|
12 Sep 06 - 03:40 AM (#1832425) Subject: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie It is claimed on another thread that some Mudcat members are/were under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum. 1. Does anybody believe this now? 2. Do you think it should be moderated? 3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? 4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? 5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? {Please supply URLs to confirm} To my mind an unmoderated site would give free rein to bucketmouths, and personal insults, pornography, unlimited spam, and proselytising by extreme political groups. It would mean for those who [allegedly] never venture downstairs, the prospect of non music topics being posted in the musical section and vice versa. I for one would almost certainly leave, and while that might please some, the other people who would also undoubtedly leave in such a situation would definitely be a loss to this site we all like so much. Giok |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:41 AM (#1832427) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Richard Bridge It depends on what the moderators do. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:44 AM (#1832429) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie A typical legal answer there, I think we know what they do, and what you mean is it depends on how they do it. Surely that is up to those who own/run the site, this site is not a free for all, it is not owned by it's members, we must live by their rules or not participate! Giok |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:45 AM (#1832430) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Paco Rabanne A strange thread to be posted by one of the rudest,most humourless dinosaurs on mudcat. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:52 AM (#1832433) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Thanks for those few kind words, I shall treasure them! Giok ☺ ☻ |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:57 AM (#1832435) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Paul Burke Of course it should be moderated, and it is done very well. Only real abusers are deleted. Without moderation, it would be flooded with nonsense messages, like those periodic outbreaks of revivals of long- deceased threads by a message made up of random letters. And abusive flaming would be uncontrolled too. Over the last few years, the moderators have kept at bay such flooding, spam, abusive and racist posts, paranoid obsessives, religious and political maniacs, without straying too far into the realms of blandness and conformity. I appreciate that there is often a degree of culture clash involved. "Folk" means different things across the pond, we in Europe are almost all commies compared to the most liberal mainstream USA thought, and ordinary American opinions can seem almost mediaeval to Europeans. (NOT trying to be patronising, just pointing out a fact). So in short, the forum is very well run by culturally sensitive people. Long may it continue. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 04:17 AM (#1832440) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Jon 1. Pass 2. I can't see unmoderated working on web sites. 3. Didn't think about then but did find the "sales pitch" (ie. no rules, etc. difffered from reality in more than one way. 4. No 5. No web sites but I use several unmoderated newsgroups. Although I've seen newsgroups that have fallen apart, the ones I use run with fewer rows than the majority of moderated web sites I use but I think there is a big difference between the usenet situation where moderation "can't" be (or is extremely messy) done and a sort of public ownership and a web site where it is known to be easily "doable" and site owners are identifiable. There is a user expectation with one that does not exist with the other and I think on the ones that work, that does lead to greater discipline from the posters. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 05:19 AM (#1832459) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Grab 1. Thanks (?) to Shambles, we all know this is a moderated forum. 2. Yes - any forum that allows anonymous posting needs to be moderated. 3. IIRC I joined in 2000. I knew at the time that it was moderated. 4. No, and in fact I'd leave if it wasn't moderated. Doubt this'd be a huge loss to the Mudcat community (I don't value myself that highly :-) but anyway. 5. None. Unmoderated news/email groups, but that's it. And they're prone to spam, so I only look at them when I have a specific issue I need addressing. Graham. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 05:27 AM (#1832462) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles It is claimed on another thread that some Mudcat members are/were under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum. Closed threads and deleted posts Of course it should be moderated, and it is done very well. Only real abusers are deleted. Why would you confidently state such a thing to our forum when you have no idea of knowing what is 'silently deleted' on our forum, no way of knowing who deleted it or of knowing the the whole imposed action was simply personally motivated? As an adult - wouldn't you prefer to be able to make the choice for yourself about what posts to read, respond to or ignore? Or at least be in a position to see and judge if what you state to be true is the case? |
|
12 Sep 06 - 05:32 AM (#1832465) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Jon Re Grab's 5. I think my newserver (the free x-privat.net) filters most of the spam out - once in a while I do see a reply to what was obviously spam that I haven't seen. In general, on the occasions I do see spam, what I find is: usenet: usualy ignored. web sites: posts telling the mods it should be deleted, "how dare you post this here" posts, etc. for me, that does demonstrate the differences between user expectation, etc. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 05:35 AM (#1832467) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie As adults we are able to accept that we can't always do what we want with no regard for the feelings of others, and so accept social strictures as a necessary adjunct of our social interactions. To rail against such conventions of normality is immature and selfish. Giok |
|
12 Sep 06 - 05:37 AM (#1832469) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: bfdk 1. No 2. Yes 3. No, I probably wouldn't have joined, had the site been entirely unmoderated. I think we (some of us) sometimes forget, that "moderation" isn't just about weeding out unwanted threads, spam and what have you, it's also about linking between related threads, moving threads back and forth between BS and Non-BS, adding lyrics to the database and sundry other tasks. The moderators here do a fine job, I reckon. 4. No 5. None fted, I don't know *who* you are, but in your assessment of Giok I know *what* you are: Wrong! Best wishes, Bente |
|
12 Sep 06 - 05:41 AM (#1832470) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Manitas_at_home As an adult I'm quite happy to put my trust in the moderators. I don't want to have to wade through reams of spam to find something that makes sense. As for deletions being personally motivated you've been assured time and again that that is not the case. I suspect you're forgetting to hit the submit button half the time, I really do think the moderators have got better things to do than delete your posts immediately you make them as you've implied in the past. I don't believe your 'silently deleted posts' are even getting to the website. After all, we've no way of knowing that you made those posts. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 05:46 AM (#1832472) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: skipy Giok! Of course it needs moderating! All you have done today by creating this thread is invite shambles to another party! Skipy |
|
12 Sep 06 - 06:12 AM (#1832479) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie What I'm doing is asking people to express their feelings away from the recriminations and blame culture that some threads express. G. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 07:45 AM (#1832524) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: jacqui.c When I came onto Mudcat I was not aware of how it was organised but the fact that there was, on the whole, adult discussion without the idiot, meaningless chatter that seems to dominate a number of sites gave me reason to stay. The site works for me just as it is. To my knowledge I have never had a post deleted and, IMHO, the moderators do a good job in weeding out the crap. I certainly would leave if there was no moderating being undertaken. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:01 AM (#1832539) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: kendall Leave it alone!It works just fine as it is. Giok, you left the door open and the chief mal content got in. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:02 AM (#1832540) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Grab Jon, the thing is that on Usenet there isn't a mechanism for stopping spam - once it's sent to the group then it's sent. Hence you either ignore it or you get the hell out of Dodge. Most people have taken the latter option, which is why Usenet is dying a death. I don't often see "how dare you" posts on websites, I guess mainly bcos most users are smart enough to know the spammer doesn't give a crap and isn't stopping around to read the replies anyway. Graham. