|
31 Dec 06 - 08:11 AM (#1923044) Subject: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi One tradition I grew up with is to clean house before New Year's Day. According to this tradition, the new year should dawn without any dirty dishes in the sink, dirty laundry in the clothes hamper, or dirt swept under the rug. In the spirit of that tradition, I've been engaging both physical and mental housekeeping. With regards to the mental housekeeping, I've been thinking about where I am in this point of my life, what goals I have set & why, and what I need to do to meet these goals if they are still valid for me in this place and time. Since I spend quite a bit of time at Mudcat, I've also been thinking about this forum, why I am here, what I like and what I dislike about this online community. I lurk and post on Mudcat. But I only lurk on the political forum DailyKos. That is one of my "go to" sites for political opinions & information. However, it's interesting to me how often DailyKos's bloggers struggle with the same or similar issues as some Mudcat members and guests do as to the nature of their [our] community and the standards people should use when posting on that [this] forum. Reading this diary this morning, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/31/0653/4473 "What Happened to the Dkos Community?" by Big Tent Democrat; Sat Dec 30, 2006; it struck me that many of the comments posted there were applicable to Mudcat Discussion Forum. I also thought that a number of these comments might be of interest to some of Mudcat's members and guests. Having had dial-up Internet access for quite some time, I recall how difficult and time consuming it was for me to visit hyperlinked sites. And thus, in the spirit of New Years airing out the room/meta analysis [if I'm using the definition of meta correctly to refer to thinking about what is and why & how it is], in my next couple of posts, I'd like to share a collage of comments from that particular diary and not just post the hyperlink to that diary. I share these comments in hopes that they might strike some chord among Mudcat members and guests which will hopefully cause us to more strongly reaffirm the importance of civility in our conversations with each other. Be my "guests", if you care to comment on my comments and/or those comments that I am sharing from that blog-a blog whose political nature is definitely not the point I want to make in this particular thread. Happy New Year! Azizi |
|
31 Dec 06 - 08:18 AM (#1923050) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Posting with Civility-A DailyKos Selected Comment Collage #1 "Something has been fishy around here over the pasy month or so, and I couldn't figure it out. Sure we've had our piefights, but the character attacks are new. .... I chose to give no reply. I won't give viability to attacks by continuing them"... by nhcollegedem on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "What bothers me is why people who should know better would let things like you pointed out bother them. It's not just on DKos. You participate in any forum, you experct that there will be all shades of characters in there. It's par for the course. Not everyone will be decent. Same thing goes even in real life. I listen to eff-laden conversation in corporate settings all the time, so it's easier to read discourteous, anonymous online "conversation" with equanimity. So, why let it bother you? Compulsively Combative" by akogun on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "But isn't there a point where repeating your opinion (however well informed you may think it is) becomes counterproductive. It is not a cop out to say we agree to disagree and move on. The only thing accomplished by banging home the same thing repeatedly to people who disagree with you is a shitstorm of negative feelings which devolve into the need for this diary." by jah4168 on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "The problem is that there's no real penalty for attacking the person rather than the problem. I've recommended adding a way to filter out commentors that you don't like, which would at least allow people to tune out the worst offenders. If they couldn't be certain that their personal attacks were even being seen by the person they aimed them at, then it would remove some of the incentive to get personal". by Liberal Thinking on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "People are people, and get emotionally attached to things that don't warrant taht. We all do it, and that emotion clouds our reason. I see this brought up in one way or another, but one thing is consistant, the finger of implication of disrespect is always pointed at those who are on the other side of the issue from the accuser. I'll take it seriously when I see somebody point the finger at someone that agrees with them". by ActivistGuy on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "The ability to persuade through communication is an art form. It requires the ability to listen, hear, and respond in such a way that each person understands that his/her thoughts and ideas are respected and heard, not used solely to expose any weakness, no matter how minor, along with the accompanying insult or putdown. As we speed to the 2008 nomination, intolerance is likely to become worse. I foresee that it may spiral out of control. If so, Dkos will become a place that's useless to those who wish to learn about current issues and engage in discussions. This is not about being oversensitive in the face of criticism. It's about who we are, as exemplified by our words and actions". by citizen53 on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "You had better add civility to standards and facts if you want to avoid continued degradation of the level of discusion on this board. Questioning peoples integrity without supporting evidence is out of line but so is calling them an "idiot" in response to a post with which you disagree." by Sam I Am on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "I was taken aback the other day...when someone said that the logic of Godel only applies to mathematics. I believe it to be symptomatic of something deeply wrong here: disrespect for intellectual discussion and consensus building in favor of dogmatic hardliners" by rserven on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "I'm shocked! Or I would be if I had a clue about the subject" by Big Tent Democrat ** "I think there's a LOT of middle ground between civility and being a smarmy kumbaya love fest. Politeness is the lubricant for the engine of discussion and disagreement. by lizah on Sun Dec 31, 2006 |
|
31 Dec 06 - 08:22 AM (#1923052) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: alanabit Happy New Year Azizi. I have tried to follow McGrath of Harlow's principle of sending posts, which address the issues rather than just confront personalities. There has always been a danger here of posting a hasty comment, which hurts someone else's feelings unnecessarily. I like to think that even as I am posting my views, I am also checking my reasoning by laying it open to question. Thanks to all those Mudcatters who reply politely and with generosity of spirit. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 08:31 AM (#1923058) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Posting with Civility-A DailyKos Selected Comment Collage #2 "What happened? I don't know I wasn't here before: was it truly a garden of Eden?... When an atmosphere of incivility persists (as in Washington politics, as in many of the impeachment discussions here), is it really that surprising that non-fact based charges are hurled and cheap, sarcastic putdowns become the order of the day? Civility once lost is hard to regain but if it is regained, it is a sure sign that the mutual respect that your diary calls for is really here. by EdSF on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "emotional entrenchment - Someone accused me of something. I asked for proof. They couldn't provide proof. They refused to withdraw the accusation. They still haven't. They're emotions and ego won't let them. Nobody called them on it, at least no one they 'respected enough' to listen to. Since this was someone who prides thenselves on upholding community standards, it discredits the whole notion of community standards. In fact it establishes a double standard. If the oldtimers and their allies want a standard upheld they have to uphold it themselves, as examples. They also have to TEACH the standards, not yell them at people. Has anyone here ever had their mind changed by someone who was screaming in their face and calling them names? What it comes down to is that if the 30,000 want dkos to be a certain way they have to figure out how to make it that way. That is vey tough to do when 40,000 people join in the 6 months leading up to an election.....when as is discussed above, standards are different. But really, it's on the noobs to conform to the standards, but its up to the old timers to define, adhere to, and EFFECTIVELY enforce those standards. by buhdydharma on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "I am offended by ANY incivility. I beleive it's possible to engage in vigorous debates and maintain a modicum of respect. Offense isn't the issue. I know you are well aware that people express themselves differently in cyberspace (eww, that word) than in the real world. They take liberties and go to extremes. Most would never even contemplate saying such things to another person's face. And most of us actually agree with each other on many more issues than we disagree, making these fueds truly ridiculous. But this diary suggests that you are taking these attacks to heart much more than I ever thought you would, and much more than they deserve to be. I'm sure you could have (and probably did) respond in the thread where it occurred. That's enough. This diary is an escalation that seems out of proportion to me. Do the people that allegedly assassinated your character really have that much control and influence on you? Debates will rage here. But that sense of detachment you feel online - It's real! We are not bound to these avatars. I just think you're making too much of this when you imply that the community is coming apart. The community is evolving, and always will be. The old generation will fear the values of the new, just like in the real world. But they are not frightening, they are just new. Roll with it or turn in to the old man that yells at the kids to get off of his lawn". KingOneEye on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "I hope it does not cause you too much distress when people you are never likely to meet, and will have no effect on your life, disparage your character. I mean that. I hope it didn't sound flip". by KingOneEye ** "I certainly don't view this as some random blog with strangers yelling at each other. The people on here are REAL, their concerns and views are VALID. I trust the analysis of many here, and I'm proud to have met some good friends on here... The problem is exactly what you express. If people view this as a place to come and shout at each other, than we've lost the community". by nhcollegedem on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "I try to remember to consider whether I would have the stones to say to someone's face what I say in comments. Sometimes I forget to do that, and regret it later. But usually I know that if I run into someone at, say, YearlyKos I can look them in the eye with a clear conscience. There are people behind these UIDs. I love this place, and feel I have much, much more in common with everyone that hangs out here, than not. Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. --Eric Hoffer" by Sharoney on Sat Dec 30, 2006 **** "in response to the question [where are veteran members?] banned or run off or burnt out, some of them many of us check in, but less often, having grown tired of fighting the same sort of battles. at any rate, i don't see any of this rancour as particularly new. just a product of one site with many very different and often mutually exclusive visions of what we ought to be doing here, without any way of finding a working consensus, and with a group culture built up over several years that delights in shouting down dissenting voices and seeing trolls behind every curtain. while a lot of truly worthwhile talking goes on here, trust exists only in pockets, between those people who have put the time in to build it up despite strong disagreements at times. there really is no other way to accomplish it, from what i can tell, online and off-, and any site with a constant influx of new people is going to have difficulty establishing that trust anew, day in and day out. it's not impossible, but it is hard, especially with faceless sparring partners and times as bleak as these. every site struggles with it, just as every community does. eugene is right, though; the core problem is fear and lack of trust". by wu ming on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "Speaking as a newbie, this place can only be "better" than it once was, just different. How that difference is managed to the continue the success here seems to me to be the question at hand. by Terra Mystica on Sun Dec 31, 2006 ** "...The solution isn't for us to divide ourselves up into little siloed sub-communities, composed of people who agree with one another. The solution is for us to argue and criticize in a constructive way, because we realize that our world views, while different on many particulars, are fundamentally similar. by StupidAsshole on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "Some times I think people take this Meta stuff a bit too far, but you are 100% right. Holding certain opinions does not make you a bad person. In fact, the reason I spend so much time here is to hear things from many unique perspectives. I understand that these are really trying times overall. The war, corruption, New Orleans, and so on all are truly terrible. That tends to make people overstate what they have to say, and be overly sensitive to differing opinions. We all get that. We just need to remember that this site is what inflames the passions of so many of us. So, we need to keep the name calling and personal attacks for somewhere other then Kos. Nothing will destroy this thing faster then it devolving into a "you suck" chamber. Please don't make this personal...THANKS!" by jah4168 on Sat Dec 30, 2006 ** "We are most likely to have more similarities of opinion than core differences.......many of us, that is. Many here, myself included, sometimes post based on reaction rather than reason. That seems fairly typical. …. I wish all posters a very Happy New Year, and hope we can maintain enough civility in the New Year to occasionally just agree to disagree" [sorry somehow I didn't capture this blogger's name and as there are now almost 500 post in that diary, I can't find that particular post and yet I very much agree with it. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 12:24 PM (#1923239) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Thank you Azizi. Happy New Year. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 12:32 PM (#1923248) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Cruiser Bugger Off Mate Azizi! Just kidding. "According to this tradition, the new year should dawn without any dirty dishes in the sink, dirty laundry in the clothes hamper, or dirt swept under the rug." There was never a New Year in my house then. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 01:18 PM (#1923282) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Ebbie Azizi, that tradition holds in my house too. As a matter of fact, right at this moment I have throw rugs in the dryer, sheets and slipcovers in the washer and my dog's bath stuff waiting by the tub. The last washer load will deal with my dogbath-wet clothes and whatever else remains. I don't know where I got the tradition- we didn't do it in my childhood home. Maybe it is what Cruiser implies- it is one way to ensure that the whole house gets cleaned at least once a year! I have read DailyKos on occasion, mostly in response to something you have written before. It's interesting but not surprising that they too sometimes have the same discussions the Mudcat has. Thanks for posting it. Ebbie |
|
31 Dec 06 - 01:22 PM (#1923286) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard It's people, not Mudcat!! ;o) |
|
31 Dec 06 - 02:17 PM (#1923349) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D the truth is, this 'internet/WWW' thing is not that old....and folks have discovered it is MUCH easier to say anti-social stuff from the relative safety of their computers than it would be facing their opponents face-to-face. We even get people saying "this isn't 'real'...these are just words on a screen".....sadly, it IS real, and we need to strive for the civility Azizi suggests in our comments. The New Year IS a traditional time for attempting to change things for the better, but whether it can be made to apply to VT as well as RT remains to be seen. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 02:18 PM (#1923352) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Hi all! Here's some info about the custom of having a clean house for the New Years: "New Year (shogatsu or oshogatsu) is the most important holiday in Japan. Most businesses shut down from January 1 to January 3, and families typically gather to spend the days together. Years are traditionally viewed as completely separate, with each new year providing a fresh start. Consequently, all duties are supposed to be completed by the end of the year, while bonenkai parties ("year forgetting parties") are held with the purpose of leaving the old year's worries and troubles behind. Homes and entrance gates are decorated with ornaments made of pine, bamboo and plum trees, and clothes and houses are cleaned." Japanese New Year ** "In China, New Year's Eve is a time for... . all family members to get together to chat . us to have some special food which we don't have daily . children to wear brand new clothes . children to gather lucky money from adults traveling . hanging around the flower shows . shopping for cleaning one's house, especially for messy people." New Year Customs Worldwide -snip- I'm not sure if that last line is a typo or not. Did that contributor mean that on New Years Eve especially messy people would shop for cleaning products, or that especially messy people would use those cleaning products to make their homes less messy? Either way, that doesn't refer to me 'cause I'm not "especially" messy. ;o) |
