BS: Is closing threads censorship?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 07 May 06 - 07:50 PM

Actually Shambles - I think the music section would thrive if the BS went away. Lots of good folks have left the Mudcat because of what goes on down here. And I think they would return if the word got out. But we'll most likly never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John O'L
Date: 07 May 06 - 07:20 PM

I'll have a gross of Arrested Developments please, and a bottle of Who-The-Fuck-Are-You-Lookin'-At? to go.

Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 06 - 05:39 PM

And, Shambles still has a point, lest it be lost in the asides.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 06 - 05:33 PM

And that leads to another thing: Why do arrested developments come in cases instead of bottles or boxes?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 06 - 05:18 PM

Ye gods. I never realized how boring and indeed, insulting, it is to call someone mature and adult. (Except for the porn shops and "adult" films. A good case could be made that rather than using 'mature' and 'adult' designations one coulr more easily banner 'Juvenile" or even "Cases of Arrested Development".)

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 May 06 - 05:09 PM

Asking people to behave "like adults" "mature" etc., is about as nauseating and as snobby and boring as can be.

The ones asking for this need to relax their sphincter.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 06 - 04:23 PM

Wesley S -
Any further restrictions on the BS - even temporary ones - will have a resulting and negative effect on the music section. Unless you were going to suggest closing that down too?

But why must almost every suggestion be a further restriction on what others can post?

All these currently imposed restrictions are reactive. I live in hope that it will finally be understood that no one can control what is posted by others and no one should try. All that can be done by these constant (and usually well-intended) attempts - is to futher inhibit posting.

What is posted by others on our frum cannot be controlled but it can be influenced, by setting a consistent example. And posting must first be encouraged by any system of moderation - rather than just clumsy inhibition.

The posting of many types of thread are currently inhibited for no good reason - birthday threads and copycat threads for example. And no poster really knows if starting a new thread or refreshing an existing one (if you can find one that has not been closed) is the right or wrong thing to do - as both can be judged to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 07 May 06 - 04:01 PM

Perhaps our moderators with have nothing to do if people behaved differently here? Who knows? Thanks for expressing your opinion. I just happen to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 06 - 03:57 PM

It may become a moot point. As the auction items increase in number, access to threads falls further and further down the page. It may not be possible to access threads soon, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 06 - 03:38 PM

wesley closing down a part of the site seems ludicrous. It has been already painfully highlighted that the recent problems have been down to the over zealous use of the edit button, the then reinstatement of the deleted posts, the censorship of some peoples posts and certain moderators accusing posters of all and sundry (until the accused find the offending posts) and then the certain moderator in the face of indisputable fact going very quiet.

None of this would be solved by closing down the BS.

Changing/removing the certain mods would solve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 07 May 06 - 02:33 PM

Guest of 07 May 06 - 12:13 AM. You don't have to like my idea - but arent we all supposed to be able to offer our opinions here ? Or just the opinion that you agree with ? You're proving my point for me. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 06 - 01:27 PM

Censorship and attitude rolled into one

The above thread was closed. Among other things (which it would appear that our protectors would rather we did not see) in this thread were the following links. All these threads were started at different times, by different posters, are on different subjects and all have received many posts - but all the first thread linked to, have now been closed.

Music posts by Guests to be reviewed
Proposal for members only posting of BS
I may disagree with what you say-
Your favourite Shamblism
Why all the closed threads?
Non posting of judgements week
Do we need to curb the troublemakers
Do you need to be censored
Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO

The only thing that is clear from all the posts in these threads is that there are two extreme views and that posters are quite clearly being asked by some of our moderators to support one and not the other. That is the conflict in which every poster is now encouraged to take sides in - every time action is taken and justification is publicly given and support for it sought.

A post expressing support for the status quo - will usually be met by one from a moderator saying thank you or well said etc.

A post seen not to be expressing support for the status quo - will be met with a different response and described (by our current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) and treated as a complaint post or an anti-Mudcat post.   

Now there must be some question if (some of) our moderators have any real intention of obtaining any form of peace - but see it not only in terms being seen to take part in the conflict - but to be seen to be on the winning side in this conflict.

