless of how they log in, and in spite of the invective and harrassmanet I'm getting for it from the site owner.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: Hilary
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 08:25 AM

Hi Spaw,

I think you are right to encourage people not to respond to flamers/trolls - mostly 'cos it feeds them, but also - don't let yourself get emotionally dragged in. (Not that it 's easy sometimes). You think you're having a rational debate, but .... I've been pleased to see some of the provacative threads getting little/no response at all and dropping off the bottom of the page. See ya Hilary

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 08:35 AM

TRY MAX'S PERSONAL MESSAGES

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 08:43 AM

Too bad spaw hijacked your thread Jon, without ever addressing your questions. Good on ya for trying though.

With the state of the forum being what it is, it seems obvious there does need to be conversation and debate, to clear the air and to find a reasonable way forward.

But like I said, as long as we see any attempts to discuss the complex problems here reduced to this simplistic guest=troll level, nothing will be discussed, much less accomplished.

Over-zealous members like Shambles feel they are on a mission from god. How do you discuss anything with that level of zealotry and intransigence being interjected into every thread where you try and discuss problems here? The answer is you don't, and the zealots win.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: Janie
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 08:59 AM

'Spaw gives wise advise. To respond to trolls is to reward and gratify them, thereby reinforcing the behavior. To ABSOLUTELY ignore them will 1. extinquish the behavior (least likely outcome) or 2. extinquish their interest in this website (most likely outcome, and good enough for me.)

Even posting about them, as I am doing now, is reinforcing the undisirable behavior.

It is well established among behavioral therapists that intermittent reinforcement of a behavior is at least as supportive of the behavior as constant reinforcement. So... IGNORE,IGNORE,IGNORE!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:05 AM

For those of you so intent on maintaining the current status quo here at Mudcat, I think it would be most informative for you to visit Geoff the Duck's "Mudcat Time Warp" thread, click on the link, and go back to the days of Mudcat before the flaming of guests and BS took over this forum. It is an absolute joy to read, and proves beyond a doubt what the Mudcat COULD be if the right changes were implemented.

Of course, that would mean losing members who like things just the way they are now--a playpen for flame warriors.

Go visit Oct 13 1999, and then think about why some people here want things the way they are now, instead of the way it used to be around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: technission
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:07 AM

Church of NRSV !! Fun, and the letters mean something in American, not like that SPQR thing. As I approach the pre-fab metallic exterior of the sanctuary I hear the Hammond organ grinding out "House of the Rising Sun" as congregants sing "Amazing Grace" to it...I'm on my way down to be healed! LTCOML, michael

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST,diff guest
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:20 AM

Just had a quick comparison of Dec 02 1998 and Dec 01 2001. You're right - there's a hell of a difference in content and tone. My personal preference is for 1998
Timewarp? Don't I wish....

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:45 AM

I am not speaking for Max, but I think that GUEST is full of shit when he/she says in post 12 Feb, 9:07 PM:

"What is going on here is Max feels so threatened by the legitimate complaints about the way the forum is run, that he has been behaving like a bad moderator. It really is that simple." (Sorry, I don't know how to work with font styles and effects, so I can't italicize quotes from other posts.)

I believe Max is pissed-off at all the caustic, hurtful, mean posts he keeps seeing on the 'Cat, 99% of which are generated by Guests. I also believe he has every right to be upset. The Mudcat Cafe is his creation. Why wouldn't he be angry?

Nevertheless, I don't support censorship. Everybody has a right to his/her views, and to express them. What I don't understand is why some people feel the need to be so mean spirited. What does it accomplish? We all have just as much right to disagree. As has been said hundreds of times in various threads, we should IGNORE the Guest posts that offend or irritate. Flat out disregard them and just get on with meaningful discussion, preferably about music, since that's what this forum was intended for in the first place.

Max, I know you will take that action you deem necessary, but I fervently hope that what you do is not to the fruther detrement of the Mudcat.

Members and well-meaning Guests, can't we all pull together and make this thing work by ignoring flamers and trolls? If we could just do that, perhaps they would lose interest, bugger off, and go bother somebody else.

By the way, I remain anonymous for now, not because I am chicken shit to stand behind my posts, but because, like many folks who stop by the 'Cat frequently, I am at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:49 AM

One GUEST here is being logical and rational. There are others who have not been. They are the same as they (I use "They" as I am unable to differentiate between folks with one shared name) purport registered members of the forum to be. And they come from a negative space in time. One of the GUESTS stated yesterday that they knew they were the problem but acknowledgement is only part of the desired change.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with any of the comments here. Jon makes a clear request for a rationale so that a solution can be found. Due to some of the folks who go by GUEST twisting whatever it is they want around so often there can be no solution. 5 GUESTS cannot agree any better than some of the Mudcat registered folks. Watching the pure mean streak of a couple of the GUESTS and the responses from some of the members it ends up in a downward spiral that has no good end to it.