|
31 Dec 06 - 02:32 PM (#1923369) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Charley Noble Azizi- I'll try resetting my BS response meter over New Year's. There are times when it has a hair trigger, but a little hair of the dog might just settle it down. Best wishes to you! Charley Noble |
|
31 Dec 06 - 07:35 PM (#1923611) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Is it any reason that ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER in some version are used around the world in face to face meetings? It's codified civility for debate. And it's not perfect. Fights break out in even the most dignified settings or maybe I should say especially in what should be the most dignified settings. But it is the road to civility. The first university in the Renaissance, I believe was in Paris. Ideals and old standards of understanding clashed with the new. There were hot debates, fights, duels but eventually it was found that civilty and maybe even a little hypocracy furthered the cause of understanding as much as the rules of logic. As a side bar, I think it is terrible for anyone side to try to dominate in the school setting for anything above rote learning. How can there be understanding if only one point of view is heard. Political Correctness leads us to a Dark Age, not enlightenment. Let the Ideas stand on their own merit. Learn LOGIC. Learn how to think, not what to think. The "what" will come of its own accord. The know-nothings who think they can sell an idea with filthy language and faulty logic will fall by the wayside if everyone points out their lack of substance. Yes, be civil, be polite, apologize when you need to (it won't kill you). If an impasse is reached, admit it and move on to other things. To thine own self, be true. Admit your biases and know where you are coming from. That alone will clear a lot of the underbrush out of the way for a meaningful discourse and exchange of ideas. Thanks for an excellent thread Azizi. It's a start. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 07:55 PM (#1923634) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: mack/misophist Civility. Some people just don't have it in them. The important thing is to never let them know when they're right. Even assholes can be right, once in a while. I once knew a fellow who could shut up the most egregious fool by looking down his nose at him, smirking, and stalking off. Try it. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 07:59 PM (#1923637) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Ah, Mack, you've mastered rational debate! |
|
31 Dec 06 - 08:10 PM (#1923647) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Only two things leapt out at me from those lists that seem particularly relevant to this forum, as opposed to others I'm familiar with--and it is no coincidence both Mudcat and Daily Kos have a lot of political discussions that lead to way off behavior. This: "The problem is that there's no real penalty for attacking the person rather than the problem." And the fact that Azizi included repeated references to the "old timers and their followers" needing to set the standards, and lead by example (they really don't here--they've been a large part of the problem, especially the clones). |
|
31 Dec 06 - 11:02 PM (#1923710) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos One of the reasons the old timers here ARE old timers is they have consistently spoken frankly but tended to err on the side of civility, with the exception of Spaw whose incivility is so slapstick as to qualify as something else altogether. "Guest" on the other had has been an undying font of snidery and underhanded, generalized negative nabobbery, as I recall. A |
|
31 Dec 06 - 11:29 PM (#1923719) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,In Awe! Posting with civility! Oh Please, this reads like a 'Ms. Manners Guide to the Internet' What a crock. Telling people how they should behave indeed. I cannot think of anything more arrogant than this Thread topic. What is the next lecture thread about. Could it be 'Knowing when not to post!' Maybe that topic should have been covered before this one! |
|
31 Dec 06 - 11:53 PM (#1923722) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Stilly River Sage Another anonymous "GUEST" logs in and takes a few cheap shots. No name, no accountability. Taking posters to task for craving civility. How Droll. I'm not the first to suggest that GUESTs could stand to inhabit a different place than regular members. (The last one can go in the trash bin). SRS |
|
01 Jan 07 - 04:17 AM (#1923799) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Hey, I LOVE Miss Manners. Good manner make good sense. One does not have to think very long or hard to see what life would be like without them. It's why we call this civilization. Its worth protecting and in the personal contact, it holds down on violence and blood shed. That we'd all practice good manners. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 05:04 AM (#1923809) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: JennyO I once knew a fellow who could shut up the most egregious fool by looking down his nose at him, smirking, and stalking off. Hmm. That might be a little hard to do on the internet. ;-) |
|
01 Jan 07 - 06:28 AM (#1923840) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: terrier Guest, in awe ******What is the next lecture thread about. Could it be 'Knowing when not to post!' Maybe that topic should have been covered before this one!***** It has, recently, and a lot of people saw fit to join in with some good honest advice. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 06:49 AM (#1923848) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie Well I agree with Guest a little bit, it's a bit condescending to sit in judgement from a distance. What a lot of posters tend to ignore or not even know exists, is the difference in national senses of humour. I've seen people get upset at remarks on here that are everyday currency in some circles. As has been said on other threads, stop, stand back, and think whether the post actually means what you think it does, before you jump in with both feet and make an arse of yourself, or start an argument. The NI threads are a prime example of this 'different cultural outlook' there are those who lived amongst it in NI, there are those who lived with it, on the UK mainland, there are those to whom it is a romantic historic familial, but distant ideal, and never the three shall see eye to eye. Instead of proscribing how people should post, try looking at things from their point of view, that might help. Giok |
|
01 Jan 07 - 06:56 AM (#1923855) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Liz the Squeak Before judging a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then if you still want to slag him off, you're a mile away and wearing his shoes! LTS |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:12 AM (#1923869) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: freda underhill well, I've been in Azizi's shoes - I started a thread called the need to win in the hope of getting people to rethink the need to rip into each other. While I tried to make that thread as diplomatic as possible, the only effect it had was to upset a couple catters very much. after the dust died down, i saw that my thread was seen as being judgemental, and in effect it was because I was hoping to get people to step back from the heavy artillery in their debating. it's pretty hard to understand where people are coming from and very easy to misinterpret people of different backgrounds. The big one for me is the dry aussie sense of humour - dry comments by aussies sometimes get taken very literally by US catters. re using the wisdom of "long term catters - I take old timers, whether they're catters or from any other community - with a grain of salt. People can be around for a very long time, and while long term catters can be very insightful so can newer ones. I hope your thread is more effective than mine was, Azizi, good luck. best wishes freda |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:21 AM (#1923875) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Georgiansilver Adolescent behaviour...uncivil tongue....nastiness....controversy... argumentativeness....obstinacy....antisocial behaviour....hate.... anger....destructiveness....belittling words....condecension........ All traits of human nature and for some, everyday life Just a few of the things seen here on the cat too as well as some of the more enjoyable and positive things which we all come for( well maybe not all then)...much the same as seen in the world really eh?. Wherever we go in the world, whether physically or on the WWW...we will find it so just live with it folks. Accept it. Ignore it. Join it. Fight it. Jeer at it. love it. Hate it. I guess it aint going away anyway. Have a great 2007 everyone. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:31 AM (#1923882) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: alanabit I have occasionally written sarcastic or rude posts. They are the ones, which I would least like to read again. I bear that in mind before I hit the submit button! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:34 AM (#1923883) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: autolycus Happy New Year everyone. Two other tactics I've found helpful. 1. Ignore/don't respond to uncivil posts. 2. Agree. One guest said I was a fool. I wrote that I agreed I was. it's a great way to shoot their fox. best wishes Azizi Ivor |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM (#1923923) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Shimrod Never suffer fools gladly. In this forum you get the opportunity to jump up and down on their stupid heads. And there's not a damn thing they can do about it except to sling meaningless insults around - how liberating is that!! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:22 AM (#1923924) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,The Angel of Sweetness Trouble is, the fools outnumber the wise here by a factor of 100 to 1. There's too much jumping to be done! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 11:52 AM (#1924025) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing Since late 1998, I cannnot remember the number of threads we've had about this subject as well as a plethora of members only vs guests posting threads and a bunch of other netiquette discussions. As Mudcat gains more and more members those types of discussions have become worse and more acrimonious. IMO, it's best to mind your own "litter box" and not let the others' get to you. Took me a while to figure that out, but it mostly works. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 12:23 PM (#1924059) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles Since late 1998, I cannnot remember the number of threads we've had about this subject as well as a plethora of members only vs guests posting threads and a bunch of other netiquette discussions. Yes and most of these threads have been closed (or deleted). And in that time there has been no shortage of judgements, imposed closures, deletions and general attempts to control what posters wish to say. As none of this well-intentioned imposition has made any difference -except to further divide us - perhaps it is now time to stop this and try another approach? Possibly by finally accepting that it is only posters who have any control over what they post? And accepting that when posters are set a better example of acceptable they may just follow it? And if all efforts are designed to encourage discussion on all subjects - rather than on judging posters and inhibiting discussion on certain subjects - we may just see free and open discussion. But I suspect that free and open discussion is really the last thing that some of our 'moderators' wish for our forum. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 01:18 PM (#1924087) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos Au contraire, Sham. Free and open discussion is severely inhibited by the kind of generalized and accusatory nabobbery which some resort to when they cannot run two thoughts together clearly. Another strong chilling effector is endless redundancy. A third is vilification of individuals as a response to some topic on which one cannot say anything articulate per se, known otherwise as ad hominem illogics. Have a wonderful and peaceful New Year, Roger. A |
|
01 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM (#1924096) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Gee, thanks Liz! My name has become a byword! How old is the internet? What a great place to encounter other cultures and learn more about the world in which we live. If you have an in-joke going and you suspect folks in Borneo or Whazzisistan may not get it, let us in on it. It's a public forum. Otherwise pm your intended audience. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM (#1924115) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: heric It took me a lttle while before I learned to refrain from accusatory nabobbery (well, most of the time), but fwiw, this is how I try to do it: I firmly believe (though I know many people wouldn't agree) that the character of the person posting at the other end cannot be judged with any accuracy by the tenor or content of their posts. (I've proven myself correct, with the small handful of people I've met.) This works in both directions, too: Just because they "sound" good, sometimes or often, doesn't mean they are of superior character, either. I think if you met most of the people who you think, from posts or writing, are of less impressive or less interesting merit (or even "pompous," "goddammed annoying" or "stupid"), you would almost always be surprised that you had been so presumptuous. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:02 PM (#1924133) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Georgiansilver Guest The Angel of Sweetness. I would like to suggest your post is inaccurate and that the 'bad' side of mudcat posts is far outweighed by the good. Could you also suggest where you would rate yourself amongst the 100-1 odds? I find that most people on here are civil and although they may at times be contentious, they are entitled to their opinions and worthy of respect. It is the deliberate flamer or troll who usually appears in the guise of GUEST that is the main cause of problems...although there are some who are known to do those things by name! A sweet and civil 2007 to everyone and here is hoping that some will perhaps tone down their verbal abuse...if not..I will just get on with it, treating whatever deserves contempt with contempt...without any nastiness or namecalling to contributors. We may not be able to control other peoples input but we sure can control our own! Best wishes, Mike. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:12 PM (#1924148) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Free and open discussion is one thing, but hammering a point home over and over and over and over again until the wood splits is something else - and I'm not aiming that comment at anyone in particular, as you'll find examples in most threads. It's far better to make your point concisely and succinctly...! are words that I have never spoken. --Orson Card The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. --Somerset Maugham |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:15 PM (#1924152) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Ooops! Where did my cookie go? 'Guest 02:12' was me, sorry. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:24 PM (#1924157) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Cruiser Parsimoniuously: No Censorship except for slandering! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:27 PM (#1924160) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Cruiser Parsimoniously! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 02:31 PM (#1924161) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Is a 'parsimonious' a cross between a parsnip and a harmonium?! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 03:13 PM (#1924197) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Cruiser Bernard, I had to look up what a harmonium is, but I do not think such a cross is possible...no hybrid vigor there. I think parsnips would be too inflexible to serve as bellows. So much for my parsimony! That one word should mean one does not need to explain in length what it means. No Bernard, parsimony is not the matrimony of parsnips; at least I do not think so. Azizi: your efforts are laudable and it is obvious you are an intelligent woman. However, this forum is the "Wild West of the Internet" and the faster shooter wins. Best let Judge Roy Joe Bean and his clones do what they do best. So far, I have no complaints. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 03:42 PM (#1924213) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Well, clones get to edit their own posts and remove those they disagree with, so even if you did have a complaint, it would likely disappear. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 05:02 PM (#1924249) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Clones have their work cut out deleting spam postings at the moment, without wasting their time on censorship. A few threads which have got out of hand have been closed, and some have been deleted - I think we all really understand why. Some of those responsible for bringing the nastiness into threads seem to be taking great delight in setting people against each other, and it's probably because they enjoy starting a fight, then sitting back and watching the results of their handiwork. It's not the reason why most of us visit this forum. At one time we were all friends around here... |