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:06 AM (#1832544) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Mooh When joining, I gave no thought to whether or not the forum was moderated, it looked like a cool place to be. It still looks like a cool place to be. Feels like home now after all these years. There's no place like home. We have some strict rules at my house, and we have some really lax rules at my house. Enforcement is usually dependent on the violator's intent. We like to be happy and understanding, tolerant and forgiving. There's no place like home. I like the way this forum, this cyberhome, is moderated. Kinda feels like home. There's no place like home. Unmoderated equals anarchy. Moderated equals something just short of anarchy. Just this moment I had to separate dog from cat, caution a teenager, give opinion on the bride's attire, apologize for monopolizing the computer, and ignore my spelling. A-moderating I go. There's no place like home. Silly idea? Yup. Kinda like when we wave the rules instead of ruling the waves, jump on the beds, leave the lights on, and throw food at dinner. There's no place like home. Peace, Mooh. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:12 AM (#1832549) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Sandman In my opinion this site is moderated vey well,more fairly than concertina net, but thats only an opinion. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:17 AM (#1832556) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Jon the thing is that on Usenet there isn't a mechanism for stopping spam - once it's sent to the group then it's sent. I think the thing there is there isn't a consistant mechanism for stopping spam. With the service I use, I see less spam than I do at Mudcat (where I'm also more aware of spam I haven't seen). Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased that spam is deleted here, just stating honestly that it doesn't affect me in the ways it does you on usenet. I do wonder how big a problem spamming forums is going to become though - I don't think it has really hit yet - and whether manaul moderation will suffice (as far as I understand it MC does at times automaticaly block posts containing certain words, eg pok er). I'm starting to get a couple daily at folkinfo - still not sure how it will pan out and whether I'll end up doing more than manual deletion and perhaps an IP block... |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:40 AM (#1832570) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Leadfingers Not having been around as long as some Catters , but long enough to feel I CAN have my Two Pennorth , I am quite happy with this site just the way it is . Max 'owns ' the site , as far as I know , and has nominated a number of people to help with the day to day running . These anonynous (apart from Joe Ofer) people all have lives outside the Cat , and seem to be doing a grand job ! |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:10 AM (#1832589) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: skipy Very rare for me agree with leadfingers 100%! Today I do! Skipy |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:23 AM (#1832602) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Rapparee 1. Does anybody believe this now? I never did believe a viable site would be unmoderated. 2. Do you think it should be moderated? Yes. 3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? No. Moderation means nothing to me (take that any way you like). 4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? No. (See Number 3, above.) 5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? {Please supply URLs to confirm} None that amount to a hoot in Hell. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:29 AM (#1832612) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Amos The practical distinction is between slightly and heavily moderated. I have been on boards where every post had to be reviewed by the moderator before posting. The practice on the Mudcat is more on the lines of "minimalist" corrections after the fact and only under certain conditions. It seems much more efficient to me. A |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:42 AM (#1832623) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Jon Amos, I don't use it but going by my experience at the BBC boards, I think "premod" can be useful where you have a troublesome poster who you want to keep an eye on but not ban (at least not yet) - I think that is one small bit they may have got right for thier setup! In other circumstances, I think it is a PITA. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 10:02 AM (#1832633) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Just don't diss a moderator. The post will go away really fast. Diss a member the mod doesn't like and it will stay there forever. Need proof? |
|
12 Sep 06 - 10:16 AM (#1832649) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Wesley S This is the only forum the I visit where guests are allowed to post. All of the other forums require membership. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 10:35 AM (#1832665) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Bill D well, in Usenet, there IS such a thing as a killfile (that means you can tell your newsreader program to ignore or delete posts based on various criteria).....In Mudcat there is no real way to do this, so genteel moderation is **NECESSARY** 'Some' online forums are set up to have an 'ignore' button, but that is mostly useful when people are chatting 'live', as in our chat room. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:14 AM (#1832687) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST not whether or not moderation but the problem being who is moderating and what is moderated and why also don't let moderators give opinions about other members since they have historically been among the worst flamers |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:32 AM (#1832702) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Wesley S Guest - Have you ever offered to become a moderator yourself? It might be easier to change the situation you don't like from the inside. It looks like your only other option to to start your own forum and run it any way you like. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:37 AM (#1832706) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Another guest WS, that still doesn't address the issues that take place here. The final out for so many people here is that old saw, 'If you don't like it, leave." Hell, wouldn't want to actually address the problem, right? |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:48 AM (#1832723) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Wesley S I'm not trying to sound confrontational - it's just the options as I see them. What recourse do you have? I can't imagine that the rules are going to change here because the guests don't like it. Do you? Have I always agreed with with all of the decisions that the moderators have made? No - but not enough to bitch about them. All in all I thing the moderators do a good job. If I objected to how the place was run I would offer to help and change things from within or go off and start a forum and run it the way I wanted a forum run. What choices do you have? What is your solution? |
|
12 Sep 06 - 12:06 PM (#1832734) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: BuckMulligan 1. no 2. yes 3. no 4. no 5. don't know of any worthwhile venues that are truly unmoderated. The notion that "adults" should be left to wade through the reams of garbage that would ensue in a truly unmoderated forum is nonsense, and would send me away posthaste. The response to "how do you know what's being deleted?" is "I don't, but I only have the word of people whom I consider, from their postings, to be whiners and generally malcontent non-contributors that anything worthwhile is deleted" - We judge by what we see, and the moderation I see appears pretty light-handed and moderate. I suspect I wouldn't be as easy-going in my own forum, in the face of some of the crap that's LEFT up. I've deleted less offensive stuff. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 12:10 PM (#1832739) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles As an adult I'm quite happy to put my trust in the moderators. Do you also think that as an adult you are unable to be left to decide for yourself what to read, respond to or ignore? And why would you place your trust in someone to this for you, especially someone who does not trust you enough to stand by their actions with a name? I don't want to have to wade through reams of spam to find something that makes sense. Spam is not the issue - is it, we all know what it is and how to deal with the little that may get through our automatic filters. As for deletions being personally motivated you've been assured time and again that that is not the case. I suspect you're forgetting to hit the submit button half the time, I really do think the moderators have got better things to do than delete your posts immediately you make them as you've implied in the past. I don't believe your 'silently deleted posts' are even getting to the website. After all, we've no way of knowing that you made those posts. Paul- What would be the point of me maintaining to our forum that 'silently deleting' posts was happening when it was not - especially when our 'moderators' are not denying it? But the points you make here are exactly the reason why the request is now being made - that all cases where any form of imposed editing action has been judged necessary is always indicated by an editing comment to that effect and that all editing comments are limited to where some form of editing action has been imposed. Then should a post not appear and no editing comment to explain its non-apperance (or closure) - all posters will know they have made a mistake or the site was not functioning. And our forum would then be able to judge (by seeing all of these editing comments) the true nature and current level of censorship and be able for the first time to make an informed opinion on this. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 12:16 PM (#1832743) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie "WS, that still doesn't address the issues that take place here. The final out for so many people here is that old saw, 'If you don't like it, leave." Hell, wouldn't want to actually address the problem, right?" Another Guest, I want this to be non confrontational and non personal thread, and an honest asessment of Mudcat in particular with an eye on how other sites get on. I quote your post above for one reason only, and that is to point out that both sides in the mod/non mod discussion on Mudcat, have used this 'If you don't like it go away' ploy so neither has the monopoly in suggesting that version of the final solution. It sounds good but really says nothing, and as you so rightly say doesn't address the situation. Giok |
