Lighthouse 65 and all others: I'm afraid that, by request of Joe himself, it's not the end after all. Joe has taken his post of 16-Jul-01 (2:50 pm) listed above, and posted it on the Mudcat FAQ/Newcomer's Guide (including his anecdote about his traffic accident!). He has requested that any responses not be posted there, as he edits that thread regularly, but on this thread instead. In fact, mousethief posted a comment about it on the FAQ and that comment has already been deleted.

I have already stated, in this thread and in the "prayer request" thread, my opinions on the subject matter of Joe's post. However, I have a response to its appearance in the FAQ: I don't think it belongs there.

He prefaced the FAQ post with the statement that it was his own opinion, not Mudcat policy. However, its very presence there, its outline as a list of suggested behaviors, and the thread's position at the top of the Forum all give Joe's post an air of authority. The absence of any conflicting opinion following his own on that thread — and the quick disappearance of any other opinions that might be posted there — creates even more of the illusion of authority, especially to newbies who might interpret it as a line not to be crossed, considering its source.

Does this cross over into abuse of his position at Mudcat? My feeling is that it does. I thought that a Frequently Asked Questions page was a place to obtain information about a site's operation and policies, not a place for one person alone to express his opinions concerning those policies.

Also, Joe's opinions in the 16-Jul-01 post don't appear to be consistent with some of his earlier statements on the Mudcat FAQ:


"I think the general principle here at Mudcat is "civil anarchy." Max, Dick, and Susan have shown no desire to set rules for operation of the Mudcat. They are very gracious hosts, and it would be nice if we'd all follow their example. That should be the only rule we need."

Under LYRIC REQUESTS: "It's a wonderful thing that our Forum is a spontaneous free-for-all, no-holds-barred bull session."

Under WHAT'S NOT ALLOWED: "I refer most questions of etiquette to a truly wise person, Miss Manners, whose basic premise is the Golden Rule, that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us, etc., etc. I fully agree with Miss Manners on this.
"We believe that Mudcatters are blessed with common sense and admirable judgment, and should have little need of rules. The Powers That Be at Mudcat are tolerant of just about everything but intolerance..."

Under MUDCATIQUETTE: "I'm staying away from giving guidelines on etiquette.....Some people have suggested that there should be more rules around here, so that people know how to behave properly; and that this or that should be better-organized or have instructions that are clearer. Mudcat is governed by a principle of civil anarchy, and that principle gives Mudcat much of its spontaneity, intelligence, and friendly spirit."

Under WHAT ABOUT CENSORSHIP?: "We try very hard to preserve freedom of expression here at Mudcat....The Mudcat Cafe is a music discussion forum. Other activities are permitted and encouraged..."


Yet in his 16-Jul-01 post to the FAQ, Joe DIScourages specific activities. He had already stated in a 17-Jul-00 post to the FAQ: "I still think it's better not to use the Forum for stuff that's not of general interest" but has not, until now, defined that "stuff" and ignored his previously stated no-etiquette-guidelines-in-the-FAQ policy Again, I think the posting of Joe's personal opinion of what does and does not belong in the Forum should be stated in the Forum itself where the rest of us are free to discuss it, and should not be posted in the FAQ/Newcomer's Guide.

SharonA