I've done my best to stay out of this scrap - I've better things to do for the most part. And none of the folks I've come to question have participated in the Sunday Song Circle (that I am aware of). I can but leave the forum and its interests to the owners.

My personal idea for solving this dilema would be to charge a nominal $5.00 registration fee. Then the mean spirited folks could get booted and if they chose to spend the $5.00 over and over again to be a pain then they would at least be supporting the forum financially. There could also be a trial membership that cost nothing and required no registration as a means of leaving the forum open to new folks.

I personnally have found that by not responding to the angry threads and focusing on the music that I am enjoying this space in time even more than before. I still read some of them to see if anything has changed - but am relatively unconcerned about the outcome. By and large the bulk of this forum is about music in all of its crazy variants.

My .02 worth. And you all have a lovely day eh?

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 10:09 AM

As someone once said, "I didn't know it was on fire when I laid down on it."

Saying we should not respond to the flamers and trolls is just part of the cycle that is working so ineffectively. At it's best it's hindsight. But when people make and implement decisions in present time. And at it's worst it ignores the reality that there is a continuum not only of viewpoints about this, but of the duration people have "been" here (ot anywhere online)....

To say "we" are going to agree to do something is to forget that in another five minutes someone will come along who has no idea what the problem is, what the underlying issues are, what the best approach is.... Or maybe they have been here for this or that time period, and they are still working through what they thnk about it all. They have a right, and I think an obligation, to figure that out as they go.

And so saying that people "oughtta" react to difficulties in any one way is to miss how people actually function here at the Mudcat. So it's a non-reality-based solution.

Also, it's magical thinking to think we can know what is in a person's heart whenever they post, much less when they post as GUEST. For example, there are Guest posts above that seem quite reasonable, well thought out, stated in a civil fashion. Are they sincere? I'd like to think so but really, we have no way of knowing. we have to take them as we take them, and act accordingly, and see what happens, and adjust over time if necessary, doing the best we can at every moment.

I't also magical thinking to think we can know what's in the heart of the people who post in an inflammatory manner. We are very good at labeling them, but we are only labeling the small slice of them that we can see, and we are doing it when we are upset. If we truly understood them, our responses to them (or lack thereof which is also a response) would be more accurately effective than they seem to be.

Rigid solutions for most things tend not to work well and to cause, instead, further rigidities that work less and less effectively. What seems to be effective in dealing with difficult things is for people to sort out the problems they have, whatever they are, in dealing with difficult things. That's the level at which personal responsibility can become flexible thinking, creative problem-solving, and effective action.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: SharonA
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 10:15 AM

Jon: I refer you to the spurious "Folk Foundation wishes to sponser [sic] Mudcat" wherein I responded – mea culpa! – to the GUEST with the temporary moniker "No One Wins a Flame War" (which, come to think of it, could be abbreviated as "NOW a Flame War"), who I believe is also the first GUEST to respond to this thread (on 12-Feb-02 - 08:45 PM).

I made the same point to him/her there that kat made in this thread. His/her reply was, first, to misconstrue my message (I had said that the standing-on-the-sidelines-and-criticizing behavior was not helpful; {s}he claimed that I'd said I didn't find his/her suggestions themselves helpful), and then to ask me if I had some "positive suggestions to share that could help us get beyond the flame war era here at Mudcat" and that "[(s)he'd] be happy to hear them and discuss them with [me]." My suggestion was for people to comply with Max's request to stop the flaming behavior voluntarily before he implemented changes to the site to deal with flamers.

Of course, "N.O.W. a Flame War" did not return to "discuss" my suggestion. One GUEST did make a post that was deleted (a personal attack, presumably, though I was off the computer having a life and didn't read it), according to the Forum Search.

So, Jon, I have to conclude that even when these GUEST flamers and GUEST trollers claim to be interested in a rational discussion, they're not. It is as you said; they derive "some egocentric joy from destruction".

Max has already said in his recent letter to GUESTs that he's going to decide what he's going to do about this situation and he's going to announce his decision and there is going to be NO DEBATE about it. He says he's already heard all he's going to hear on the subject. The GUESTs can go around and around about what they'd like as much as they'd like, but the bottom line is that if GUESTs do not stop flaming and trolling Mudcat, Max WILL change the site to prevent them from doing so. Period. End of subject.

Sharon

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 10:23 AM

Susan, I feel I do know you to some degree and I can understand what you're saying. Like mine, it is an opinion and we are entitled to have them. Sorting out the problems with the odd flame or troller has worked some in the past here....not totally, but to some degree. I know you've had it work and I have too.

However.....At this point the volume is so significant that I no longer can support that so I guess we have to will agree to disagree on this. When you say, "Saying we should not respond to the flamers and trolls is just part of the cycle that is working so ineffectively"......I would submit that it has worked elsewhere and if it hasn't here, it's because we have never done it!