Any moderator who is seen to indulge in any form of conflict or to openly support any side of it on our forum - is part of the problem and no part of any solution that involves an end to such conflict and division.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 06 - 03:21 AM

OK, Shambles, be specific. Explain these draconian Mudcat rules to us, and demonstrate why it is that they are so oppressive. The ones I recall are: no personal attacks, no spam, no racism, no non-music copy-pastes longer than one page, and be civil to other participants.
Joe Offer

I can recall a lot more of your petty restrictions that that and you are rather missing the restriction you really want to impose on our forum and will not seemingly rest until you have your way on this also.

Is calling a fellow poster a buffoon, idiot, an asshole or a looney on different occasions - being civil to other participants? Or do these rules not apply to the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, some of his moderators and supporters (or the usual suspects)?

Any rules that are unclear and are only selectively enforced, offer posters no protection from personally motivated censorship actions and offer no protection to those imposing their judgement, from any subsequent claim that those actions were personally motivated.

How can our forum expect to be protected from abusive personal attacks when (some) of our moderators and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, set the example that this is acceptable and excusable? Perhaps you would accept that such posts are NEVER acceptable and excusable and apologise to me and our forum - rather than attempting to justify ever indulging in such conduct or responding in kind to it?

If you repeatedly indulge in setting the example of publicly posting abusive personal attacks to call posters like me names and some other known moderators do this and and least two of them call for me to be banned - can you really expect our forum to judge that any censorship of my postings - is NOT personally motivated?   

And where there is any question of imposed censorship being personally motivated - it will - with some justification be judged by our forum as oppressive and unfair. But mostly ineffective and counter-productive and any attempt to maintian and justify it - will continue to be seen to be a very poor joke at our forum's expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 06 - 12:13 AM

Or you could just stop reading the BS section and posting in it, if it offends you so much.

But no, the Mudcat way is to demand we be censored, for our own good.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 06 May 06 - 11:45 PM

I still think that Max should consider closing down the BS section of the Mudcat for at least six months - or permanently. It's been proven time and time again that there are plenty of Mudcaters that just aren't mature enough to handle it. And the ones who would object the loudest are the ones that abuse it the most.

The BS section has become the traffic wreck that slows down traffic on the freeway to a crawl. Of course that is only my personal opinion. What's the worst that would happen ? We'd practice our instruments more ? Learn some new songs ?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,MN Monster
Date: 06 May 06 - 11:16 PM

Oooh, Mick me darlin' now what makes youse tink I was talkin' about ISPs when I called you a chicken shit? Gutless coward is another term that comes to mind.

It is your thin skin, and inability to refrain from making a comment when Joe and you clones are the subject of a discussion where you aren't being sucked up to by the Mudcat sycophants, to which I was referring.

Not everyone is a member in good standing of the Suck Up to the Joe and the Clones Fan Club.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:58 PM

Sorry dearie, but I don't have the ability to block ISP's. Nor do I want it. Only Joe, Jeff, and Max do that. Hate to disappoint you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,MN Monster
Date: 06 May 06 - 09:41 PM

Yah sure, so I check back in on dat udder pipeline, and I see dat dey has blocked mine access again, but not deleted da post I made up dere so's ya wudn't tink dey was censoring me now.

Uff da! Such a chicken shit Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 08:15 PM

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

>Snip<
Censorship will not happen. I do admit to deleting something here or there, but the ONLY two ways that will happen is if personal or delicate information is mistakenly posted and either I see it or the SUBJECT or POSTER requests that I remove it. The second way is if I feel like it (This is half a joke, the temptation as "The Man" to remove downright garbage is just too tempting sometimes, and I do reserve the ability for EXTREME situations, ex. Telling one to go ahead and do it in a suicide thread.)
Max

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 08:10 PM

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Objectionable Material (50) RE: Objectionable Material 16 Apr 98

>snip<
Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Just have respect for our brothers and sisters that come here too. They are like you... at least in one way... they are Mudcateers.
Max

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 08:04 PM

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

Thank you Shambles. I think some may not catch what your trying to do.
The Mudcat's gonna grow. There will be a lot more content, a lot more people, a lot more posts, a lot more media, a lot more songs. We can't stop that now. But does this change anything? Some of us may get nervous that our happy world here may change, but what ever stays the same? The Real World is what it is, as is the Mudcat, and both are changing and growing everyday. Fear not the future, fear not the growth, fear not the change. It all comes down to one simple thing:
It will be what we make it... PERIOD

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 06 - 02:21 PM

Sympathy? Charity? Boredom? Apathy? No none of them mick. Just a lot of people who have seen right through the charade. But keep on keeping on. You're making it easy for us.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 May 06 - 01:56 PM

OOOPS!!! Forgot myself.....need a quote don't I? Okay...........