|
12 Sep 06 - 01:22 PM (#1832791) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles This is the only forum the I visit where guests are allowed to post. All of the other forums require membership. Isn't this is a bit like saying all the other galleries I vist don't have the Mona Lisa - so the Louvre should throw-out theirs? Are you saying that requiring membership is good thing simply because all the other sites you visit now require it? Perhaps they are just very ordinary sites? The Mudcat Discussion Forum - in always being seen to encourage contributions from the public - has perhaps just aimed higher than these other sites? I suggest that any disadvantages that may be caused by this ambition are far outweighed by the advantages. But we have discussed this issue and been assured that a change to a members-only forum is NOT on the cards. Music posts by Guests to be reviewed Proposal for members only posting of BS But sadly this issue remains one that is now permanently confused with the issue of moderation. As our forum is now very aware - (because they openly state it) - that many of our current (known) 'moderators' are still in favour of such a change. To my mind this opens the question of just how committed these 'moderators' can be in demonstrating that a forum open to the public can function or whether they have a vested interest in demonstrating that it cannot function - without their preferred restriction being imposed. To avoid this and other possible conflicts - perhaps our 'moderators' could either now be asked to choose to either moderate or to post their opinions but not to do both? |
|
12 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM (#1832796) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Wesley S Would you be willing to be a moderator Shambles? Or would that upset your applecart as the outsider? I'm making a statement of fact. The forums I visit on a regular basis all require membership - except this one. Check out the Mandolin Cafe sometime. They actually talk about mandolins there. Can you please point out ONE forum that is run to your liking? Is there a forum that is run to your lofty ideals? |
|
12 Sep 06 - 01:33 PM (#1832800) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Please do not respond to those who would wish to sidetrack this thread, it is not about '1 person' it is about the correct way to keep order on a web site. Giok. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM (#1832807) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Big Mick I would suggest that if folks don't want conversation with a poster, they should just ignore that poster. If such a poster has been given a thread to discuss these things, that is where they should post, and leave this one on topic. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 01:59 PM (#1832817) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Wesley S Noted. Thanks. Every once in a while I ignore my own advise of "do not engage". |
|
12 Sep 06 - 02:48 PM (#1832847) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: frogprince 1. Does anybody believe this now? No 2. Do you think it should be moderated? Yes 3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? No 4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? No I was about to make a facetious suggestion, to the effect that "deleted" posts be sent to a special thread, titled (ta-da) "Deleted Posts", so that anyone who actually wanted to could read said posts, and no one could claim the deletion was done...how the heck do you spell "surrepticiously"?... But, on second thought, would there be some merit in actually doing that for a limited time, to give the discontented or paranoid an actual picture of what the moderators here are up against? |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM (#1832874) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: jacqui.c frogprince - it probably wouldn't help much as the 'discontented or paranoid' would only suggest that not all deleted posts had been put on the thread....... |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:44 PM (#1832876) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Grab And why would you place your trust in someone to this for you, especially someone who does not trust you enough to stand by their actions with a name? Simple. Because we (that is, those of us who believe the moderation here is good) trust them to spend some of their time doing a job which we believe will improve the appeal of the site. Ultimately it's Max's decision whether this happens or not, but I've got a good idea myself (from running my own board) what the result would be. I suspect I'd stick around for a bit until the spam, flames and random crap got too much, but I couldn't see myself staying. I joined the Mudcat in the knowledge that it was a forum that accepted anonymous posts from anyone, and that it was therefore moderated to prevent abuse. Frogprince, that's a neat idea. In fact, if changes were going to be made, then an automatic comment could be added to say "post from XXX deleted", which'd keep Shambles happy. Trouble is that Max or Jeff are going to have to code up any changes, which means that they need to be convinced the setup as it stands ain't working. Shambles has already tried to persuade them and failed - I guess that doesn't mean they won't change their minds, but I'd think they'd need a good reason to go to all that trouble, and the reason ain't turned up yet. All we have is the possibility that if a moderator chose to make personally-motivated decisions *AND* Max allowed them to keep doing that, then things could go bad. I don't believe there's any evidence this has happened so far (in spite of assertions to the contrary). If Max believes the mods are still doing OK in running *his* site then that's good enough for me. Graham. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 03:52 PM (#1832886) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: fat B****rd I just post where I feel like, or not as the case may be, and don't get involved in all the tedious bollocks that goes on. Love and Peace from Charlie S. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 04:35 PM (#1832912) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST, Anonymus guest Please don't moderate off the 'Will this thread reach 85 billion posts' thread. It may seem nonsense to some of you, but to a few of us it means the world. In fact show your support by posting on it right now. Sorry to interrupt this sensible debate. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 04:46 PM (#1832916) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: dwditty I have "rights" here? Why the heck should I? Moderate, schmoderate. It "don't" mean a thing either way. dw |
|
12 Sep 06 - 07:33 PM (#1833069) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: kendall I don't know how many moderators or clones we have here, but I personally know 5 of them and not one is a bad person.They are good people trying to do a thankless job to the best of their ability. My opinion, for what it's worth. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:23 PM (#1833101) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Maryrrf When I first came on to Mudcat I didn't know if it was moderated or not but there were always interesting discussions going on and I learned a lot. I have never been a prolific poster, being more the quiet type, but I did enjoy browsing the threads. However, things deteriorated to the point where I just didn't want to wade through all the nastiness and nonsense, much less post and get flamed, and I didn't visit Mudcat because I just didn't enjoy it much anymore. I couldn't believe the childishness and nonsense that cluttered the place. Yes, certainly I could ignore it but it just made me not want to bother with the site anymore. What changed things was when I went to the Getaway and met some Mudcatters and realized how nice some of them are in person, and that I really do have a lot in common with many of the folks who post here. As for whether or not it should be moderated, the answer is YES and if it were up to me I would see to it that more posts were deleted, and I would ban a couple of people permanently. Personally I think the mods are overly generous! I visit a couple of other forums and all have membership requirements (in some cases it's a nominal fee and in others at least it is required to register). None of them would put up with half the crap that still goes on in Mudcat land,although it has gotten better in the last couple of months. