The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #88940 Message #1676337
Posted By: Bill D
22-Feb-06 - 08:31 PM
Thread Name: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
"... is that it is not based or on any clear rules or consistently enforced."
well, how many pages do you imagine it would require to set out all the "clear rules" necessary to cover the possibilites? There is only ONE basic rule that can be applied:
Max feels that judicious editing/moderating is necessary, and he has designated Joe as the head of a small group to 'try' to deal with things....as part time volunteers, they can not catch every problem immediately, but they do what they can. Joe can overrule a 'clone' and Jeff or Max can overrule or fire Joe.
Max is happy with the arrangement so far, as are most of the members, so far as I have read in the **several YEARS** this debate has gone on! You, Roger, seem to relish this "struggle against oppression and censorship", even though almost no one agrees or appreciates your efforts. You have created a string of buzzwords ("impose their will"..etc..) that beg the question of just who is in charge here. You don't seem to comprehend that the total absence of moderation/editing that you would prefer would allow anyone to "impose their anti-social behavior" on the membership at large! It is just a question of who's "imposition" serves the greater good...and Max is the judge of that....that's IS.
as to Joe's 'proposal'...well, hey! *grin* Joe gets the job of mop-boy around here, and I'm not a bit surprised that he, after years of cleaning up nastiness, would prefer to eliminate some of the messes before they happen. No telling how that idea will work out....it's not a perfect solution for anyone, but as long as temporary anonymity allows abusers (members or not) total freedom to be as vulgar, hateful, vindictive, racist, combative and provocative as they wish, problems will continue.
(as to catspaw....he HAS had posts censored, and probably should have a few more deleted...but even if they were, that would not satisfy you, would it? You have no interest in 'equal & fair' censorship....just total elimination of ANY interference with your precious (but non-existant) freedom of blather ....ummm, speech.)
I should know better than to argue this....Don Quixote was convinced that those windmills were his enemy, and hundreds of explanations of why it ain't so won't convince Don Shambles to put his silly lance away.