Subject: A warm goodbye, from The Shambles.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 22 Jul 99 - 08:17 AM

{SNIP}....I also thought that is more polite to say goodbye and thank you for sharing with me a lot of thought, information and honest good fun.

Also to provoke a little thought. For I and I suspect others who have left, also do so with a heavy heart. This place was special to me because I thought it was big enough and welcoming enough for ALL.

I intend to look in from time to time and will hopefully, return if or when I feel that welcome is again there for all.

LOVE AND PEACE: Roger Gall.

Well, you returned didn't you? You must feel welcome!!! Or have you possibly changed your mind since then? You're allowed to do that you know..................so am I...........so is Max.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 May 06 - 01:48 PM

And around we come back to that old favorite............

LMAO.......Damn Rog.....When it gets too complicated and weird I can always guarantee you'll drag out that old chestnut!

And you can do better on the Spaw thread BTW.......LOL....How about Shambles Will Always Prevail? More creativity Man.....I know you can do it and you don't have anything else to do do you? I mean you have all the quotes categorized and at your fingertips to be misused in any number of ways on this thread.....

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:58 AM

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:51 AM

I want to clarify that Guent MN is not me.

But he speaks volumes here.

The post Bee-dub-ya referred to as being deleted was just another truthful statement I made that got to the heart of the matter in my down-to-earth bluntful way of putting it.

Being bluntfully honest in an opinion and sticking to it can be daqngerous here.

It is interesting to see that the knowledge of censorship, playing favorites, biasness, hypocracy has been picking up steam here. No, it is not about Shambles.

Rewarding to see this? Yes, to a degree.

So, I ask again, what is the agenda of the BS section of Mudcat?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:38 AM

Just because you disagree with the PEL legislation doesn't mean you have to pass comments or judgements on it.
Why can't you just ignore it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 09:55 AM

I have attacked Roger for his methods, never for his beliefs. I do not 'join in' because others do it, as you accuse.

Personally attacking any fellow poster, calling them names and taking sides over what and how they chose to post - rather than simply being encouraged to ignore anything not to your taste - is what you and other posters are encouraged to do by the example currently set by our 'moderators'.

It and the double standard under which the attempt is made to justfy and excuse this example - is the single most divisive factor on our forum and nothing whatever to do with any principle on which Max invited us all to contribute to it as equals.

When I started posting - Max did not pin a sign above the door which stated that I had to post only views that my fellow poster Joe Offer agreed with, or else I would be subjected to threats, judgement and repeated abusive personal attacks from him. If there had - I would not have posted on such terms.

Max has not pinned up a sign on the door which states that I have to post only views that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team agrees with, or else I would be subjected to threats, judgements and repeated abusive personal attacks from the current holder of that role.   

That any 'moderator' who indulges in this open conflict and sets such examples for other posters to follow, can really require 'peace' must be in doubt - that any 'moderator' could seriously expect to achieve any form of 'peace' on our forum by such divisive conduct and hypocrisy would tend lead you to look for some other explanation.

But after constant imposed changes - the 'bouncers' publicy admit their failure to impose 'peace' and propose the only way they can ensure the 'peace' they require is to exclude the public from freely contributing altogether after all these years - it is time to suggest that these 'bouncers' and those who support them - move on to somewhere which better suits them and leave the rest of us to post - if not in peace - at least free from their imposed judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 May 06 - 09:49 AM

or boredom. Or apathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 06 - 09:19 AM

I think you may be confusing sympathy with charity matey!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 06 - 08:55 AM

You are not in the majority. You are in a mean spirited group of about 6 who can't contain themselves jumping up and down to berate shambles.

The majority thankfully don't engage.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 06 - 08:00 AM

I have attacked Roger for his methods, never for his beliefs. I do not 'join in' because others do it, as you accuse.
It is always the refuge of the minority point of view holder, to accuse the majority of being a clique.
My eyes are not closed, and I have posted more than once when I have disagreed with editing decisions, and I myself have been edited.
It is again a facet of a minority to take note of and quote those posts which fit in with their prejudices, while ignoring those which don't.
So I'm afraid that as you cannot back up any of your accusations against either myself or the clones, you are once again crying in the wilderness.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 06 - 07:28 AM

giok I don't need to provide you with proof that my posts supporting shambles were deleted. Because I know they were. It doesn't matter one iota to me if you choose to walk around with your eyes closed.