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:38 PM (#1833106) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles My opinion, for what it's worth. As you (along with the rest of our forum) currently have no way of knowing the true nature and current level of censorship - your opinion is not worth a lot. Would it not be better to have all cases where imposed censorship was judged to be necessary always indicated by an editing comment of explanation and all editing comments limited to only this? So that your opinion would then be worth something? I don't believe there's any evidence this has happened so far (in spite of assertions to the contrary). If Max believes the mods are still doing OK in running *his* site then that's good enough for me. I suspect that Max's view is similar - if our forum believes the mods are doing OK in running *his* site then that is good enough for Max. But how can our forum currently make any informed judgement? As for evidence - here is plenty for those who are prepared to accept it. But no amount of evidence will ever be enough to convince those who simply are not prepared to accept it. The point of the suggestion is so that our forum would never again be asked or expected to take sides - or to believe accusations or assurances as they are now - but could plainly see the true nature and level of censorship for the first time and be able to judge and form an informed opinion from the evidence. If there is nothing to hide - a change to such an open approach as suggested will only prove this to be the case and finally put and to all the division, all the name-calling and witch-hunts. The fact that such a suggestion to change to a more open approach is so violently opposed in some quarters - it could look as if there was something to hide. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:31 PM (#1833140) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: ragdall It is claimed on another thread that some Mudcat members are/were under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum. 1. Does anybody believe this now? Who knows what anybody believes? It's apparent that this forum is moderated 2. Do you think it should be moderated? Definitely. 3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? No. 4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? No, I believe in "all things in moderation". 5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? {Please supply URLs to confirm} None, but I've never done a survey. I'm guessing that small groups of like-minded people manage without anyone removing their posts, or posting editorial comments about them. I've been a moderator and/or administrator on chats and message boards since 1996. I've watched sites grow from a handful of like-minded people, who trusted one another completely, to communities of thousands of members with great diversity of backgrounds and beliefs. As problems arose, more rules were added, more moderation was required, members and guests who thrive on conflict got better at avoiding the measures in place to prevent them from interfering with others use of the sites as intended. More "protective" measures were introduced. Tension increased. "Moderator" can be a very difficult and thankless job. In a large community, it's impossible to please everyone, all the time. A successful moderator learns to accept this. It takes a great deal of maturity and self confidence to follow through in enforcing the rules fairly and evenly, while treating *all* site users with respect and dignity. "Disciplinary actions" should be conducted in private, remain confidential, and be allowed to be forgotten. A moderator may have access to information about site users which is to be kept private and confidential. In my opinion, disclosing that information to anyone, other than the site owner and other staff members who need to know that information is irresponsible and a breach of trust. A moderator who feels the need to disclose privileged information in order to gain an advantage, in what he or she may view as a competition with a member or guest, should take a good long look at her/himself and ask if it's time to take a break from moderating. That person is destroying something that a site can never get back. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:38 PM (#1833142) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: pdq Please re-read ragdall's last two paragraphs. Over and over, if needed. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:52 PM (#1833154) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST 1. Does anybody believe this now? Don't know 2. Do you think it should be moderated? No 3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? N/A 4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? N/A 5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? None Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war... Anarchy rules. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 09:57 PM (#1833157) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST How does a person find the I give up. What's the Getaway? thread?
-Joe Offer- |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:13 PM (#1833203) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Bill D "But how can our forum currently make any informed judgement?" Informed judgement would seem to mean "make all information about who did what and their reasons public"..... ????so some of us can consider, argue, bitch, complain, debate, harangue, recriminate, suggest, condemn, praise, ....and generally choose up sides over what is 97% minutiae and trivialities, and which will STILL need to be ruled on by administrative staff anyway????? Read my lips...no, wait...read my typing... **THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!** We don't GET to vote on every decision made by moderators and their supervisors. " Members have several privileges..not 'rights'. Thank you for your attention. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:28 PM (#1833209) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: number 6 *yawn* how many times does this subject have to be discussed? whatever ... the same old ... the same old. sIx |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:31 PM (#1833214) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: dwditty What I said above, BillD. This is not "my" forum or our "forum." I just get to use what is here, whatever that is. I guess I like it because I still come by frequently. dw |
|
13 Sep 06 - 02:28 AM (#1833280) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Informed judgement would seem to mean "make all information about who did what and their reasons public"..... ????so some of us can consider, argue, bitch, complain, debate, harangue, recriminate, suggest, condemn, praise, ....and generally choose up sides over what is 97% minutiae and trivialities, and which will STILL need to be ruled on by administrative staff anyway????? The current condition of uninformed judgement means that (certain) posters are actively encouraged to do all that is listed above anyway - by the example set by (some of) our 'moderators' - and are then asked to support the result - as an example of sensible moderation. And those who have largely created it and constantly post to complain publicly about it - then take no responsibility, attempt to blame everyone else and ask Max to exclude the public and turn our forum into the private members club they aleady treat it as. If there is nothing to hide - the suggested change will only prove this to be the case and supply us all with the facts about the true nature and current level of imposed censorship. Informed judgement is not relevant!! Tell that to a court - it is the only form of judgement that is relevant and may provide a little comfort to anyone who is jailed after judgement - for them to know that it was at least informed judgement that put them there. |
|
13 Sep 06 - 03:21 AM (#1833295) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Manitas_at_home 'constantly post to complain publicly about it - then take no responsibility, attempt to blame everyone else' Pot, kettle.... |
|
13 Sep 06 - 03:27 AM (#1833300) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie To tell someone who is in exactly the same position as you are vis a vis a web site that their opinions don't matter, is tantamount to saying that YOUR opinions don't matter either. This is one of the things I'm trying to point out by starting this thread, each side uses the same arguments against the other. As has been said we have discussed this endlessly, and this is my futile attempt to take the personalities out of it, and discuss it like adults. Thanks Ragdall for putting into words for me, some of the things I'm trying to point out. DO read her post again folks, it encapsulates the situation. Giok |
|
13 Sep 06 - 05:06 AM (#1833349) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Grab To tell someone who is in exactly the same position as you are vis a vis a web site that their opinions don't matter, is tantamount to saying that YOUR opinions don't matter either. True, Giok. But then this is a private space owned by an individual, who just happens to allow public access under conditions made by him. No-one's opinions matter except the site owner - you (not you specifically, but "one") can *request* changes, but if the owner doesn't want to make those changes then you have to face it that they're not going to happen. If you disagree with the site owner's policies then you have the right to leave, but you don't have a right to compel them to change the conditions. For that reason, Shambles' "informed judgement" argument is complete hogwash. We have a right to stay or go, based on our opinions on how the place is being run. We don't have a right to force the owner to make changes so we can check his site is being run how we would like, because we don't have a right to make that judgement. If this was a communally-owned area, then we *would* have that right. But unless you're making major financial and time contributions to keeping the site going (and that *doesn't* mean posting frequently!!!) then you can't claim that. If anyone don't like how it's run, and their requests for changes are rejected, they have precisely one option - leave. That doesn't mean that moderators can't get it wrong on occasion. They're only human, and if you give anyone enough shit then they'll crack eventually. So that means treating them with the respect you yourself would like to receive - if you treat them with disrespect for long enough, eventually you're going to get disrespect back. Graham. |