|
01 Jan 07 - 05:06 PM (#1924254) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Believe what you want. thread.cfm?threadid=97644&messages=11#1923521 |
|
01 Jan 07 - 05:24 PM (#1924265) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Hardly proof positive... it seems that Guest is putting 'spin' on things that are said... possibly for the reasons I mentioned. Most of the spam postings are dodgy links - I've been reporting those that I've spotted, but a clone was already on top of it on each occasion. Clearly whoever deleted the post referred to in that particular thread believed it to be spam, and maybe other spam was also present. As the link had been added again with a suitable comment, reinstating the original would have only served to confuse. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 05:52 PM (#1924279) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST There is a lot of cliques on this Site, old pals who back one another whether they are right or wrong, I was once a member but got out when I seen the way they operated, noticed it on this Thread. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 06:05 PM (#1924290) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Agreed, Guest. I don't approve of cliques either. Weak people hide in them! Sometimes, though, you can inadvertently appear that you are part of a clique simply by giving a friend who you believe in some well deserved support. If I'm perceived to be guilty of that, sorry. It's not my style. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 06:57 PM (#1924342) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,a clone " clones get to edit their own posts and remove those they disagree with, so even if you did have a complaint, it would likely disappear." Bad information! Clones can edit their own posts- true. I sometimes indulge in correcting my own spelling, though I never change what I have said.. But clones CANNOT delete freely, because Joe & Jeff watch this and must approve all deletions! If anyone feels a deletion was unfair or accidental, ask Joe privately or in the help forum. Take a look at the many complaints which do NOT disappear. It is amazing that someone who won't even use a name can be such an expert on how things are done. skinny clone |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:05 PM (#1924348) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Expert... Ex = 'has been' Spurt = 'drip under pressure' ;o) |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:24 PM (#1924354) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,a non clone So what happened to Clinton Hammond? |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM (#1924356) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,fauxno How can anyone posting as Guest.a clone knock anyone for not creating a name? Are we to think of "a clone" as a "real name?" |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:37 PM (#1924362) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Clinton's busy with an acting job, and will be back. Clones are supposed to be anonymous, otherwise their function would be compromised. You will notice that 'Guest,a clone' has PM next to it - which means they aren't posting as a guest at all... you missed the subtlety of the post!! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:46 PM (#1924365) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST So message Guest, a clone and tell us how that works. The clone logged out, posted and that's that. Just like many people. Some people log out so they don't incur the wrath of certain clones. That is a fact of life. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM (#1924367) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D well, several clones have been 'public' for awhile now, but it seems to be an awkward position at times. I gather that several others have chosen or been told to remain anonymous. Can't say I blame 'em! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:50 PM (#1924368) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: number 6 I still think the moderators (sounds better than clones) should not be anonymous ... one fine example of a well managed web forum is the "Acoustic Guitar forum" ... moderators are not secret there, why do they have to be secret in the first place ... this I feel causes much to the paranoia and malcontent in the Cat ... people complain about the anonymity of the Guest, why not the anonymity of the Moderators too. And all this goes on and on and on ... creating the rifts, suspicions and spite in and amongst the community. It's all silly,and rather tiresome. biLL |
|
01 Jan 07 - 08:03 PM (#1924374) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D I have visited a couple forums where moderators have two names, so they can keep their chatting identity separate from their mod identity. It can be handy if they need to 'edit' a friend whom they chat with on other things. I also have seen a couple of forums where moderation is not only totally anonymous, but strict and heavy-handed.(Religious and political forums almost MUST be edited, or the petty bickering almost overwhelms the discussion) It depends on so many things. Max said awhile back that possible changes are being studied..... |
|
01 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM (#1924384) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,31 Dec 06 - 08:10 PM Bravo Mr. Six! You have nailed it, exactly! There is absolutely no need for moderators to remain anon, and in well moderated forums, they aren't. Period. Here, they insist upon playing their paranoid Machiavellian mind games, in a futile and increasingly tiresome effort to control the forum. And the things they delete/move/close! Sheesh! Ridiculous! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 08:57 PM (#1924412) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,fauxno I attempted to submit essentially the post below, hit Submit Message, and the message disappeared. The 6:57 pm message that appeared on the screen here had "PM" after the time but not after the poster name. There is nothing subtle in the 6:57 pm post's expression of amazement. Moreover, the post appears to attempt to convey, on behalf of site administration, an explanation, a defense, and an insult, without identifying the statements as official. Don't visitors to the site deserve better than that? |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:00 PM (#1924416) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Only certain visitors it would seem. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 03:03 AM (#1924582) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Oh! I'm a real newbie here I guess. I've had a couple of postings disappear into cyber space. I have a clunky old computer and dial-up and just chalked it up to glitches. Hmmmm. A couple of them were not a big deal but the last one I put a lot of thought and work into it and was really sorry that it vanished. It was on my view on Christmas. Maybe I shouldn't be speaking of Christ on His birthday, at least, not here at Mudcat! |
|
02 Jan 07 - 03:42 AM (#1924595) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: JennyO Slag, I lost a long post I had composed not long ago, but in my case it was my computer crashing. However I have noticed little glitches on Mudcat a few times, and lost some that way. I think it would pay for us to not get too paranoid, and continue to put it down to the glitches. Also it would be worth bearing in mind that there are some anonymous ones here who take delight in stirring up discontent, and they would like nothing better than for us to get more paranoid. I for one would like to hear your view on Christmas. I'm not a Christian myself, but like most of us here, I am very tolerant and happy to welcome all points of view. So if you would like to try and rewrite it, I'm sure it would be fine. There are a lot of lovely people here - don't let the few nasties give us all a bad name. By the way, I thought your post on the "My spouse has left....." thread was very wise and helpful. I hope she listens and does take some action soon. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 03:56 AM (#1924599) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,fauxno The cause of my post's disappearence is unknown, and I was not insinuating. To do so without certainty would be uncivil. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 05:57 AM (#1924624) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard 'Everyone else is doing it' does not make a valid argument. Not here, not anywhere. There are lots of activities people are engaged in which are neither ethical, nor legal in many cases, for example drug pushing or gun running. Okay, maybe these extreme examples are in the minority, but using the excuse that someone else does it is inherently dangerous. There is nothing sinister about protecting the identities of moderators, particularly as it is obvious that many of the people who want to know who they are seem to have some sort of agenda. Max, Jeff and Joe are NOT anonymous - you can easily address complaints directly to them (instead of cluttering up threads), as they are ultimately responsible for anything a moderator does. If a moderator is acting inappropriately, I feel confident the appropriate action will be taken. Consider the obvious: Max set up Mudcat, and he is at liberty to run it (or close it) as he sees fit. If people don't like the way he runs it, then they should not use it. Seems simple to me. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:10 AM (#1924761) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos Seems a bit dissonant to me that one who takes full advantage of anonymity complains that the moderators are not named. Sauce for the gander, and all that. A |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:29 AM (#1924779) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Eggcisely!! ;o) |
|
02 Jan 07 - 11:01 AM (#1924805) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing There are several of us who have never been anonymous as clones; we've been quite upfront about it. The choice was ours to make. Max, Jeff, and Joe DO moderate us. If they thought any of us were doing poorly or being unethical, rest assured they would take action. If you have complaints take them to one of them. kat |
|
02 Jan 07 - 11:17 AM (#1924829) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: number 6 I'm not saying the secret moderators are unethical, and I'm not saying all Guests are out to cause tyranny and disruption. I just feel that having their Mudcat identities kept secret along with the Guest posting adds to the whole paranoia and distrust that permeates the atmosphere here in the Cat resulting in the mudslinging, accusations and the somewhat polarization of the community. This I feel cannot be denied. Yes, it is Max's Forum. He is the owner. He does have the right to control and run this forum as he wishes. This cannot be argued. But we also must accept the fact that with his mandate on how this forum functions (Guests, secret moderators, laissez-faire posting) then we must accept all issues that prevail as a result of it. biLL |
|
02 Jan 07 - 11:19 AM (#1924830) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Thanks, kat, that's my understanding of it, too. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 06:31 PM (#1925149) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,fauxno I can understand how there can be some consternation, when attempting to have an online discussion, in not knowing whether one is addressing the same person in each exchange of a multi-post discussion. If there are five GUEST postings to a thread in a half-hour, say, is the same person posting each of those times? The uncertainty should be lived with; otherwise, the alternative is to take a gatekeeper approach by requiring registration and logging in. Generalizations made against anonymity will never, in the Internet age, be well received by the majority of web users. Reasons for being careful with one's identity have been well written about by many information technology experts, privacy rights experts, and others. Pen names have been used for artistic and other purposes for centuries. And, in fact, few who post to Mudcat call for online disclosure of legal names or of information traceable to legal names. For the online world, those of us who identify ourselves only by names that we have authored are functionally anonymous. That applies to all, members included, except for the relative few who have posted using legal names. Generalizations against anonymity are uncivil. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 06:39 PM (#1925161) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D well, I am not concerned as long as a name is used..."fauxno" is fine...member or not....there are conveniences with membership, but I don't need to know 'who' anyone is. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 06:44 PM (#1925167) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Bill D I agree Bill. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 06:45 PM (#1925169) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos It is not personal anonymity which is at question -- many of our members have only synthetic handles and their real lives are unknown. It is hiding in a generality, rather than having the courage to hold a position and a viewpoint, which is uncivil, because the generalization makes it impossible to have any idea to whom one is speaking. This is the hideyhole that is resorted to by the overly pusillanimous. A |
|
02 Jan 07 - 06:51 PM (#1925175) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D ....*tsk*....you make a good point and what happens? Gee, I hope your last name is Dangerfield |
|
02 Jan 07 - 09:09 PM (#1925270) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Leaving aside the discussion of whether Guests should post & whether moderators should be anonymous, I'm curious how folks think an individual should react {perhaps "respond" is a better word} to an online comment that she or he considers to be uncivil. I suppose that the best response depends on the situation. Let's say that the person read a comment that she or he considered uncivil or even down right offensive, what does he or she do? I can think of these possible responses: A person could ignore the comment or A person could inform a moderator about the comment and ask for it to be deleted or A person could ask for clarification, to make sure that she or he understood what the person wrote or A person could make a snarky response or A person could retaliate with an offensive comment [in other words "go yo mama on his or her ass" by cussing or otherwise] or The person could post a comment that indicates that she or he takes exception to that comment or what??? And what should other people do who read such comments? Should other people do anything at all-since the comment was directed to someone else and not them. What do you think?? |
|