I also saw another guests posts deleted in a similar vein. If you don't agree with max's choice to have guests on here then maybe you are on the wrong forum.

You have sat and watched and lapped up a falsely presented one sided attack on everything shambles posts and joined in at every opportunity.

Some of us have a problem with being lied to, decieved to and manipulated. That was never max's intention when he set this site up.

Those (some) responsible for the editing are to blame for the mess this has become. If they genuinely cared about the site they would admit to themselves that they are not up to the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 06 - 05:49 AM

Sedition

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 05:13 AM

Suggestion for rules of Engagement   Has also been closed (perhaps at that originator's request) so perhaps any suggestions made to the following request will have to be made in this thread – if anyone is brave enough to make any.

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:59 AM

Well, I actually get more flak about what what we don't delete, than about what we do delete. Generally we follow the same guidelines we've always followed - we delete personal attacks, threats, racism, and Spam - but we do our best to allow people to express their thoughts and opinions freely. I suppose some of those opinions are objectionable, but if they're not outright hateful, we usually don't delete them - much to the chagrin of some Mudcatters.

For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that?

So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one.

-Joe Offer-

My suggestion (in brief) is that those who cannot accept Max's invitation for the public to freely contribute to our forum and think that setting the example of posting abusive personal attacks on their fellow invited guests is acceptable, justified and excusable but who now admit the failure of such an example to impose the peace they require and can only suggest more restrictions - start their own forum and finally leave ours in peace.

What would you suggest to prevent examples like the following disaster (and worse)? And to how our forum can return to one where posting is encouraged rather than inhibited?

You can send them to me in a PM, and I will post them here, if you are not brave enough to do so publicly and be known.

Censorship and attitude rolled into one

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 May 06 - 03:04 AM

No Guest MN Monster that does not make it more transparent.
Maybe that's because we don't know who the heck you are.
You quote nothing to back up your accusations, so all we are left with is an unsubstantiated rant.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 02:58 AM

It is in short his methods and not his motives that are the cause of concern to many people on here.

Neither a fellow posters methods or (assumed) motives are anyone else's business on our forum.

Encouragment should not be given for posters to publicly speculate on or to judge the worth of their fellow poster in any way nor to ask or expect posters to take sides.

Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause.
Mohandas Gandhi

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 02:36 AM

Think about it. Is that what you really want?
The option of starting your own forum where anythong goes is still there.

You seem to miss the whole point.

Our forum is based on that principle - if you read through all of Max's public statements this will be made very clear. It is why I became a contributor in the first place and why I have stayed one for so long.

A forum where there were constant restrictions on what could be said where and by who and where posters were encouraged to worry about things being off-topic and pick holes in others spelling and grammar - dind't hold any attraction for me then and it does not know.

It is those who have never accepted the realities of the equal terms that Max invited us all to contribute and who have never ceased to complain about their fellow guests and who need to shape our forum to their tastes, who now need to take the option of forming a forum on their terms.

For Max does not seem to have agreed to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's latest required imposition to futher restrict the posting of others whilst strongly objecting to any form of restrition also being applied to him. Or has Max now accepted that proposal? Perhaps our forum could be informed one way or the other?   

This ain't a democracy.
   
Ain't that the truth. So why this attempt to 'pander' to what the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team judges to be what most folk think? Why can't folk be left to decide and 'vote with their feet'. The claim is preposterous anyway in the case of this subject and PELs.

The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not appear to like these threads BECAUSE folk vote do with their feet and BECAUSE these threads are easily THE most popular threads. And wouldn't they be? These aspects are the ONLY thing that all posters have in common and a vested interest in. Why shouldn't they be able to start threads on this subject as they can on any other subject or be inhibited in any way by the personal tastes of their so-called moderators?

And wouldn't most folk think that even one abusive personal attack (especially when this example is set by a moderator) is a lot worse that seeing more than one thread title on similar subject or reading the same reasonably worded post in more than one thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 06 - 12:28 AM

Henry Steele Commager:

Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,MN Monster
Date: 06 May 06 - 12:10 AM

Hey folks, I've had this IP access blocked for a couple of weeks, but just discovered that this pipeline has been reopened for me.