|
13 Sep 06 - 05:33 AM (#1833355) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Well I refuse to personalise this by naming anyone, but what I believe is the aim of some posters, and it is to un-make rules that have been made over recent times which they don't like. Now rules/laws etc are evolutionary, and there was no punishment for murder until the first one was committed, and so these rules evolve to keep pace with events. I suppose the first murderer complained that they'd made up the laws against killing just to spite him! Personally I would like to go back to when petrol was 1/- a gallon, and beer was 10d a pint, but it ain't going to happen, so I either stay home thirsty, or I drive to the grocery store and buy the beer. The same is true of this hankering for Mudcat to be the way it was, it isn't going to happen. Either the Russians or the Chinese have a saying that goes like this. 'You can't put your foot in the same river twice' Think about it! Giok |
|
13 Sep 06 - 05:56 AM (#1833363) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles If you state to our forum, the FACT that selective censorship actions are being imposed on your posts only and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly confirms this as a FACT - what worth is the uniformed opinion of at least two posters expressed on this thread - that they do not believe this to be the case? They are welcome to express it on ou forum but no one has to just accept it - do they? It remains a fact that I am sure our 'moderators' would confirm to anyone who may doubt it - that I attempted to post (nothing more controversial than simply a link to another forum) - many times before I gave-up the attempt and that each time I made the attempt - it was being 'silently deleted' by persons unknown. Another word for uninformed judgement is injustice. But the talk here is of moderation - but in mainly simplistic terms as if it were a tap that was either on or off. As has been pointed out there are many ways of achieving an end without using drastic measures like 'silent deletion' and thread closures as the first and only option and to do this anonymously. The most effective method of moderation is by first being seen to be setting a good example. "Moderator" can be a very difficult and thankless job. In a large community, it's impossible to please everyone, all the time. A successful moderator learns to accept this. It takes a great deal of maturity and self confidence to follow through in enforcing the rules fairly and evenly, while treating *all* site users with respect and dignity. "Disciplinary actions" should be conducted in private, remain confidential, and be allowed to be forgotten. A moderator may have access to information about site users which is to be kept private and confidential. In my opinion, disclosing that information to anyone, other than the site owner and other staff members who need to know that information is irresponsible and a breach of trust. A moderator who feels the need to disclose privileged information in order to gain an advantage, in what he or she may view as a competition with a member or guest, should take a good long look at her/himself and ask if it's time to take a break from moderating. That person is destroying something that a site can never get back. I would agree but would go a lot further. And suggest any known or anonymous 'moderator' no matter how well-intentioned they may be, who now feels they have been setting (following or supporting) a poor example from their privileged position should also do this - rather than just plough on and allow themselves to be further compromised by the views and actions of other 'moderators' and our forum further damaged (in the manner that Ragdoll describes) in the process. And any 'moderator' who has openly expressed their preference for our forum to be changed to exclude the public - should seriously question if their efforts in a 'moderating' role can ever now be seen by our forum as their best efforts - to maintain our forum to be freely open for the public's contributions, as it has always been from the very start. |
|
13 Sep 06 - 05:59 AM (#1833364) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: skipy Well I refuse to personalise this by naming anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are just baiting him! it's not even sport, it's like fishing with grenades! Skipy |
|
13 Sep 06 - 07:14 AM (#1833391) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Big Mick Idiots. Have you learned nothing in the last month? |
|
13 Sep 06 - 07:34 AM (#1833400) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: kendall Yawn |
|
13 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM (#1833442) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles CHORUS: On the road of good intentions, all gets justified to hell, The price revealed in stories too short, too sad to tell. [Sung by John Gorka on his album "Writing in the Margins," Red House CD #194, 2006.] |
|
13 Sep 06 - 08:59 AM (#1833451) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Big Mick I sincerely apologize for the use of the term "idiots" in that last post of mine. It was uncalled for, and I am sorry for using it. The remainder of the post stands. Mick |
|
13 Sep 06 - 09:16 AM (#1833472) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie There are threads which most members don't even open, or when they open them and see who has started them they close it again having read nothing. Statements made on such threads are therefore less read, and less open to challenge by the majority of members. Only when that majority of the members are aware of what is being said, often supposedly in their name, will this practice be exposed. Metaphorically singing or whatever through other peoples posts, is like a child sticking their finger in their ears when they are wrong and don't want to be told so. Either that, or they have no answer to what's being said. Giok |
|
13 Sep 06 - 01:19 PM (#1833635) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST The funniest aspects of these threads are the Shambles chasers. They bark like dogs running up the road at cars. Always the same 6 or 7. C'mon lads and lass you're ticking all the boxes as ever. |
|
13 Sep 06 - 01:34 PM (#1833647) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Wrong, the interesting thing about this thread is that several people have contributed to it, who wouldn't go within 100 miles of "a Shambles thread" Thus shedding more light and less heat on the subjet. Giok |
|
13 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM (#1833657) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Whats the matter with Shambles? |
|
13 Sep 06 - 01:47 PM (#1833661) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: gnu "... like fishing with grenades." I do not recommend this practice. Firstly, it's pretty hard to fry the catch when it is difficult to find the catch. Secondly, you can get very wet. Lastly, it is frowned upon by some authorities, such as the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police). They also frown on fishing with a Sten machine pistol... well, they did back in the '60s when my old man was stationed at CFB Trenton. Oh, here's a tip if you are thinking about fishing with grenades. Drop your grenades off a concrete deck bridge. Wooden bridges are to be avoided in this endeavour. Well, that's what Dad use to tell me. |
|
13 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM (#1833684) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Bill D The Greek philosopher Heraclitus was the originator of the "can't step in the same river twice" idea.....(I had to read 50-60 freshman papers on it once...) |
|
13 Sep 06 - 03:01 PM (#1833715) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie I told you it was German!! G ☺ ☻ |
|
13 Sep 06 - 03:35 PM (#1833737) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Bill D yup, so you did... Mao Tse Smirnoff, I believe it was... |
|
14 Sep 06 - 07:48 AM (#1834248) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles That doesn't mean that moderators can't get it wrong on occasion. They're only human, and if you give anyone enough shit then they'll crack eventually. So that means treating them with the respect you yourself would like to receive - if you treat them with disrespect for long enough, eventually you're going to get disrespect back. Graham. "Moderator" can be a very difficult and thankless job. In a large community, it's impossible to please everyone, all the time. A successful moderator learns to accept this. It takes a great deal of maturity and self confidence to follow through in enforcing the rules fairly and evenly, while treating *all* site users with respect and dignity. "Disciplinary actions" should be conducted in private, remain confidential, and be allowed to be forgotten. Ragdall I would put it a little more bluntly. If you can't stand the heat - then don't volunteer to work in the kitchen and feel that this gives you the right to be seen to set the example of throwing pots and pans at the customers when you do not feel they are paying you the respect you feel you deserve. Graham - Perhaps you would accept that no amount of provocation will ever justify the actions of any 'moderator' who is seen publicly to set the example of feeling they are entitled to be openly disrepectful to those they are supposed to be helping? For example (and sadly - by no means a first offence): Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Big Mick - PM Date: 13 Sep 06 - 07:14 AM Idiots. Have you learned nothing in the last month? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Big Mick - PM Date: 13 Sep 06 - 08:59 AM I sincerely apologize for the use of the term "idiots" in that last post of mine. It was uncalled for, and I am sorry for using it. The remainder of the post stands. Mick |