Just an opinion.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 10:26 AM

....."have to will?" ..........I gotta' pruufreed........Obviously "will have to".......

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 11:56 AM

Pat, but there isn't a "we" who can all know it and do it at the same time. I feel the same way toward tyou, about you, as you say about me, toward me... but see, you aren't allowing for the reality factor, or you would not have so much trouble remembering what you meant to do when your buttons get pushed. See?

Sure, ignoring them works, if you know in advance who is trolling and who is not, and if you can "make" everyone else do it too. A general attitude about not responding, YES, this is possible. But you just have to see each thing as clearly as possible and do what you can in that moment....

BUT-- I REALLY think the basic problem we are having here, to address Jon's question, is that we have two paradigms. And not for the Mudcat, but for life itself.

One is the paradigm, "Live and Let Live."

The other is "Control and Submit to Control."

Now it is often ugly how these get expressed, FROM each viewpoint TO the OTHER one. We have people proselytizing for both of these, from both seides of the "What Is Mudcat" divide. I say proselytizing in all the ugliness that word means to most Mudcatters.... and it's rigid, it's stuck, and it's not working. Saying that is not a blame thing-- just an observation-- that we all seem to keep falling into the sh*t pit, however we get there, and we climb out, over and over again.

But we do it as individuals. One can look at it as a systemic problem but Mudcat, even more than anywhere else I know in life, is individuals, dimly seen and only in cross-section.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 12:32 PM

No Susan, you are wrong about the "two paradigm" just as you are about self-control regarding trolling and flaming.

Flaming is alive and well everywhere in unmoderated forums on web, in Usenet, etc. But what DOES work is exhibiting self-control and doing community policing of one another in regard to trolls. One visit to any of the folk music newsgroups on Usenet is a living example of how effective it is to ignore trolls. And Usenet newsgroups have MUCH, MUCH more trolling and spamming than anything here.

It does work, and many Mudcat members know this because they also participate in other folk forums where it is demonstrated on a daily basis. They happen to be the people who are NOT in these threads, however. They stick to the music threads, and ignore the bullshit, just like they do in Usenet.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 03:05 PM

This GUEST isn't bothered by being lumped in with other GUESTS who choose to post vitriolic, baited, or incendiary opinions. Their posts are theirs, and this post is nothing more or less than...this post. What distinguishes it from other posts by members or GUESTS is its content, its structure or lack thereof, the organization of its thoughts or lack thereof, the judged validity and rationality or lack thereof of the statements presented, and the date/time stamp given to it.

If the reader chooses to view this post with preconceived notions about totally anonymous posts, that is the preference of the reader, and there's not much this GUEST wants to do to change that. The reader is trusted to have made decisions that work for them. Just as members and GUESTS with tags choose to associate themselves with their posts, for whatever reason, so others choose to dissociate themselves from their posts, for whatever reason. If the reader chooses, for whatever reason, to ignore this post because its author, for whatever reason, doesn't attach a tag to it, that is the preference of the reader and the author, and this post is not for that particular reader.

This GUEST doesn't expect to influence other GUESTS' or members' behavior, just as this GUEST doesn't let other GUESTS' or members' opinions influence his/her own. This GUEST is secure enough in his/her beliefs to not allow mere words to dictate his/her reactions, especially if those words are lacking in substance or consist entirely of personal attacks. Those kinds of posts, just as any other post, benevolent or malelovent, are easy for GUESTS and members to ignore. Anything can be ignored, if the will power to ignore it is sufficient. What is important and valid is your own personal view, not what someone else thinks of it or you. When one's actions in the things one has control over begin to become influenced by the approval of others external to oneself, then a certain degree of personal freedom has been compromised.

If GUESTS or members choose to judge the value or worthlessness of a post based solely on whether there is a recognizable tag, or no tag attached to it, then so be it. That is exercising the right to choose, and thank God there are some things left that are not chosen for us.

This GUEST isn't bothered that other members are put off by 'tagless' anonymity. There are things about members and other GUESTS that this GUEST wouldn't do personally, but that is a matter of personal preference. Vive la diference.

This GUEST isn't bothered by what other GUESTS or members think about this GUEST personally, GUESTS in general, or this post.

This GUEST has come to respect and admire the posts of other members and GUESTS alike: for the content of their posts; the organization of their thoughts; the validity and rationality of their statements; their brilliance; their genius at music, knowledge, politics, and comedy.

This GUEST will miss the continued posts of some members and GUESTS. Best wishes to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 03:36 PM

I'm with you, Spaw! I dropped out of the conversations a week or so ago when I saw that they had no purpose or end, and responding was a reward to the trollers.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:10 PM

Yet here you are again. Missed you so!