02 Jan 07 - 09:12 PM (#1925275) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow Never suffer fools gladly. In this forum you get the opportunity to jump up and down on their stupid heads. That sounds rather like acting like a fool yourself... If people are fools that is their misfortune. Leave them to it. The Mudcat is still a place where we can find expertise, wisdom and fun, together with the opportunity to exchange views with people including we disagree with profoundly. As for nameless GUESTS, the best thing to do is just to ignore them, and refuse to get sucked into arguments with them. What Amos said just a couple of posts ago is quite right - it's nothing to do with being against "anonymity", half the people here have masks of one sort or another. A mask is as good as a face for a conversation. If people refuse to wear either a mask or a face it's best to treat them as if they aren't there. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 09:37 PM (#1925289) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Thanks JennyO, I'll actively believe the cyber-goblins were at work! Guests who come in and take anonymous potshots or set verbal mines of high angular velocity (read "spin") are not "guests" by any strectch of the imagination. I'm sure we would all step out from behind our pseudonyms and stand beside our ideas and opinions were it safe to do so but there are always those who desire to misuse information and cause havoc-cyber vandals- for want of a better term. I'm getting to know some of you now and I enjoy this site and most of the folks on it. I came here seeking info on old songs my Dad used to sing to me when I was a small child. My musical abilities are slim and none for the most part and I am amazed at the depth of all your knowledge and fraternity. There is much to learn here and I find the info fascinating. As Ted told Bill "Treat each other Excellently" and ignore the outrageous slings of the unwanted guests who would sow discord as their sole objective. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 11:03 PM (#1925332) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing If one reads the Mudcat FAQs, one would find the following: I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it many times more: the best way to deal with both flamers and trolls is to ignore them. Give them silence, and they'll go away. They feed on attention - don't give it to them. There is another problem that occasionally arises here - people who are threatening in their behavior. It is of utmost importance that you do not try to deal with these people. If you ignore them totally and inform Joe Offer or Pene Azul about them quietly with a personal message or e-mail, we can quietly make them disappear (to an extent). PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE YOURSELVES. If people seem dangerous, LEAVE THEM ALONE. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 11:32 PM (#1925348) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST yep - Ignore. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 02:55 AM (#1925417) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Georgiansilver We all have personal choices as to whether to ignore, reply, play down, flame etc etc........ |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:23 AM (#1925671) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles We all have personal choices as to whether to ignore, reply, play down, flame etc etc........ We do indeed - and we should all be allowed and encouraged to exercise these personal choices. Which is is why any attempt - (no matter how well-intentioned this attempt may appear to be or be claimed to be) - to take these personal choices away and make them for you - should always be strongly resisted. And resisted strongly until the attempt is longer made. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:24 AM (#1925673) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles And resisted strongly until the attempt is no longer made. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:46 AM (#1925685) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Cor, he looks magnificent when he's angry, doesn't he? Sort of like Mel Gibson crossed with Churchill, with a bit of Charlton Heston thrown in. Enough to make a girl go weak at the knees... |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:47 AM (#1925686) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,fauxno We might try speaking to those post replies that are totally or mainly on topic, as desired or when a response is felt to be needed, while not acknowledging those post replies that primarily insult or which weaken a serious thread with mere repartee. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM (#1925701) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Quite so. When a poster, whether a guest or a member, is not respected the views of other posters, it can be difficult not to rise to the bait. A 'put down' I often use with particularly difficult hecklers on gigs is to fix them with a meaningful look, explain to the audience that such people are baiters, and that this particular baiter is a master at it... Almost invariably the 'baiter' is the last person to get the joke. Whilst this is somewhat cruel, the person in question is usually doing their best to spoil the enjoyment of the rest of the audience - who have usually paid to see the performance. In such situations 'walking away' is not an option - but there is, of course, the option of asking the management to deal with it. A heckler's taunts (not unlike a flamer) are made with the express intention of coming out on top - the bravado of looking good in front of everyone else. Maybe there is a parallel here - someone who is trying to discuss a genuine (or even flippant) topic may find the heckler/flamer is challenging their dominance. It then becomes a battle of wits (maybe I'm only half right?!) until one or the other becomes abusive or backs down. In some instances neither party is in the wrong - it's a difference of opinion... is the glass half full, or half empty? |
|
03 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM (#1925718) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D ...the glass is the wrong size... |
|
03 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM (#1925734) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Hah! An engineer!! |
|
03 Jan 07 - 01:29 PM (#1925757) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles No - just a drunk. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 02:28 PM (#1925801) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Is there a difference?! |
|
03 Jan 07 - 04:18 PM (#1925883) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow The fact that we have free choice is no reason why other people shouldn't be free to express their view that some choices are not very good choices. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 05:00 PM (#1925911) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag The history of human thought lies mainly in the arena of free speech, the freedom to communicate ideas, goals, etc. There are those who would seek to squelch, censor, limit and ban speech. On the other extreem are those who would abuse the right to cause harm through liable and slander, shouting down, profanity, etc. It's amazing to me how the extreems without much resemblence to each other have the same net effect. On the internet privately held forums such as this one have all the appearance of a public forum but they all have limitations which are enumerated by the ones footing the bill. And ultimately it is THEIR right to limit as they see fit. If one does not agree with this, why become a member or even a "GUEST" participant? I am very impressed with the wide latitude within which this forum operates. If someone has nothing but negative and abusive things to say or do in that or to that forum, I suggest they go start their own show and find out how really tolerant they are. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 05:37 AM (#1926297) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles On the internet privately held forums such as this one have all the appearance of a public forum but they all have limitations which are enumerated by the ones footing the bill. And ultimately it is THEIR right to limit as they see fit. If one does not agree with this, why become a member or even a "GUEST" participant? I am very impressed with the wide latitude within which this forum operates. If someone has nothing but negative and abusive things to say or do in that or to that forum, I suggest they go start their own show and find out how really tolerant they are. This is a very good argument for having an open and fair system and one that was in place and understood from the start. It is not perhaps a good argument to use in support of a failed, unrealistic 'system' and one where posters are expected to be seen to publicy take sides, everytime a new restriction is imposed on them by some of their fellow members? And where any poster who is foolish enough to be prepared to publicly voice their disagreement - is then subjected to witch-hunts, public judgement of their worth and personal abuse. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I am sure that very few would argue that those fitting the bill should have the rights you state. But some who are not fitting the bill and who take their rights for granted would appear to argue that they now have the right to selectively deny some of their fellow posters any rights at all. Even to the extent of denying posters the very basic right to know if their post has been deleted. This 'silent deletion' may be a proportiate response on very rare occasions but is not I would suggest propotionate as the first and only response to used and defended on all occasions. And if it had always been judged so - I and many other posters would not have joined our forum and supported it for so long on such a basis. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 05:39 PM (#1926780) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Like any other privately owned thing, it will take the shape that the owner desires or allows to come about and like any free enterprized it will stand and flourish or fall and rot of its own accord. Like Wal-Mart or your local department store: you pays yer money and you make yer choices. Success is the ultimate determining factor. I'm almost sorry that I used that analogy. It's apropos but it really invites thread drift. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 07:06 PM (#1926843) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow It isn't just "the owner". It is clear that many people (I suspect it's the great majority) who continue to come here tend on the whole to agree with Joe Offer and friends rather than with Shambles in this obsessive and ungracious campaign he has been carrying on since the last millennium. If you bang your head against a brick wall for long enough something is bound to give way. Probably the head. I don't think talking in terms of ownership and free enterprise is that relevant really. It's more a question of a free assembly, being held in premises generously provided by a friendly person, as a friendly act, who woudlm very much rather it didn't turn inmto a roughhouse. Most people come here because we like it. Shambles evidently stays because he doesn't like it. Maybe there is someone else who actually agrees with him? Maybe. Maybe not. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 07:33 PM (#1926856) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag "I don't think talking in terms of ownership and free enterprise is that relevant really. It's more a question of a free assembly, being held in premises generously provided by a friendly person, as a friendly act, who woudlm very much rather it didn't turn inmto a roughhouse." Exactly my point and it's quite a complimentary reflection, isn't it? My thanks to the host(s)! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:55 AM (#1927074) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,A doctor writes... If you bang your head against a brick wall for long enough something is bound to give way. Probably the head. Unfortunately, I fear the Shambles has a rather unusual skull. The head-wall scenario could well be rather protracted. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 02:06 AM (#1927079) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag I remember a bio 1A class and the subject was an organism's ability to learn and its viability as an evolutionary success. If the organism encounters an obstacle and discovers another way over, under or around said obstacle, that is a viable adaptation and could be called rudimentary intelligence. If it repeatedly runs into the obstacle without surmounting it then it is an evolutionary dead end and with regards to intelligence, well... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 05:49 AM (#1927160) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles Like any other privately owned thing, it will take the shape that the owner desires or allows to come about and like any free enterprized it will stand and flourish or fall and rot of its own accord. Like Wal-Mart or your local department store: you pays yer money and you make yer choices How then would you measure whether our forum is flourishing or falling? If the one appointed by its owner to manage a store - publicly announces the failure of their best efforts and is seen publicly to rubbish it - they would hardly be expected to be seen to be carrying on with the same methods after such a statement - would they? They do on our forum. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 05:58 AM (#1927165) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Captain Ginger How then would you measure whether our forum is flourishing or falling? In the not-for-profit bricks and mortar world (museums and glleries and the like), 'footfall' is one indicator. And that seems to be pretty healthy here - new people all the time, and a healthy core of regulars. None of whom seem to be as exercised about censorship as you are. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:55 AM (#1927193) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Fooles Troupe "The head-wall scenario could well be rather protracted." Once there was a silly old ant, Thought he'd move a rubber tree plant, Anyone knows an ant Can't Move a rubber tree plant. But he had high hopes, High hopes, High apple pie in the sky hopes So any time you're feeling blue, Here's the thing to do Just remember that ant -- Whoops! There goes another rubber tree plant. Whoops there goes another rubber tree Whoops there goes another rubber tree Whoops there goes another rubber tree plant! (Plant!) Once there was a silly old ram Thought he'd butt a hole in a dam No one could make that ram Scram He just kept a-buttin' that dam. But he had high hopes, High hopes, High apple pie in the sky hopes So any time you're feeling bad 'Stead of getting sad Just remember that ram -- Whoops! There goes a billion kilowatt Whoops! There goes a billion kilowatt Whoops! There goes a billion kilowatt dam! (oh, Dam!) Words by Sammy Cahn, music by Jimmy van Heusen, 1959 This is a music forum, after all... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:59 AM (#1927196) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Er, if no-one else minds, C (trying, of course, to be civil about it!) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:04 AM (#1927199) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow But I'd much prefer to see that rubber tree allowed to live without being messed up by some ant with a mission. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:05 AM (#1927200) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Captain Ginger, Right on! * [a retired slang term, but one I'm still fond of because it can mean more than one thing at the same time] |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:10 AM (#1927202) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Yup... I've noticed that. Some people seem to get pretty steamed up about what they perceive as 'censorship'. Some threads I have contributed to have subsequently disappeared, but it doesn't overly upset me, as I usually 'Save as HTML only' any threads I'd like to read over again. A throwback from when I used to have dial-up, I reckon, as the personal page can take ages to reload with lots of 'traces' on it. I have to say, though, that the threads which have disappeared that I am aware of were mostly ones which started to get very acrimonious - guests and members alike were equally responsible. For the most part, I think the moderators are having too much of their (VOLUNTARY!) time wasted by spam postings... if I see spam I usually PM a moderator, but find that someone had already spotted it and deleted it the next time I looked! I have to agree that, in general, this forum seems to be healthy enough. People who don't like what others are saying don't need to respond and fuel the flames! I really don't understand why people get so steamed up about anonymous moderators... does it really matter? I couldn't give a rat's patoot! Hah! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:14 AM (#1927203) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles In the not-for-profit bricks and mortar world (museums and glleries and the like), 'footfall' is one indicator. And that seems to be pretty healthy here - new people all the time, and a healthy core of regulars. None of whom seem to be as exercised about censorship as you are. Many of those regulars are long gone and some who remain are far more exercised about censorship that I am. For some of these now impose it as they wish on their fellow posters but remain free of any accusations from you of being over-exercised by censorship. Perhaps it is the nature of censorship its victims and those who try to limit its use - will alway be more exercised about censorship than the censors? And most of us seem happy just to sit and watch censorship being imposed on others........... Here are the views of one of them - who does not seem to judge that our forum is as healthy as you appear to. 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- |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:21 AM (#1927206) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow ...some who remain are far more exercised about censorship that I am Anyone like to put their hands up to confirm that they are "far more exercised about censorship" than the Shambles? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:26 AM (#1927207) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard Why should people be allowed to make publicly personal attacks on others? It could be regarded as either libel or slander... In the real world, such people would find themselves bounced through a court of law... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM (#1927218) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles Why should people be allowed to make publicly personal attacks on others? Why indeed? Perhaps that is question you should ask our 'moderators'? Do you want me to post some past examples of abusive personal attacks and name-calling made publicly on our forum by some of our 'moderators'? If our 'moderators' are seen to set this example by indulging in such posts and inflicting them on our forum - is it surprising when this example is followed and thought acceptable by other posters? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM (#1927219) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi For the record, I would prefer that moderators were not anonymous. Also for the record, it's my belief that some moderators have targeted posters with who they have personal issues. This subject was the topic of public discussion last year. And as a result of that public discussion, it appears that Joe Offer and Max are aware that some moderators have done things such as targeting certain posters with negative comments, deleting those posters' comments, and closing threads started by certain posters for reasons that appeared to be arbitrary. In my opinion, there appears to have been some improvement in that activity. Any improvement is welcome. But if this community is to be the best it can be, such things shouldn't happen, and-if they do, there should be consequences imposed on those who misuse their authority. Maybe there is {was} such consequences even if those consequences soley consist[ed] of being called to the red carpet and given a good talking to by Joe and/or Max. In my opinion, if all moderators were known by name, this might happen less-but only if there are consistently applied consequences for such actions. