Where I worked until I retired mid 2019 there were a bunch of self-regulated behaviour codes which would be updated every few years.

When I first started there, the code of accepted behaviour incorporated responsibility, integrity, teamwork and achievement. Changes to the accepted code over the years included trust, service and accountability or other variables in the same vein. It was up to the individual to follow the code unless a serious breach of protocol occurred, in which case the manager could call it into play.

I'm starting to wonder whether a similar code might be useful here. Self regulating would be the norm, I assume.

Maybe we could all take note of our contributions to the Mudcat discussion forum and evaluate them against a similar set of concepts.

First on my list would be, "have I contributed positively to the discussions?" (i.e. achievement) and I would evaluate that not only on personal "tone" of interactions but also on the percentage of my posts which add sufficient value in the form of folk and blues related information to justify my being here on this forum.

If I was not contributing folk and blues related information or value for a significant amount of my time on this forum, then I would seriously consider finding another forum more suited to my preferences, which may perhaps be debating or arguing a case, for or against, etc etc.

Another criterion could be accountability or responsibility, i.e. being adult and mature about my own actions, owning up to mistakes or errors of judgement, learning from those actions or errors and hopefully working towards a better outcome in the next situation. That would include listening to and evaluating genuinely honest feedback from other Mudcatters and taking it on board.

Teamwork or community interactions: "how well do I contribute to the positive outcomes of this online community which has been in existence for over 20 years?"

Integrity: now this one is the biggie for me. If you act with integrity, then the other criteria are also easier to achieve, in my opinion. In Oz-speak integrity = being fair dinkum, i.e. genuine, honest, no game-playing, straight-up, no underhandedness, no manipulative behaviour, fair dealing. The list goes on and on. Being known as a fair dinkum person in Oz is high praise indeed.

Being a fair dinkum Mudcatter is my aim while I am here. I strive to contribute positively to Mudcat and the people who belong here, and one of my main aims is to keep the Mudcat community going in a positive, healthy, socially interactive manner by discussing folk and blues music with like-minded people.

I'll repeat that for emphasis:

I come here to discuss folk and blues music with like-minded people.

That's what this forum exists to provide, an opportunity to discuss our mutual love of folk and blues music, and to share information about it for the benefit of all Mudcat members.

I refuse to engage with any post or person who refuse to act honourably, sincerely, genuinely in the promotion of Mudcat's purpose.

And as an example, if I say I will not post any more to a thread, then I will follow through on my stated intention. I won't keep jumping back in to throw another few hand grenades into the discussion.

If I finally get jack of all this negative behaviour thrown in (or thrown up?) just for the sake of winding other people up, or shoring up fragile egos, then I'll regretfully leave Mudcat, which I have been a member of for 23 years.