|
14 Sep 06 - 08:03 AM (#1834264) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: kendall It takes a big man to apologize. However, no matter how many times you apologize, there are some who will never let go of the original remark, and they will hang on like a Pit Bull with a pork chop. Mick, I was surprised at your choice of words, even though it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. You are still my friend. |
|
14 Sep 06 - 09:51 AM (#1834348) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1679486 |
|
14 Sep 06 - 01:15 PM (#1834489) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Grab Graham - Perhaps you would accept that no amount of provocation will ever justify the actions of any 'moderator' who is seen publicly to set the example of feeling they are entitled to be openly disrepectful to those they are supposed to be helping? Nope. Moderators are forum members too, so they're entitled to voice their opinions. So long as any moderation itself is not due to that disrespect, and so long as they don't use their positions as an opportunity to use language which would get posts from other people deleted, I have no problems at all. I disagree with Mick on a lot of things. That's fine - he doesn't have to share my opinion, even when I think he's talking out his arse. If he deleted posts (and not just moved elsewhere - actually deleted completely) because I'd disagreed with him, then I'd be pissed off. But so long as he sticks to posting his opinions of me or what I'm saying, that's fair game. I can respect his self-control in using moderation correctly, even if I don't like what he says. Graham. |
|
16 Sep 06 - 07:09 AM (#1835883) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles To my mind an unmoderated site would give free rein to bucketmouths, and personal insults, pornography, unlimited spam, and proselytising by extreme political groups. It would mean for those who [allegedly] never venture downstairs, the prospect of non music topics being posted in the musical section and vice versa. I for one would almost certainly leave, and while that might please some, the other people who would also undoubtedly leave in such a situation would definitely be a loss to this site we all like so much. Except for the spam - perhaps it would be accepted that this situation and list rather describes the position already reached by our forum - even with the current system of moderation that is supposed to be protecting us all from it? Any loss or our forum's freedom to see the words posted remain as posted - in the way of imposed censorship could be justified by some significant improvement resulting from these imposed restrictions. If there is judged to be no improvement - by those who implement it - then what is gained and where is the justification for the freedom of expression that our forum has lost by this 'system'? For the publicly expressed judgement of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - is that these measures have failed to impose upon our forum the peace that he requires. A peace that he judges can only be achieved - not by a re-think and for him and these failed measures to be replaced by a fresh approach. No what is formally and publicly suggested to Max - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - is a change from what has always been the case - to one that would now restrict the public's access on the BS section and for all posts on the music section being subject to his approval before appearing there. This proposal seemingly ignoring that the problem is more with the current system being unable to impose peace upon its current members than any real problem with non-members. Thankfully Max has not (yet) implemented such a change. However, the same measures that have failed - by the public admission of those who impose them - still continue to be imposed (and sadly the same old witch-hunts are encouraged)- to the same lack of effect. Serving only to encourage - what are judged to be the 'bucketmouths' and the 'personal insults' - by the example set by (some of) our 'moderators' - that the posting only of such things (from certain posters and against certain easy targets) is now acceptable posting behaviour on our forum. No - a non-moderated forum is not a 'silly idea' - there a far more sillier ideas suggested and supported in this thread. It is however something to aim for. For there is no target for the current 'system' to aim for and no way of monitoring any progress towards that aim. There are only plea for support and a blind belief that the world would end without the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team, his known and anonymous moderators' continuing to impose their judgement upon our forum. Whatever the result of all this may be...... Whatever our views - there remains only one way to establish if an unmoderated forum would be any 'sillier' that the fashion in which our forum is currently and secretly 'moderated' - and that is to be brave enough to now actually try it. But even change to a more fair, open and less divisive system - would be better than to just continue with the current failed, aimless and counter-productive 'system'. |
|
16 Sep 06 - 07:18 AM (#1835890) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST "This proposal seemingly ignoring that the problem is more with the current system being unable to impose peace upon its current members than any real problem with non-members." That is part true. But not all true. It would stop some shit before it started, but other stuff--the deletions by people on some relatively harmless shit while some heavy harmful shit is left--well, that still wouldn't change. Depends on who's got the edit button. |
|
16 Sep 06 - 08:51 AM (#1835936) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles That is part true. But not all true. It would stop some shit before it started, but other stuff--the deletions by people on some relatively harmless shit while some heavy harmful shit is left--well, that still wouldn't change. Depends on who's got the edit button. How many times do you have to solve the same problem? The 'guest' prefix will now identify contributions from non-members. But most of the problems have come from members who insist on responding in kind - rather than simply ignoring any obvious provocation and who are now encouraged by (some of) those who should be setting a better example - to indulge in this. If (some of) those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters were to not to set the example themselves of responding publicly with personal judgements of a poster's worth, with abuse and with name-calling and to turn a blind eye when a favourite was doing it for 'fun' - this sort of thing would have ceased to be a problem on our forum some time ago. As it is far too late for (some of) these old dogs to learn new tricks or to repair the damage they have done to our forum - perhaps it is time for them to be retired to their kennels and for a new and more positive example to be set? One that encourages the plain fact, that the only CONTROL possible on our forum will only ever be SELF-CONTROL. |
|
16 Sep 06 - 12:48 PM (#1836038) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Nigel Parsons "Unmoderated forum, silly idea?" Not at all, maybe if someone sets one up all our resident cranks will find it and go there. Only returning when they have something useful to add to ongoing discussions. Unfortunately it would probably not be to their liking as it would be full of every other site's cranks as well, and they would not be able to yank the chains of the more moderate readers/writers. Nigel |
|
17 Sep 06 - 10:58 AM (#1836646) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Shambles to put it politely; bugger off back to your own thread! Giok |
|
17 Sep 06 - 01:38 PM (#1836740) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Are we going to gang up on him? |
|
17 Sep 06 - 02:37 PM (#1836769) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Only if you use your own name! |
|
17 Sep 06 - 02:59 PM (#1836783) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST The site allows Guests. That's that, in't it? |
|
18 Sep 06 - 10:45 AM (#1837412) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Pseudolus I'm sure of this. If I wanted to change the shape of a brick wall by pounding my head against it, eventually I would either accept the brick wall, or build a new one... Frank |
|