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:03 AM (#1927231) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: jacqui.c I don't agree with outing the moderators. That could lead to them being targeted by those with some sort of agenda of their own. Max and Joe create the mods and deal with them when they get out of hand. Why do the rest of us need to know who they are, if they prefer not to be known? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:06 AM (#1927232) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Emma B A well reasoned and presented case Azizi. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:11 AM (#1927235) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Interesting that Shambles and I cross-posted at 07:48 AM. For the record, I was not talking {only} about Shambles. Nor was I {only} talking about myself as being a target for negative comments or putdowns and/or seeingly arbitrary deletions from persons who in postions of leadership on this forum {and-with regard to the negative comments or putdowns} from other long time members of this forum. Usually my response is to ignore such comments and to make a formal complaint about what I consider to have been an arbitrary deletion. Also, for the record, I continue to be an active member of this online community because my experiences here have largely been positive and because I enjoy learning, sharing, and just coolin out with many folks here. I've started this "meta" thread and at least one other meta Mudcat thread, because I believe that such threads are helpful. If as a result of this thread, Mudcat moves closer to being a community that treats each member and guest more civilly and whose governing administration recognizes & provides consistent consequences to those persons who do not treat members and guests civilly, than-to paraphrase a religious song-my starting this thread was not in vain. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:18 AM (#1927239) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles In my opinion, there appears to have been some improvement in that activity. I agree that any improvement would be welcome. But can such an opinion, that there appears to have been some improvement have any value? Or is it just wishful thinking or the result of not opening the right (or wrong) threads? Until all instances of imposed editing actions are openly recorded (including and especially 'silent deletion') by editing comments to that effect - how can anyone be expected to express an informed opinion on its true nature and current level? If improvement in this area is a worthy aim - and I agree that it is - surely the first step would be for all instances where it is judge to have been necessary to be recorded in editing comments? Then for the first time all posters to our forum will be able to judge and make an informed opinion if what is being imposed in their name and what they are being asked and expected to support is proportionate. The mere fact that it will always have to be seen to be recorded may in itself result in the reduction in the occurances of such instances and those that will remain will be shown not to be heavy-handed or unecessary. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:28 AM (#1927246) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Emma B "we don't allow threads that are critical of individual Mudcatters. Sorry, kids, but we're cracking down on nastiness around here. If you don't like it, try being nice for a change" "Oh, and I see all these anonymous, nonspecific complaints thrown here and there about Catspaw. We don't allow personal attacks, and if I receive complaints from individuals who have been attacked by any Mudcatter, I'll review the situation. The thing is, I have never directly received a specific complaint about Catspaw from an identified person, and most people seem to think his posts are funny and not malicious. If you have reason to object to a post that is directed at you, contact me by personal message or e-mail. Anonymous complaints and complaints posted in the Forum are ignored." Can I please have this clarified - If something may be considered "funny" by some people ergo it can't be nasty and/or malicious? If someone makes a racist remark or a personal attack on or about someone it can only be the subject of a complaint by that person - assuming they are in a position to see it of course! If I feel that I may be "targeted" by someone who is offensive about others any "anonymous/unidentifiable by the poster" complaint I may make in the forum will simply be ignored? Even if I make it in my "own name"? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:30 AM (#1927248) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Captain Ginger This place gets hit by spam on a constant basis. A small team of volunteers stands at the pass like Leonidas and his Spartans to deal with this tidal wave. They also keep an eye cocked behind them to deal with egregious personal attacks. They are volunteers. They do a terrific job deleting the filth and the pharmaceutical plugs. They do (in my opinion) a fair job of dealing with the squabbles in the playground. Unless and until this forum is actually moderated, there is little else that can be done. To expect these volunteers to compile some vast roster detailing every act of editing would mean that they would have to spend as much time (or more) telling us what they've done as doing it. You seem like a fellow with a lot of time on his hands. Why don't you devise a detailed SOP and framework for such a process and publish it in as a forum in beta form. You can host it on any number of free web-hosting sites - myfreeforum.com being just one. We'll bombard it with spam, and you try to keep up, while keeping a detailed record of what's going on. Oh, and we'll also start a few fights behind your back and piss in your coffee cup while you're not looking. You up for the challenge? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:31 AM (#1927249) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie I'll tell you what I'm fed up with, and that's people who want to single handedly alter the way this forum has run for years, sometimes long before the arrival of that poster. It makes the efforts and dedication of those who have helped keep Mudcat going seem as nothing. It sort of says, 'Obviously this site needs me to sort it out, as you guys just don't know what you're doing' High flown ideals are all very well, but remember all the other tries at ideal living that have failed over the years. I think Mudcat is getting along fine, and these little spates of nastiness, and/or silliness that we have now and then will pass, as they always pass, and no amount of well intentioned idealism will make a rats arse of difference. No Roger this post is not aimed at you, or anyone else in particular! Giok |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:37 AM (#1927252) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Hey, nothing wrong with Johnnies-come-lately, I'll have you know. Fresh perspective and all that, what what? Carry on. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:39 AM (#1927255) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: jacqui.c Hear hear Giok. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:42 AM (#1927258) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie Unfortunately Leonidas was betrayed, and the Persians under Xerxes were shown a way round the pass at Thermopolae. It was a similar sitution though, as there were only a few hundred Spartans, and something like 300,000 Persians :o) I now have a picture of Joe Offer combing his long hair on the eve of battle. Giok Thermopylae - 1903 by Constantine P. Cavafy Honour to those who in the life they lead define and guard a Thermopylae. Never betraying what is right, consistent and just in all they do, but showing pity also, and compassion; generous when they're rich, and when they're poor, still generous in small ways, still helping as much as they can; always speaking the truth, yet without hating those who lie. And even more honour is due to them when they foresee (as many do foresee) that Ephialtis will turn up in the end, that the Medes will break through after all. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:45 AM (#1927261) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles I don't agree with outing the moderators. That could lead to them being targeted by those with some sort of agenda of their own. Max and Joe create the mods and deal with them when they get out of hand. Why do the rest of us need to know who they are, if they prefer not to be known? Interesting views on privacy and respecting rights from a poster who in order to serve their own agenda - threatened in personal exchanges (via PMs) to make public (perfectly civil) comments from me, and when advised and requested by me not to do this - decided to paste these personal comments to our forum anyway. No one needs to be 'outed'. If a poster wishes to remain a 'moderator' all they have to do is be asked to use the same name when 'moderating' as they use when posting. Exactly the same as all other members are prepared to do. For those who are not prepared to do this - as all other members are expected to do - then perhaps it is not sensible or right that they should be still able and feel themselves qualified to anonymously impose their judgement on those members who are always prepared to stand by and be seen to own their posted words and actions? Whether you consider this to be a double standard or not - it has, does and will always provide ammunition for those who would attack it as an example of this. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:49 AM (#1927265) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Hey, Shambles: What should we do about http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=97256&messages=29#1927257 |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:51 AM (#1927268) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Sorry, forget that last post. Some forelock-tugging bully-boy lackey of that imperialist running dog Joe Offer has censored the offending post. Suffice it to say that it didn't have much to do with folk or blues. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM (#1927269) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles I'll tell you what I'm fed up with, and that's people who want to single handedly alter the way this forum has run for years, sometimes long before the arrival of that poster. That has always been (at least partly) my point. I am glad to see that we are finally in agreement on the late introduction of things like 'silent deletion', thread closures and calls for our forum to exclude posting from the public.... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:02 AM (#1927276) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,deja vu Old sad jokes - new name? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:39 AM (#1927315) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie "I am glad to see that we are finally in agreement on the late introduction of things like 'silent deletion', thread closures and calls for our forum to exclude posting from the public...." Not what I meant of course Roger, but I knew I could rely on you to misinterpret my post, as you patently misunderstand many others. Giok |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:40 AM (#1927360) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard In every walk of life there are clashes of personality. It can be very difficult to put such personal differences to one side, especially in such a relatively impersonal environment as an internet forum. Such personality clashes, then, are inevitable, but the uncivil way in which some people choose to tackle the problem is reprehensible. Could it be that some people believe freedom of speech to be their right, but not the right of others...! If some of the heated 'conversations' we see on Mudcat were to happen in a local pub/bar (or other public place), the people involved would be physically ejected from the premises and instructed not to return - possibly with police intervention. These remarks are general, and not aimed at anyone in particular... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:06 AM (#1927382) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos Another thread hijacked by the interminable explaining the imponderable to the immovable. A |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:42 AM (#1927409) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard ;o) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:45 AM (#1927416) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Indeed, it makes you wish that some mothers were inconceivable. Or at least impregnable. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 12:03 PM (#1927441) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bernard But not stagnant...! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM (#1927451) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Shambles and Azizi have always been some of the most civil posters in this forum. They also have a very strong sense of what is just, and obviously care deeply about fairness. That, combined with their commitment to remain true to their principles rather than be beaten down by the authoriarians and their boot lickers here, is what makes me admire them both so much. I'm really thankful they have stuck to their guns over the years. Those admirable qualities is what makes Max & his management team detest them so--they simply refuse to bow to the petty authoritarianism around here. So--bravo to you both! You are one of the very few shining lights left in this forum. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 12:24 PM (#1927461) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: number 6 True Guest. I may not agree with Shambles ramblings, but I have never thought him to be offensive, or threatening to anyone on the Cat. Again, there is a lot of energy generated here in this forum attacking Shambles ... I should add more energy than is generated by his rambling posts. Azizi,she is certainly is one of the most admirable posters here in the Cat. biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 12:51 PM (#1927483) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos You guys need to study up on the brand of incivility known as passive aggression. A |
|
05 Jan 07 - 12:58 PM (#1927491) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Emma B Interesting Amos - I used to teach Transactional Analysis including the "Now look what you've made me do" 'game' which really does seem to describe the justifcation given by many of the people who respond to Shambles posts. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:02 PM (#1927497) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie There's also the, 'That guy is perverting the truth, so someone better tell him not to' reason for posting. I'm sorry but I don't have a PC new speak trendy name for the condition! G. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 02:51 PM (#1927589) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,Quoth the Raven "Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always be the last resort of the boob and the bigot." Eugene O'Neill American playwright (1888-1953) "Censorship is the commonest social blasphemy because it is mostly concealed, built into us by indolence, self-interest, and cowardice." John Osborne British playwright (1929-) "The dread of censure is the death of genius." William Simms American novelist (1806-1870) "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself." Potter Stewart Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1915-1985) "Who will watch the watchers?" Decimus Junius Juvenalis or JUVENAL Roman rhetorician and satirical poet (1st to 2nd cent. A.D.) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:03 PM (#1927598) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie In answer to the old expression "Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?", we should always reply: "Vox populi eos custodat." |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:29 PM (#1927610) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Except that ain't the case here, my friend. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:34 PM (#1927617) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Joe Offer The message above is a good example of what's wrong with anonymous posting. The rest of us have to live with the history of what we've posted before (and I have my personal stalker who keeps track of my every word). Our anonymous guest doesn't communicate on a level playing field. Anonymous guests have no responsibility for what they say, so they can be High and Holy in one message, and a son-of-a-bitch in the next. I think maybe we should try a week without them, deleting all anonymous messages. -Joe Offer- |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:38 PM (#1927619) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST A bit tetchy today, are we Joe? Calling me a son of a bitch because you perceived something I wrote as reflecting poorly on you? You are the problem, Joe. You are just too blind and lacking in self-awareness to see it, as is the rest of the management team.