So to Joe and the Clones, I would just like to say, in my best and brightest Sally Fields voice, "You like me! You really, really like me!"

Apparently, other people besides myself and Shambles have now noticed the dirty little secrets of Mudcat "moderation" (spit).

Looks like you have an insurrection on yer hands, there "Moderators".

I figured out early on how this forum's moderation worked. It started out with essentially one rule: no personal attacks. Now, it had descended into this black hole, just as I predicted it would several years ago.

Now, the essential one rule is: no criticizing the moderators, for only they are allowed to make personal attacks against people.

Especially guests, but also, the many members they don't like.

Shall we start a list of who the people are who post here that EVERYONE knows the moderators don't like?

Besides me and Shambles. We're the two easiest.

BTW, before the clones got pissed off at me a couple weeks ago and blocked my IP, they had been on a merry stalking adventure, deleting my posts critical of them in a couple of threads.

Now, that makes the process transparent, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 06 - 11:43 PM

"BS: Is closing threads censorship?"

Sometimes. And on occasion the thread left open are worse than the ones that get closed. Depends whose agenda ya follow and whose shitlist yer on.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 06 - 11:26 PM

BWL said "... If almost anyone else around here had said the very same thing, the post would still be there."

Maybe...and maybe not. You can't win an argument on hypotheticals. Nobody else says quite the same things as Martin G...or in quite the same way on in quite the same context, so presupposing what 'might' happen if they did is stretching a bit.

Martin has gone out of his way to make being offensive & insulting a major part of his persona, so I have no doubt that his posts get scrutinized more closely than some.

This ain't a democracy. I have seen management decisions that *I* disagree with, but I know....personally...most of the management, including at least 6-7 who can edit, and I know they are ALL trying to make it work as best they can. Yes, they all have real personalities and opinions and are human and they will sometimes make decisions differently than I might make....but it is an ATTEMPT to make this place work like John Stuart Mill suggested..."the greatest good for the greatest number".

   That being said, SOME decisions will not please everyone....so be it. I can't imagine a forum with this amount of freedom being any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 06 - 10:45 PM

That still won't address the issue BWL mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: jaze
Date: 05 May 06 - 10:44 PM

Think about it. Is that what you really want? The option of starting your own forum where anythong goes is still there.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 May 06 - 10:40 PM

"Can they and those who support these imposed restrictions and are obviously unhappy with Max's wishes - please start a site of their own? " The Shambles

Think about it: If the people that Max put into place and those who support him/them were to go away to start another website, just where do you think Max would be? Whatever makes you think that he would continue the Mudcat?

Man. If there is a conspiracy to get Max so thoroughly pissed off that he folded his tent and went away, it just might work.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 06 - 10:18 PM

If it's not going to be an "anything goes", then make it that way for everyone here. Clones, Guests and members. Some folks can say what the fuck they want about who the fuck they want and it stays on the threads. What BWL just poined out is true. Doesn't depend on what's said so much as

1) who said it
2) who it was said against

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: jaze
Date: 05 May 06 - 10:13 PM

Well I'm wondering, do you really think this should "anything goes"? Anyone should be able to say any damn thing they please and everyone should just accept it? Is that really what you think this should be? Don't you think that would result in chaos? Let's look at a larger picture. The Palestinians and other Muslims don't think Israel should exist. Should THEY be allowed to wipe it away because that's what THEY want? Your're basically proposing the same thing only on a smaller scale. Maybe the REST of the world doesn't want Israel wiped out. Maybe the REST of the people here don't want Mudcat wiped out.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 05 May 06 - 09:50 PM

Remember what I said earlier about "principles, not personalities"? Well, a post by Martin Gibson has been deleted from the "people who post" thread. Granted, it was mildly insultive, but not in an overtly nasty manner. If almost anyone else around here had said the very same thing, the post would still be there. The reason for its deletion has everything to do with who said it and nothing to do with what was said.

Sorry, folks, but that doesn't add up to impartial moderation in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 06 - 08:18 PM

"These latest threats will not prevent honest attempts to enable open discussion to take place on our forum."

Open discussion takes trust of and from BOTH side. That just don't exist, and hasn't for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 08:06 PM

Do you need to be censored

The above thread has also been closed - despite containing the following editing comment.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-