I don't sign up for things on the internet unless I completely trust the site and intend to be a continuing participant. If Mudcat had required registration, I probably would never have posted here.

There are many people who use Mudcat who are not regular participants. They stop in to request lyrics for a song their parents taught them 50 years ago, or they have some other musical question. Sometimes, we get well-known musicians who stop in to tell a story or clarify a point on an issue. I think that many of those people wouldn't post if they had to register first. Then we have people who just can't get cookies to work - if we prohibited Guest posting, there are times when Art Thieme, Sandy Paton, Frank Hamilton, Barry Finn, and Jean Ritchie wouldn't have been able to post.

That being said, the suggestion that the BS section be members-only is one topic that has been seriously discussed and presented to Max. Another is to have moderators review Guest posts before they are made visible on the Forum. No action has been taken on these proposals.

I've noticed that one continuing problem we have, is the origination of threads by what I call "drive-by posters" - some of whom seem to be thinly-veiled bigots. This 'free speech' thread and the one about Poles in England are good examples. So, I've thought of just prohibiting BS threads that are started by Guests who are not well-known to the community. We haven't discussed this among the volunteers yet, so it's just an idea. What do people think of it?

But there's another side to the issue. I know that Brits are all up in arms about the BNP (neo-Nazis), and many would like to see all BNP posts deleted. Well, as an American, I have to say that I've learned quite a bit from the BNP posts. I had the impression that we Americans were the only ones who had a problem with racism. The BNP posts and responses, however distasteful, have given me an insight into the issue.

And as for the charge of "selective enforcement," let me explain our editing policy. We do not allow personal attacks and racism. However, we do not monitor all posts and we do not intend to begin monitoring all posts. We have a responsive style of moderation, rather than moderation by "pre-emptive strike." When a problem arises, we deal with it. If the target of a personal attack complains to me about a specific message, I deal with it. If a thread gets chaotic, I close it or (in extreme circumstances) delete it. When there are several people waxing nasty in a thread, I don't bother to read the whole damn thing and decide who's right and who's wrong - I just close or delete the thread and let the discussion start again - hopefully with a more civil tone.

So, in general, our policy is that we don't edit to punish anybody - we edit to keep the peace. There are many posts that could be considered personal attacks - but if the target of the attack responds with restraint, the attack usually dies. Why should I bother deleting something that has already been handled? If the target of the attack responds by escalating the conflict - well, the escalator may find the moderator response to be unsatisfactory. What can I say?

Long ago, Max said he expected this community to be primarily self-moderating. He said that moderators should not be expected to be babysitters. Another early idea was that our moderation should be unobtrustive and nearly invisible. We've tried to stick with this idea. It hasn't worked perfectly, but it has worked pretty well.

I'm tempted to close this thread right now because we don't usually allow threads discussing Mudcat policy (because they almost always turn nasty), but I'll let it go on for a while.

-Joe Offer-