-Joe Offer- |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM (#1927621) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie Sounds good to me Joe |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:43 PM (#1927625) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Wesley S I think maybe we should try a week without them, deleting all anonymous messages. -Joe Offer- Ninety days sounds better to me. Go right ahead. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:45 PM (#1927626) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: number 6 How about 120 days. Would it make any difference. biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:47 PM (#1927628) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Peace About fuckin' time. (Sorry. I don't have their way with words.) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:49 PM (#1927632) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger Fair do's, as they say. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:55 PM (#1927636) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: bobad It would be an interesting experiment, I for one am curious to see if and how the atmosphere around here will change. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:03 PM (#1927642) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST As would I. I'm all for getting rid of the current log-in. Except that isn't what Joe is talking about. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM (#1927667) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing Yes, Joe!! Just say the word!!! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 05:09 PM (#1927705) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,knotgrain If your're going to delete anonymous posts, please kindly inform all comers on the Welcome page and on the thread menu page (the latter is the more likely of the two to be bookmarked). |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:36 PM (#1927777) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi To GUEST Date: 05 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM and others, thanks for your compliments. However, your statement Guest 05 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM [as it relates to me and possibly to Shambles, though obviously I don't speak for him, is much too broad brushed. I want to "state" emphatically that I neither said nor meant to imply in this thread or anywhere else that I was "detested by Max and his management team". First of all, I really don't think that Max "detests" me. I'm not sure that he even knows who I am, and if he does I'm sure he doesn't expend enough energy on me to "detest me". And I don't believe that the Joe Offer detests or dislikes me. What I meant by my comments this morning were that I'm aware that there is at least one individual on that "management team" who dislikes me {again "detests" may be too strong a word}. And no, I'm not naming names or citing examples. And really all this is besides the point. In my opinion, whether I and others here are liked or disliked shouldn't be the issue. What I'm concerned about is the potential and/or real acts of incivility and the real & potential misuse of power without consistent consequences. I'm sharing these opinions not to cause trouble but to try to help this community address what I consider to be real & potential areas of weakness. Having said that, I'm also aware that everyone here will not agree with what I've said. And I respect your right to disagree with me. ...which brings us back to do re me... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:39 PM (#1927779) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: number 6 Azizi ... and that's why I said you are one of the most admirable posters here in the Cat. biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:56 PM (#1927789) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D deletion of all anonymous posts in the BS section would be a blessing...(I'd make exceptions at the beginning for those who sign their posts in a regular way....then we'd see how it goes.) It could be a test for possible members only config. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:58 PM (#1927793) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Generally speaking folk singers and folks who like and listen to folk singers reflect discontinent over something, usually some seemingly immovable object or condition. That is as it should be. That's a very democratic thing and it embodies the freedoms that make The US, GB (do I need to name them all?) i.e. the free world, stand out. We tolerate dessent. We will give opprotunity to and listen to another point of view other than our own. We can debate. Where there is no dessent, there is only tyranny. However, Mudcat is not the ENTIRE free world (or internet), nor should it try to be. It is a forum. It is a place for folks to discuss their art and their heart. It's a great forum and as I said before I marvel at the wide lattitude it affords members and visitors to express opinions on a wide range of topics. Obviously it cannot accomodate all things to all people. But no one is forced to stay. There are OTHER forums. If you are pugnacious you can go join the Champoionship Pride Fighters. Or the Kite Flyers of America for that matter. It's a free internet. Surely you must agree that there has to be limits of some kind, don't you? I visisted the Dallas Museum of Art a couple of months ago and there were beautiful paintings hung on the walls. There were sculptures and other objects of art here and there, tastefully arranged. Some I didn't care for but, then, that's art! Nor did I stand gawking before the ones I did not esteem. I moved on. Then I came to the bathroom and there it was. All the postings of the malcontents and the clever verses of budding poets. Actually there weren't many. They wash it off, paint it over, you know---censor it! It was a value call by those who host the museum. They could have left it there and I'm sure they would have If they had felt it was something that the ignorant public should be informed about. John Q. should know not to "read these words of wit..." lest he eat something deleterious to his well being. So a decision was made. This happens in every forum. Most understand and accept it. And then there are those who will continue to get their message out on bathroom stalls and tenement halls (apologies to Simon and Garfunkle but I've been told that this is a music forum and I don't allude to music enough). I know. That's not entirely fair. There should be, as stated in the opening paragraph, room for legitimate dessent but if it is the same thing over and over, that's just carping, whining. Move along. Grow your own. Look else where. Be evolutionarily adaptive. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:10 PM (#1927803) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: kendall Joe, why not just delete the posts that touch on nastiness? I don't think any of us hates all un named posters, just the nasty ones. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:13 PM (#1927804) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Peace "It could be a test for possible members only config." Great news. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:22 PM (#1927807) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: number 6 What's a "regular way" Bill. I feel a headache coming on if we delete anon posts that aredeemed not in a "regualar way" biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:50 PM (#1927822) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing The first joe clones were to be such in the year 2000, by Max. Seven years later he seems to think we are fit to continue, each and every one of us, as volunteer clones. As stated before, IF there is a problem which anyone perceives to be a misuse of power, they should take it up with Max. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 03:10 AM (#1928005) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Joe Offer Well, biLL, it's pretty easy to tell which posters use anonymity and multiple names as a tool to goad the rest of us.... |
|
06 Jan 07 - 06:49 AM (#1928083) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST So which high-tech tools of analysis and surveillence do we use? Language analysis? Triangulation? IP address logging? |
|
06 Jan 07 - 08:56 AM (#1928156) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Fooles Troupe "If the very least to be expected is posting with civilty - the example should be seen to be set by those who would feel themselves qualified to judge the rest of us." Having just been a guest at the local Buddists Multicultural Forum, I can only say 'Hear! Hear!'. But sadly, if one says too much, the gems of wisdom may be missed. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM (#1928166) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Refraining from personal attacks would result in less said. How many could stand the loss? Could management? |
|
06 Jan 07 - 09:49 AM (#1928191) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger It is only a shame that so few posters are prepared to stick their heads up and say it. Because, m'dear fellow, for most posters the points you raise are an irrelevance. They ask questions of each other and provide answers, they discuss music (remember that?) and politely agree to disagree on matters of greater weight. What they say is not egregiously offensive, nor do they repeat themelves ad nauseam. Nor do they constantly whinge about the way the place is run. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 10:05 AM (#1928204) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Which thread posts below the line have you been reading, Captain G.? |
|
06 Jan 07 - 02:05 PM (#1928441) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Black Beauty Delete all GUESTS and invite all the members who left back again, I think it's the guest posters who were responsible. Love Charlotte |
|
06 Jan 07 - 02:23 PM (#1928458) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D "What's a "regular way" Bill." easy...the way Captain Ginger began doing just before he joined...and the way Art Thieme does (he has hard trouble setting a cookie for a couple years, but he is not 'hiding',) It is not hard to tell when someone, even without a cookie, is using a consistent name....and Joe & Jeff can often be sure |
|
06 Jan 07 - 02:33 PM (#1928473) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: number 6 Thanks for the clarification Bill ... I initially mistook 'regular way' as to the content of the post. It is obvious (and I am certainly aware of it) Joe and Max have the capability of determining who Guests and anonymous Gusts are. All posters do have a unique id (ip address) which is stamped with each post. biLL |
|
06 Jan 07 - 02:39 PM (#1928478) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie Not always true unfortunately biLL G. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 07:11 PM (#1928704) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST There you go, G-Man, tell them about anonymizers and IP address spoofing. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 09:17 PM (#1928800) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,syllabull You may, if you care to, check my last post to "BS: Proofreading tricks" while it's still up.