18 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM (#1837724) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Or break the wall. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 02:35 AM (#1838025) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles I'm sure that few posters would support the concept of a major power starting and indulging in an unecessary war to obtain peace. But some do support exactly this concept on our forum. The all-out attacks on individual named posters that are publicly mounted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, (some of) his known and his unknown 'moderators' is this concept. That in order for our 'moderators' to somehow enable 'reasonable discussion' - this end is achieved by selective imposed 'silent deletion', thread closures and by encouraging other posters to take part in witch-hunts. All ways of inhibiting the posting of reasonable discussion rather that ways of encouraging it. That in order for them to prevent conflict - it is OK for them to be seen to constantly to indulge in conflict. Not too surprising that when expected to make a choice - that many posters choose to pick what looks to be the winning side or at least the side with all the weapons and which is so willing to fire them. Is all this open conflict really proportionate to the size of the problem? |
|
19 Sep 06 - 04:47 AM (#1838073) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles |
|
19 Sep 06 - 05:05 AM (#1838088) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Jon that many posters choose to pick what looks to be the winning side Shambles the trouble with your side is you make no sense. There is far too much in the way of inconsistancies, errors of logic, distortions of facts, evasion of "difficult questions", etc. for you to be remotely credible. Your only consistancy is that no matter how warped and twisted the route to get there, anything that happens at Mudcat must be the fault of Joe Offer. You are completely and utterly irrational. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 06:11 AM (#1838120) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles There is far too much in the way of inconsistancies, errors of logic, distortions of facts, evasion of "difficult questions", etc. for you to be remotely credible. Such as? Whatever my view is - the bottome line is reached when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly admitted the failure of the measures he is responsible for, to impose the peace that he requires on our forum. As discussed in the following (now closed threads). Music posts by Guests to be reviewed Proposal for members only posting of BS Jon- whose fault then is this admitted failure? Is it mine, yours or everyone's fault, except the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? That after this admission - the same failed measures, division and resulting conflict continue as before, with no aim or means of monitoring any progress towards it. This demonstrates a classic case of a wish for power without being prepared to take any responsibility. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 06:19 AM (#1838122) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Please can this thread be closed, as it has served it's original purpose, and has now become another vehicle for Shambles Rambles? G. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 06:26 AM (#1838126) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Jon Such as? Most of your posting history on "your" topic. This one had me in stitches a couple of weeks back. I nearly fell of my chair when I read the second of these. Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 04 Sep 06 - 07:55 PM Actually Susan, I do not think this thread belongs in BS. It is an attempt to raise a serious suggestion concerning the running of the daily outlook of the forum. I agree entirly but unless there is any chance of it being returned to the music section - where we may judge this thread belongs appears to be thought to be of little importance. But had it remained there - it may have been possible to obtain the views of posters who are not usually able to contribute to issues that affect them equally, in such threads as these, as they would not see them in the BS section, but whose contributions in them may have been useful to the discussion. Perhaps that was one reason why it was so quickly relegated to the BS? I am all in favour of posters having the choice but perhaps it would be better if the default setting was one mixed forum? That was after all the starting point of our forum. ... Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate Subject: RE: A return to only one section? From: The Shambles Date: 04 Sep 06 - 08:10 PM I prefer freedom if choice to the settings being inflicted on members one way or other. One reason for a change back to one forum would be to prevent the choice being inflicted upon us anonymously, about what thread is judged to be BS and moved. The use of a prefix is (supposed to) be optional after all. The only reason how a thread is prefixed, now seems to matter so much (to those pedantic ones these things always matter to) is because there are now two sections for them to be placed. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 07:26 AM (#1838167) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Jon - your problem with my post is what exactly? |
|
19 Sep 06 - 08:00 AM (#1838183) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Jeri Jon, I had the same reaction. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 08:25 AM (#1838199) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie The loss of the ability to differentiate between the making of pro and anti viewpoints, and self contradictory statements, is one of the first signs clinically speaking. G. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 08:31 AM (#1838206) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: manitas_at_work Shambles, you are in no position to expect the owner of the site to act on your suggestions when you continue to post here contrary to his suggestion. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 11:01 AM (#1838325) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Jon, I had the same reaction Would you care to post to our forum and actually discuss what exactly you find the problem is with that post? Do you have no problem with selective measures like 'silent deletion and thread closures being imposed only to prevent and inhibit posting - being dressed-up as noble sounding attempts to enable reasonable discussion? Or 'moderators' indulging and encouraging the very conflict on our forum that they constantly and publicly complain about, when they have publicly admitted the failure of the censorship action that they still continue to impose? Do you have a problem with the following suggestion? In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us? And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary? |
|
19 Sep 06 - 11:40 AM (#1838347) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: manitas_at_work Perhaps your requests will be fukfilled when Max's request that you leave has been fulfilled. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 02:15 PM (#1838469) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Argumentum ad hominem Shambles, you are in no position to expect the owner of the site to act on your suggestions when you continue to post here contrary to his suggestion. There is little harm in asking - is there? Perhaps your requests will be fukfilled when Max's request that you leave has been fulfilled. I hope none of my requests will ever be fukfilled but I suspect most of them up to now have been. But this would rather defeat the object. Perhaps if Max had acted on some of my suggestions - he would have not at that point have felt that he needed to publicly make that suggestion? Or to ask if he had to bang the head of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's and my head together? But just as Max is not required to act on all of my suggestions - I am sure that he would not expect me to act on all of his. Even if these suggestions were physically possible. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM (#1838517) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Hang in there, Shambles. You are a voice for those who live in the bewilderness. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 03:27 PM (#1838540) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: rock chick Well I, and many others like its is, and yes occasionally threads are deleted, but by what I have seen moderating it is good, it keeps out all the nasty's and the riff raff so to speak, if you want to insult people find another site, or a waste bin of a chat room, there you can have your say, insult at will etc, but this site is for good debate, should people choose, and musicical queries. I have no intentions of getting involved in slagging anyone, it would make a shambles of everything, would it not! |
|
19 Sep 06 - 03:46 PM (#1838557) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST I have no idea what RC said, but I think she is a Shambles supporter too. Shambles seldom insults anyone. His detractors however . . . . |
|
19 Sep 06 - 03:49 PM (#1838559) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Rotatum onum digitum. |
|
19 Sep 06 - 03:51 PM (#1838562) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST So you've tried. What's it feel like? |
|
20 Sep 06 - 05:45 AM (#1838946) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Could that thread have been deleted because you tried to take it over with your stupid and futile campaign for Mudcat domination. I suppose that next week you'll be invading Poland! |
|
20 Sep 06 - 06:09 AM (#1838968) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST giok a lot of people are saying you have a serious problem. Give it a rest. |
|
20 Sep 06 - 06:15 AM (#1838975) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Are they all anonymous too? |
|
20 Sep 06 - 06:31 AM (#1838988) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Why is it giok that the only thread you haven't stalked shambles on yet is the SERIAL BULLY thread? |
|