-Joe Offer- |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:39 AM (#1929086) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Azizi, please don't take this as a brush off, but I didn't post the "compliment" to you and Shambles as a compliment. I was making a point. The point being that Shambles and your behavior towards others in the forum is always polite. Regardless, both of you have, (you not nearly to the extent as Shambles) found your way onto the shit list of someone on the management team. You are absolutely correct to say "detest" is strong a word regarding you. But it isn't regarding Shambles. Max has just started a "flame Shambles" thread. It is my perception though, that both you and Shambles (along with myself) have--on occassion in your case--had conflicts with management because you dared to criticize the way things are done here. Personally, things don't seem that bad around here to me, or to have gotten any worse than usual. What does seem to be happening is management is losing it, because so many people are now voicing dissatisfaction with their playing favorites, with double standards for different posters, and for the really awful habit of putting their nasty red editorial comments in, which is pure bullying behavior and completely unwarranted. Good moderators never do those things. Nor do good moderators make public pronouncements about a poster the way Max just did about Shambles. So, apologies if the word "detest" was to strong to apply to your personal circumstance vis a vis Mudcat management. I don't think it is for Shambles, though. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:56 AM (#1929096) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Fair enough, Guest 07 Jan 07 - 09:39 AM. I accept that you weren't trying to compliment me and I'll leave your comments stand without making any comments in response to them. But I feel like ending my participation in this thread with the Tiny Tim/"Christmas Carol" line- "God bless us one and all." |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:07 AM (#1929101) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Well, it was a compliment, but it was also a point I was trying to make (I knew this was going to happen). I wanted to comment that when the most decent, respectful posters get attacked by management, but don't slither off with their tail between their legs but stand by their principles, that is an admirable thing. Too many posters here go along to get along, which IMO, only makes things worse. The "it's Max's site" has never worked with me. The forum belongs to the people whose contributions are here, not his silly capitalist "ownership of cyberturf" trip. What brings everyone here isn't Max's forum, but Dick and Susan's Digital Tradition, a distinction most posters here never make. I've felt for a very long time that Max has mismanaged the resource. I find him boorish, a bully, and not terribly mature. But that's me. Others mileage varies, of course. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:25 AM (#1929110) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Alba Well Guest if Max pulled the plug there would be no Mudcat! So one has to figure it is his site! Contributions are voluntary. Many Members here have shared their many Years of study and knowledge of Music with the Public, not because they had to but because they wanted to. Like I say this is only my take and the way I see it is the person that has the Server owns the site and that would be Max. It isn't a democracy, it is a website. There are guidlines and a FAQ section and long standing Permathreads that people have spent Years working on. There is the usual disfunctional Folk (perhaps I am one!) and there are Folk that think by joining that they know more and have more than others to contribute just by being "who" they are. Ego and tenacity at it's best and worst. Me. It's the Mudcat. A faceless Music site in cyberspace. One can be themselves or invent another self or be themselves sometimes and switch personas when it suits! None the less it IS Max's site and I hope he decides to keep the plug in the wall that makes it happen:) Just an observation:) Respectfully, Jude |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:31 AM (#1929117) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing Well said, Alba. Then there are the wolves in sheeps' clothing who appear to be wonderful, popular members, but who some know to be vicious and ugly and not to be trusted. One would never know it by their postings. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:35 AM (#1929122) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Because the site has an owner and "it isn't a democracy" doesn't mean the forum can't be run democratically and fairly. Ownership has nothing to do with it. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:44 AM (#1929129) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Alba Guest we all have the choice to start up our own sites and run them in a way that suits our wishes. Ownership has everything to do with it. Suggestions can be made to the Site's owner and Moderators... they may or may not wish to put them in place. That is the way it is. We all can spin this whatever way we want but...it isn't "ours". Never has been and never will. I see what you are trying to say but it doesn't change my opinion. This IS Max's site, like it or not. again. Respectfully Jude Yes Katlaughing I see your point too. It is a Sad and at times worrying point and I have experienced what you say first hand and watch the wolves at work on this site daily. It may be "The Mudcat" but it is also "The Internet". |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM (#1929147) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST I do respect your point of view, Alba. It is true, the owners and moderators cannot be forced to run the forum fairly and democratically. I'm not trying to spin. Just be part of the conversation for awhile. But surely you understand why so many posters to this forum become frustrated with the arbitrary way "justice" is meted out here. And that some, who feel it more important to stand by their principles than acquiese to management out of fear of being banned for criticizing, aren't the true problem here? People naturally wish to see things run democratically and fairly. Most of us put up with less than perfect management in our day jobs. This is a leisure site. So when managment gets heavy handed here, it will take a toll. Why put up with petty dictators and control freaks in your leisure time? For the most part, over the years one has been able to ignore management here. But because of management's increasing intervention in threads and refereeing interpersonal relationships between adults, their jackboot prints are getting pretty hard to miss. It has been happening subtly, and over time. But it is happening. And when as many posters as are complaining now become unhappy, it is probably time to rethink the strategy and consider a change. For some, because of Max's and his management teams' obstinacy about suggestions to make changes to the administration of the forum, the best answer for them is to just leave. At this point, the forum has been here long enough that reasonable people understand the need for shaking things up, making improvements, and having sincere desires for change in leadership. Mudcat is no different than any other group of human beings. When it gets stale, old, and contentious, it's time to make changes. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:04 AM (#1929152) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Alba Let me put it this way Guest. I own a House. Some people come to visit. They tell me it isn't how they like it. They want me to change it. I say no. They say but your House is 'stale, old, and contentious, it's time to make changes." What do I say. I say go buy your own House and have it as you wish. Change is something that I will decide in my House. I may ask for opions but I will not be forced to change what it mine to suit a few visitors! I think for me I shall agree to disagree with your opinion on this issue Guest. Now I do have to clean my "OLD" new House..lol Perhaps we shall discuss this at a later point in the day. Respectfully Jude |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:08 AM (#1929154) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. It seems there are two schools of thought on this. One school believes the central issue here is who owns the site gets to dictate how it will be. The second school, which is the one I ascribe to, says it isn't about ownership, but about how people are being treated. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:26 AM (#1929177) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John MacKenzie Justice is always seen as arbitrary to those who do not want to abide by the rules. They are usually called 'The minority' |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:26 AM (#1929178) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing Ownership trumps everytime as the plug in is at Max's house. Mudcat is closing its doors. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:26 AM (#1929179) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger As I see it, most people leave not because of the 'management' or the way the forum is run, but simply because they become heartily sick of the constant bickering and the sometimes juvenile standard of debate. And, that, dear Guest, is entirely down to the people posting. If you don't like the forum as it is, then join in constructively and try to raise the standards. I believe that you will only get censored if you say something malicious about another individual. I happen to think Teribus is a misguided fool in his stance over the war in Iraq, but I hope my sometimes robust comments are not seen as malicious. Similarly with my exasperation at akenaton and his belief in astrology (poor lad). It is perfectly possible, however, to discuss these differences withouy foul abuse. If, however, you want to get your kicks by saying unpleasant and destructive things about other people, this probably isn't the place for you. Now be off about your business. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:30 AM (#1929184) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Being critical of the process is not equivalent to attacking individuals. Pity you can't tell the difference, Captain. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:35 AM (#1929189) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger *sigh* - please reread, digest, think, then post. Implicit in your post was that the 'heavy handed' way this forum is run is causing members to leave. My view is that it is barely run at all, and thus, like a classroom without the teacher, chaos is just a whisper away. People leave because of the way that chaos has of surfacing. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:39 AM (#1929193) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST No, that wasn't "implicit in my post". It is implicit in the title and subject matter of this thread, and several others currently circulating in the BS section. I'm not the only poster to this or other threads saying the process is the problem. You disagree. Bully for you. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:42 AM (#1929194) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger when managment gets heavy handed here, it will take a toll. Why put up with petty dictators and control freaks in your leisure time Sorry, mea culpa. I should have said explicit, not implict. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM (#1929204) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos Heavy handed? What is heavy handed is the bleeding sarcasm and ad hominem crap and the passive-aggressive whining and innuendo and tear-jerking "victim" crap that clutters up a perfectly decent site. Joe's interventions have always been minimal. But even Joe Offer has a limit as to how much muddle-minded abusiveness he has to put up with in exchange for his volunteer work. You dweebs and headless neophytes need to get a little bit more real, here. You're taking undue advantage of someone's good will and hospitality, and it is sadly unbecoming. It is nowhere near as smart and thoughtful and "compassionate" as you wish it were and try to make it sound. It is, to the contrary, short-sighted and dull-witted and unfeeling and unkind. If you were taking responsibility for things instead of just carping, your whole tone would be dramatically different. A |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:57 AM (#1929210) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Joe is your buddy, Amos. You are a member of the club. We don't expect you to see it any other way, except the way you see it. Those who aren't insiders in the clique of the Mudcat Royals don't always find the same goodwill or hospitality you have been extended here. So to suggest that people aren't being gracious is a gratuitous insult, coming from someone like you. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 12:00 PM (#1929216) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger What a splendidly petulant posting! I can almost hear the stamp of the foot and see the lower lip thrust out... |
|
07 Jan 07 - 12:41 PM (#1929256) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: jacqui.c Who are the 'Mudcat Royals'? We all started as newbies at one time or another and, most likely, a lot of us may not have known any other 'Catters before we joined. I've been on this site for about four years but, in comparison to some of the founding members, still consider myself to be a relative newbie. Over that time I have struck up friendships on the site and in real time with various 'Catters. As is the case everywhere, there are folk that you click with and others you don't and you gradually build up a group of friends with whom gel. That is a normal part of human behaviour on and off the net. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM (#1929262) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST You and kendall are also part of the clique, jacqui. It has to do with the Mudcat members who have physical proximity to Joe on the west coast, and Max on the east coast, or who have travelled to meet them in person. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 12:55 PM (#1929277) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger I have on good authority that they travel in black helicopters, too. But don't tell anyone, otherwise John in Hell may have to ki9ll you. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM (#1929289) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: katlaughing It has to do with the Mudcat members who have physical proximity to Joe on the west coast, and Max on the east coast, or who have travelled to meet them in person. LMAO...well that lets me out! Phew, what a relief! Now, if I just stay here in my landlocked world and not even consider a risk of contamination by going to the "Getaway" I'll be safe for another year! |
|
07 Jan 07 - 01:07 PM (#1929299) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: autolycus The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. Ivor |
|
07 Jan 07 - 01:12 PM (#1929305) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST Amen to that, Ivor. And in this instance, I'm guilty as charged. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 01:13 PM (#1929306) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Richard Bridge I didn't realise that Azizi had been picked on. I do get a bit wary (or maybe I mean weary) of having to be so politically correct when he/she is around, but I've never seen anything out of order from him/her. What did I miss? |
|
07 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM (#1929327) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos What effing club? Allow me to offer the thought that iun postulating a club, as distinct from individuals communicating at individual moments of time, you are becoming paranoid and superstitious. I showed up on this site with no prior knowledge of anyone here. I MADE friends by communicating. You can, too. I contributed what I could to music threads. You can, too. I contributed stuff as cheerfully and creatively as I could, took on a couple of projects to help the 'Cat. You could do those things, as well... What I did NOT do was cavil and whine and play the victim about others mistreating me. When others mistreated me, I made a decision wither to blast them (usually the wrong decision) or to ignore them (usually the right decision). Because they were usually not battles worth fighting. But it took me some time to learn tht lesson, and Old Guy and Martin Gibson have the scars to prove it. Point is, I made friendships one at a time by communicating about topics of common interest. You have chosen some other back-alley way of conducting yourself. But don't give me this "power clique" crap. I have only the terrible power of words at my disposal, and you do too. A |
|
07 Jan 07 - 04:04 PM (#1929461) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: kendall Remember when we were kids, and there was always one who pouted and complained that "They won't play with me". Usually they were right. Why? Because that outsider got more mileage out of being a victim than being social and joining the group. Clique = rubbish. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 04:16 PM (#1929473) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: jacqui.c Strange - I have never felt any different when using the 'Cat, even when I lived in the UK. At that time I had 'friends' on the site in the UK, Australia and the USA. I was not part of any clique than either, just a normal Mudcatter who used most of her own name on the 'Cat and set up both profile and photo. Matbe the difference is that I have never felt the need to post as Guest - apart from on the SS threads - as anything that I want to say I will say under my own name. |
|
07 Jan 07 - 04:53 PM (#1929500) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: SINSULL No, Amos not the F**king Club, the Royalty Club. The F**king Club is private. So, by virtue of the fact that I have met Joe Offer and Max I am royalty. WOW Me and Princess Diana! Who'd a guessed? If you are on the outside looking in, ask why. No one is keeping you out. The Princess SINS |
|
07 Jan 07 - 05:02 PM (#1929514) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Richard Bridge 200! My first! |
|
07 Jan 07 - 05:39 PM (#1929566) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Amos Sins: Oh, thanks for the clarification. How does one get into the private one? :D A |
|
07 Jan 07 - 08:19 PM (#1929766) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: kendall Well Amos, you could start by living in the same state as Joe. Oh, come to think of it, you do.Maybe you are in the clique and you don't even know it? |
|
07 Jan 07 - 09:39 PM (#1929834) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow I dunno - starts off as a very timely post encouraging us all to treat it other with respect, and 200 posts on and there's a battle still raging. Mostly shadow boxing with some talkative invisibility/nonentity/man upon the stair who wasn't there. It seems we can work up a fight out of anything. Maybe it goes with the music: Then Maggie O'Connor took up the job "O Biddy," says she, "You're wrong, I'm sure" Biddy she gave her a belt in the gob And left her sprawlin' on the floor. Civil War did soon engage 'Twas woman to woman and man to man, Shillelagh law was all the rage And a row and a ruction soon began. Then Mickey Maloney ducked his head When a noggin of whiskey flew at him, It missed, and falling on the bed The liquor scattered over Tim! The corpse revives! See how he raises! Timothy rising from the bed, Says,"Whirl your whiskey around like blazes Thanum an Dhul! Do you think I'm dead?" |
|
07 Jan 07 - 10:25 PM (#1929847) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: kendall I wonder why suspicions are always more credible than facts? |
|
07 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM (#1929876) Subject: ADD: It's On (Don Henderson) From: Rowan Good try Azzizi! For a while there, even the recognised characters were uncommonly civil. Should be more of it! And I think McGrath is closer to the mark than he realised, even though he had the song in mind rather than the near chaos of the book. But he did remind me of Don Henderson's song "It's on!" which my faulty memory has as follows;. A sad story you'll here if you listen to me about two men who could never agree. What one called white the other called black; they'd argue a while, then step out the back Cho. And it's on! All reason and logic are gone! Winning a fight won't prove that you're right. It's sad but it's true, and it's on! They'd been fighting so long that could neither recall what in the first place had had started it all But they'd still keep on fighting both day in and day out; they were fighting to see what they were fighting about! Cho. Now just you imagine if lessons in schools came to be taught us by Queensbury's rules. It could easily be argued that the square root of four was 15 less 3, plus a smack in the jaw! Cho. And while governments think that it makes better sense to save on education and spend on defence it could easily be argued that on the same grounds elections should be the best of ten rounds! Cho. Cheers, Rowan |
|
08 Jan 07 - 03:18 AM (#1929937) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag Well maybe "club" was a poor choice of words on my part. Give me a better term. There is "membership", not citizenship. None were born here that I know of and no passport needed. It's a "Cafe'" but it's "bring your own coffee!" You tell me. Max envisions it; builds it; finances it and GUEST (un-named ) is going to tell him how to run it. Believe it or not, I understand that way of thinking but that's another thread and a volatile one at that. It has to do with borders and such! Ouch! Some enterprizes DO take on a life of their own but they are always corporate enterprizes, oligopolies, democracies and such. And while Max apparently ascribes to democratic principles and is a patient and broadminded person, private ownership prevails. It's a monarchy that resembles a democracy. Or, it's a cafe' in which the owner reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. The last is a phrase known to most Americans. How about you folks from other countries? Do private businesses in your respective countries have a similar caveat? |
|
08 Jan 07 - 05:53 AM (#1930014) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Teribus I have often wondered about that myself Kendall. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 04:53 AM (#1931176) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles Do private businesses in your respective countries have a similar caveat? They do but most who wish to stay in business accept that they will not remain in business very long if they allow their employees to feel they could call the customers names and throw pots and pans at them if the employees felt it became too hot for them in the kitchen. Or if they were seen to permit a few favoured customers to swear at and abuse their fellow customers. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 06:14 AM (#1931197) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST,JTT Small technical suggestion: most online forums have a posting form where you either have to or have the option to enter your userid and password before posting. On Mudcat, it's a little kludgy to go and enter your username and password, then come back and post, and if you clear your cookies regularly, you have to keep remembering how to do it. Don't all rush to attack me, now - I'm just wondering if having the form open at the bottom of a line of posts, as it is here, makes it too easy for lazy people like myself to avoid signing in. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 11:43 AM (#1931481) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow Thanks JTT - you've given me the first glimmer of understanding as to why some people might come in without names, but without having malevolent intentions. Mere laziness. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM (#1931550) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST How about the fact that I really don't want to give out my e-mail address? You can't becom a member without doing that. That's a good enough reason for me to be called guest. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:35 PM (#1931559) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: jacqui.c Problem is, Guest covers a multitude of anonymous sins. Too many Guests seem to take the opportunity to cause trouble here and then all can get tarred with the same brush. On the question of giving out your email address I am registered here on a Hotmail address, which is free and could be used solely for this type of use. Yahoo also do a free addie. In the roughly four years I have been here that address has not been abused as a result of my using it to become a member. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM (#1931564) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow I can quite understand people choosing not to become members, for variosun reasons. What puzzles me is a refusal to put a name along with GUEST to make it possible to carry on a conversation. It always seems to be plain bad manners - I suppose laziness is better than that. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM (#1931573) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D what McGrath said... |
|
09 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM (#1931604) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Joe Offer I'll say it again: if you have been posting anonymously, it is time for you to choose a user name. Registration is not required - but anonymous posting (while possible) is not permitted. -Joe Offer- |
|
09 Jan 07 - 04:45 PM (#1931729) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Rowan I was once guilty of another reason for posting without also listing my name; it was before I had become a member and was still posting as "GUEST Rowan". Coincidentally it was to a thread on which Azzizi had been making excellent contributions but someone made a comment about missed commas. Opportunity beckoned and I was too quick for my own good. Ah, well. |
|
09 Jan 07 - 05:18 PM (#1931746) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: KB in Iowa I do exactly what jacqui said. I have a yahoo email that I set up years ago and only use in situations where an email is required and I don't wish to give out my home email. It is amazingly simple to get one. Before joining I posted as GUEST, KB almost exlusively. I forgot a few times and used other names a couple of times just to be goofy. I wanted a consistent moniker because I thought it made it easier to carry on a conversation. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 03:14 AM (#1932056) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Slag I dusted my cookie one time and entered a comment as "GUEST: alien from area 51" because I wanted to make an observation as coming from another point of view. I kept my own inimatable style and vocabulary and hoped that everyone would understand that it was I, slag, doing the posting. Like spitting in the ocean. I don't need to try THAT again! |
|
10 Jan 07 - 03:25 AM (#1932063) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger Gulp - it's getting all confessional here. Well, I have appeared in other guises before I became the upright, downright decent chap that you see before you now. GUESTS:The Sugarplum Fairy, the Chocolate Soldier, the Nutcracker and even Tchaikovsky himself - in their questioning of Able Seaman Terry the Terrier - may, er, have shared more than an IP address with me. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 08:56 AM (#1932252) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Teribus That's right Captain, you also shared your little government subsidised 20ft container complete with computers, bought to keep you off the streets as part of the drug rehabilitation programme. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:07 AM (#1932263) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: McGrath of Harlow "anonymous posting" can mean a number of things: 1) a non-member posting without outing in any name, so they bcome through as GUEST 2) a member logging out and coming in as a GUEST without any name 3) a member logging out and coming in with a different name from the one thet normally used 4) a member logged in, and using a pseudonym which means they are not identifiable with somone in the real world. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:09 AM (#1932264) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Captain Ginger Rehabilitation? Wash your mouth out Terry, my love. It's buying drugs on the benefits I can wring out of the taxpayer that keeps me going. That and the cheap cider and the 50p's I nick from the neighbours' leccy meters! Now be off about your business, you little tinker, before I set my pit bull on you. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:11 AM (#1932265) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Keith A of Hertford T, None of that crowd were ever so "affectionate" in their posts. Butch to a man (and possibly woman). |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:23 AM (#1932277) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Teribus True Keith, very true, your post gave me a laugh though, but I do Captain Ginger is one of the boys who bailed out of the previous NI threads. I believe that he is the one who believes that Ireland is the third richest country in the world and that I live in the UK. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:32 AM (#1932287) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Paul from Hull Well, at the time that...'discussion' was going on I did a search on Yahoo, & there are certainly sites that give, with statistics, Ireland as the 3rd most 'booming' economy. Hovever other sites disagreed, placing it somewhat lower. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 10:36 AM (#1932327) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: GUEST At many web sites, the "anonymous" designation is stated when no name is presented by the poster or commenter, or when an "anonymous" circle or square is selected. But to the visiting public, and to members who do not know the poster by a "real" name, a poster to Mudcat who uses an authored name is functionally anonymous for any purpose other than forum discussion, for who the poster is remains unknown. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 11:08 AM (#1932361) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Wolfgang GUESTs, even nameless ones, are usually very polite and nice in the music section. Over there, they appear once in a thread to ask a question or to give a response, even a second time to say thank you or to give a bit more information than in the first post. I have never considered them to be a problem. But in discussions (BS or musically related) I prefer to read a consistent (real name or not) handle. Whether this person has member status or not I don't care. For some handles, I even don't remember whether they come with the GUEST prefix or not. It helps to read the meaning of a post. Take for instance Greg F. He sometimes uses the language of a redneck halfwit. Knowing him (as far as 'knowing' goes on a website), I can read the real meaning (mocking about such opinions) behind his words. Wolfgang |
|
10 Jan 07 - 11:24 AM (#1932384) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: John Hardly I'd be curious to know how many have turned anonymous (especially former member types) -- not because there was outright animosity expressed toward them at one time, but rather, because they inferred rejection in a lack of response to their posts. I bet it's most. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 12:34 PM (#1932452) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Bill D about membership and cookies: IF you are not worried about cookies from Mudcat, but often or usually clear your browser of surfing history when exiting, PLEASE note that with today's 3 major browsers, it is perfectly possible to set preferences so that YOU control precisely which cookies are deleted and which are retained and NOT deleted. There is no reason to 'forget' to reset cookies or the go thru the process of going to the log-in page every time you sign on! In Opera 9, which I use 'most' of the time, it is possible to control every detail of privacy and security, including handling of cookies by goin to 'tools'-> 'preferences'-> 'advanced'-> 'cookies'...and editing how you want them done....you can review all the cookies which might be there, manually delete any you don't like...etc. Firefox browser has similar capabilities....and even old IE has controls...If someone has been frustrated with this and is not sure how to do it, I'd be glad to post detailed instructions...and I'm sure others would also. A cookie from Mudcat is basically for YOUR convenience...it is not a 'tracking' cookie, nor does it identify you.....so if you want, or are willing, to get out of the 'guest' routine, it is not hard to do. (for various reasons, I use 3-4 browsers on a fairly regular basis, and have 2-3 others for occasional special needs, such as testing our new web site) |
|
11 Jan 07 - 05:53 AM (#1933053) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles "anonymous posting" can mean a number of things: That list seems a little selective. Is it not also anonymous posting when one of our anonymous 'moderators' post? Or when they 'silently delete' the post of a poster who is not anonymous and who unlike those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their anonymous judgement - is brave enough to stand by their actions on our forum? |
|
14 Feb 07 - 08:24 AM (#1967246) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi In my 05 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM post to this thread I wrote "I'm sharing these opinions not to cause trouble but to try to help this community address what I consider to be real & potential areas of weakness. Also, for the record, I continue to be an active member of this online community because my experiences here have largely been positive and because I enjoy learning, sharing, and just coolin out with many folks here. I've started this "meta" thread and at least one other meta Mudcat thread, because I believe that such threads are helpful. If as a result of this thread, Mudcat moves closer to being a community that treats each member and guest more civilly and whose governing administration recognizes & provides consistent consequences to those persons who do not treat members and guests civilly, than-to paraphrase a religious song-my starting this thread was not in vain." On 05 Jan 07 - 06:36 PM I also wrote "In my opinion, whether I and others here are liked or disliked shouldn't be the issue. What I'm concerned about is the potential and/or real acts of incivility and the real & potential misuse of power without consistent consequences." Since I wrote these comments, for the most part I have limited my comments to above the line threads and to Permathreads. In one Permathread I've had a post containing a comment & a question ignored by the Permathread editor. And in another Permathread I've had my comments selectively deleted in a manner that I consider results in an accurate conclusion. In both instances, I shrugged my shoulders and decided not to post to that particular Permathread again. Because I don't want to leave this forum, it's not an option for me to totally ignore what on the public forum appears to me to be acts of incivility and/or inappropriate selective deletions, including any post deletions that are made in error. Let's say that a member of guest calls to the attention of moderators that he or she feels that his or her post was selectively deleted in error-that the moderator made a mistake in deleting a post that is not inflammatory, racist, targeting a specific member, or otherwise offensive. Let's also say that, in hind sight, that moderator or other moderators, or the head moderator, Joe Offer, agrees that this post was deleting in error. Wouldn't it be an easy act of civility for a moderator to put the comment back and say "sorry"? Wouldn't doing so demonstrate to folks here that this forum is truly striving to be a place where civility is a goal that moderators and other posters believe is important to this forum? I believe so. |
|
14 Feb 07 - 08:53 AM (#1967282) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: Azizi Correction: And in another Permathread I've had my comments selectively deleted in a manner that I consider results in an inaccurate conclusion. I should mention that in that case I wrote a post to that Permathread asking that all my comments on that topic be removed if some of them were removed. However, that post was also deleted. At that point I wrote the Permathread editor a pm indicating that I would no longer post to that Permathread. |
|
15 Feb 07 - 02:31 AM (#1968238) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles Azizi - At least your contributions to this thread remain as posted. To my knowledge - at least 5 posts (since this thread was refreshed in February) have been 'silently deleted' from it. Apart from all the other issues arising from this, on a purely practical level, this has resulted in much needless confusion on our forum, as none of these deletions were recorded as taking place. Even if it were just to avoid this confusion - it would surely be a simple matter to ensure that all such imposed actions are recorded? And if recording this in editing comments is thought to be too much effort (by those who usually seem eager for the slightest excuse to insert them into existing posts in threads) - perhaps such actions could cease? It would be welcome if just some of the effort that currently goes into preventing discussion were to be devoted to encouraging both this and in encouraging new contributors to feel this was a place where they could safely express their views. But perhaps this is not thought to be the object anymore? But again on a practical level - it should be remembered that those who choose to exert power without responsibilty have little credibilty when demanding that others act responsibly. |
|
15 Feb 07 - 02:34 AM (#1968239) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles Closed posts and deleted threads 3 |
|
16 Feb 07 - 11:49 AM (#1969862) Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility From: The Shambles Wouldn't doing so demonstrate to folks here that this forum is truly striving to be a place where civility is a goal that moderators and other posters believe is important to this forum? I believe so too. But I not too sure from the example they set, that some of our moderators and their few favoured posters would share the view that civility is really all that important. But I believe this to be a mistake - but not one that it is too late to correct. |