20 Sep 06 - 06:31 AM (#1838990) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job. I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job. Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT. There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest! Giok |
|
20 Sep 06 - 06:37 AM (#1838996) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST You should get help with your obsession. It has blinded you to your own brand of repetitive rubbish. Is the SERIAL BULLYING thread too close for comfort? |
|
20 Sep 06 - 07:13 AM (#1839022) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie I shall not bandy words with some smug anonymous Guest, suffice it to say if you are happy swimming in the same pool as Shambles is pissing in, it's your self satisfied choice. No I haven't read the thread you mention, do you recommend it? Good, then I shan't bother thanks. G. Over to you, hider. G |
|
20 Sep 06 - 09:30 AM (#1839109) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Wow you really need a reality check. |
|
20 Sep 06 - 10:30 AM (#1839152) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Donuel I heard a Bhuddist priest say that she sometimes still gets "hooked" by the "bullying" of others but with practice and wisdom one can deal with the sic"troll" appropriately. |
|
20 Sep 06 - 11:06 AM (#1839178) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Manitas_at_home "I suppose that next week you'll be invading Poland! " Do it quickly while it appears to be empty! |
|
20 Sep 06 - 11:17 AM (#1839185) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Manitas_at_home Yes, he's had another year to find out what you're like. |
|
20 Sep 06 - 11:26 AM (#1839194) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST,Jon Ah I get it, inconsistancies only count if there is a year (in which time someone might easily have altered their opinion on something) or more gap between the opinions offered. Descrepancies taking place within a mere 15 minutes are irrelavent! |
|
20 Sep 06 - 11:30 AM (#1839198) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles taking place within a mere 15 minutes are irrelavent! Jon - if you would only explain (as requested) what so-called 'descrepancies' you are referring to - I could perhaps help you.... |
|
20 Sep 06 - 11:49 AM (#1839216) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: John MacKenzie Much less offensive does not equate with inoffensive; and did I mention boring and repetitive? |
|
20 Sep 06 - 12:08 PM (#1839237) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Bill D " can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally...?" *grin*....well, if all posters acted equally....... aww, never mind... |
|
20 Sep 06 - 12:23 PM (#1839249) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Ssssh if we are very quiet we can watch the pack dogs gathering. They slowly circle until the biggest steps forward and the others are sure to folllow. |
|
20 Sep 06 - 01:25 PM (#1839315) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Mild slag of a clone and it's deleted within a few hours. Heavy slagging of a commoner and it stays. Yes, something is rotten in the State of Denmark, but please stop putting all the blame on Joe. |
|
20 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM (#1839334) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST Why is Shambles allowed to rant in both this thread and his other thread. I thought that he was limited to one per day? |
|
20 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM (#1839344) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Bill D why? Because it's hard to read & decide & edit 24/7....being a moderator takes time & effort, whether you agree with how it's done or not. |
|
20 Sep 06 - 11:36 PM (#1839700) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST "Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM Why is Shambles allowed to rant in both this thread and the one on mederated groups? I thought that he was limited to one per day?" For the same reason YOU are. |
|
21 Sep 06 - 12:15 AM (#1839706) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: George Papavgeris 1. Does anybody believe this now (that this is an unmoderated forum)? Not me 2. Do you think it should be moderated? Yes 3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? No 4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? No 5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? None fted, I disagree with your take on the originator of this thread, but the fact that your post still stands there at least puts the lie to the subsequent GUEST's 10:02 claim that "Just don't diss a moderator. The post will go away really fast. Diss a member the mod doesn't like and it will stay there forever." This thread has also been useful in once more highlighting the behaviour of certain disruptive posters and proving what we already know. It will be a useful reference for future new members enquiring "why we give such posters a hard time". |
|
21 Sep 06 - 10:25 AM (#1840005) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Amos An unmoderated forum is a bad idea. Just plain bad idea. Spam, cruelty, porn links, and various forms of profane air-headedness would clutter the place up to no end making it unappealing and less useable to those who wish to use it to communicate in good faith. It is the imputation of bad faith that discolors and falsifies your screed. There is no bad faith in evidence. By seeing bad faith where none is displayed, you are revealing something of your own nature. A |
|
21 Sep 06 - 02:37 PM (#1840207) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Scoville 1. Does anybody believe that this is an unmoderated forum? I don't. 2. Do you think it should be moderated? Well-demonstrated yes. 3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? No 4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? No. If I wanted to leave, I'd leave; I wouldn't waste a lot of time sitting there just wanting to. 5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? I can think of one that I THINK is unmoderated (I'm not sure, though), and, frankly, it's full of a lot of crap. |
|
21 Sep 06 - 06:51 PM (#1840358) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST The question isn't really about moderated or unmoderated. The question is about fair moderation. |
|
21 Sep 06 - 07:00 PM (#1840363) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: wysiwyg I ran a small, moderated board for a time. I was amazed to learn that at least one person who joined, who I think was very new to Netland at the time, would have answered about that board, as follows: 1. Does anybody believe that this is an unmoderated forum? (Yes)
Look, we all want to be able to do whatever we want, when/wherever we want to do it. (Be honest-- don't we all?) Some of us learn, when we are no longer in our terrible two's, that the world doesn't quite work that way-- we adopt willing, respectful, cheerful cooperation as a higher order of behavior than total self-gratification. Sometimes we (all) appreciate a little help to remember to play nice; in the adult world of reality I believe that would be called STRUCTURE. Mudcat is structured. Nicely so, IMO. ~Susan |
|
21 Sep 06 - 07:19 PM (#1840377) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: GUEST "we adopt willing, respectful, cheerful cooperation as a higher order of behavior than total self-gratification." REALLY? |
|
22 Sep 06 - 04:11 PM (#1841047) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: Scoville It occurs to me that some of those who most claim to wish this forum were unmoderated would have considerably less fun prodding us all with sticks if that were, in fact, true. I was mistaken about the abovementioned possibly-unmoderated forum. It is moderated. I'm not really surprised. It and this one are still less moderated than anything else in which I'm involved on the Internet. I'm on a couple of hobby forums, too, none of which would tolerate half the mud that's slung around here, and they all seem to function just fine. The people that bitch the most about being ostracized are invariably the ones who kick up the most sand in the first place. |
|
23 Sep 06 - 05:46 AM (#1841371) Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Mudcat is structured. Nicely so, IMO Our forum is certainly structured so that no poster is forced to read or respond to any post or open any thread that is not to their taste. It is structured so that all threads could (and should IMO) all remain open, without any affect of the technical running of our forum. So threads do not need to be closed or judged - as the only judgement required is for posters to lose interest when they cease to refresh them with new posts. The simple beauty and effective nature of this structure is all that is required for peace - but only when and if this is first recognised and applied equally to all. All posters need to be encouraged to do (in the form of moderation and by example) - is not post publicly only to make personal judgements of their fellow posters or to respond in kind. Posters do not need to be encouraged to post only to complain about what their fellow posters chose to post (especially in the Help Forum). And any changes introduced as a result of posters complaining about what their fellow posters may choose to post can be ignored and told to mind their own business. Such posters can be asked to concentrate on their own posts and that any editing changes will only be considered for their own contributions. Where ever possible - all posts should be seen to reamain as worded and where posted and anyone else who may not like this can be told to mind their own business. Yes - our forum is well structured - so why is this structure ignored in favour of measures destined only to inhibit open discussion, divide our forum and involve it in constant and seemingly endless personal conflict? |