 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM Amos I need names. Who are the true ass holes and who merely have one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:35 PM I predict that this thread will be shut down before to long (though watch'em keep it open just to prove me wrong)simply because of the content. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Amos Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:41 PM Besides--there are no gods here, guys. There are hooman beinks. If a rule is promulgated as a guideline for decent behavior, do you seruiously think that means some divine power will snake through the threads vaporizing violations to the rule? Do you think there is an army of small white Caspar-shaped beings staring at monitors all day, catching every violation, reading every post? I assure you there is no such deus in the machina. There are a small handful of moderators who do the best they can to clean up spam and dampen down fires that spring up. They are volunteers, mostly motivated out of a respect for what the Mudcat can be when it is at its best. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:41 PM A technical issue: Some of our members post from computers at work or libraries. It's often not possible to log in from those computers because they're set up not to accept cookies. That means that even members must post as GUESTs from those machines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM In my not so humble opinion, this forum has quite a few MEMBERS who are really mean, ugly, love to fight dirty, stir the pot, etc. Yet, they remain. No, that isn't the standard operating here. Carol is right when she says justice is not fairly administered here. It is meted out selectively, based upon whether the moderators personally like & get along with you. Also, if in a heated discussion, you make the moderators look bad or somehow embarrass them or damage their fragile egos--watch out! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: MMario Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:48 PM I have to laugh at people who complain about moderation on this site. There is so *little* done here in comparision with many, many, many sites on the web that any complaints are laughable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:51 PM Mario you got that right. I have been banned from 28 sites. Editorial cartoons about Bush were tantamount to sedition, in their day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM It's not accidental that the rules are enforced selectively. It's just the accepted practice here. As has been pointed out, some of the moderators are some of the worst offenders, like the moderator who changed the spelling of words within one member's post in order to ridicule that person. I can't think of a more outrageous abuse of a moderator's powers than that, but that moderator doesn't seem to have suffered any consequences whatever, and it wasn't until the poster and several other people complained about it repeatedly over a period of several days that the the worst of the changes was changed back. And an anonymous moderator (presumably the same one) applied an arbitrary rule to a member that had nothing whatever to do with personal attacks, even without the knowledge of the chief moderator. Some of the people who are known to be moderators regularly make personal attacks on people with impunity. In practice the Mudcat has a tiered structure, in which some members have different rules applied to them than others. Some are allowed to make personal attacks, which they do quite regularly with no consequences, and some are punished even if they don't make personal attacks. When this is no longer the case, I will consider sending money to the Mudcat. I thought things were getting better for a while a few months ago, and I was already thinking it might be time to start sending money again, but then they got even worse than they were before, and now there's no way I would consider sending any money. I don't pay people to treat me as a third class citizen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM Over half of what's allowed on Mudcat would get you booted so far, you'd never find your way back, on many forums. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: the lemonade lady Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM Well Mr... GUEST,OTOH You are unpleasant, rude, use offensive language and obviously enjoy winding people up. This proves my point about anyone being able to get at you with a PM. This is the main reason why people like you should be asked to join so that you don't insult someone from the protection of your screen. Would you talk to me like that face to face? Do you treat everyone around you like that? And why is 'Peace' being so bad mouthed...? 'That's been the bullshit excuse forever...' and 'Why not just ban the fuckers who do get nasty?' I asked an innocent question and when I came back a couple of hours later I see that a lot of people have got very wound up, why? What's the matter with you guys? Sal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Wesley S Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:54 PM I don't want to make this sound like I'm saying "Mudcat - Love it or leave it" - but why on earth would anyone want to post to a site where they are treated unfairly on a regular basis? If it were me I'd just move on. Life is too short. People are just as happy as they want to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:54 PM Those who think the moderation is small compared to other sites clearly haven't experienced having rules selectively applied to them. If they did, they would see things differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:55 PM These threads always fascinate me folk are like an auld dug we had whit wid sit buy the fire till is furr wis smoulderin growling aboot the heat. As me mither used tae say "If ye dinny like ma company ye ken whaur the door is" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Celtaddict Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:55 PM I first heard of the Mudcat from a friend who obtained some lyrics for me. I first visited, as a GUEST, when I was seeking a particular song, with far too few clues (no title, no first line, no chorus, just a line or two in the middle and the name of the singer) and received the song lyrics with name of album and publisher, in about six minutes. I was hooked. I have been a member for years now, and I do support the site, bit by bit along with many others. I have learned much, have helped musician friends find words to many songs, have spent many glad hours. Had I been banned from experiencing that first taste, I would not have become a member. Rudeness and flaming happen; did you ever read the sickening postings that turn up under news articles online? If someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk; we more civilized individuals can preserve the dignity of debate and let the Max and the people he has entrusted to manage his domain, including the generally affable, interested, and hardworking Joe, manage as they will. Yes, there are members who are at times abrasive. It seems remarkably difficult for some other members to simply ignore an abrasive remark. This is unfortunate as it has caused the demise of many an interesting discussion. Surely most of us have at least some experience in ignoring or working around individuals we do not get on with? I am all for (1) being guest-friendly (2) encouraging guests who are interested in the music to become members (3) ignoring those who deserve to be ignored and (4) acting decently to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:57 PM I still post here for two reasons. I have good friends here, and I hate running from bullies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: The Sandman Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:00 PM is there any proof that if the forum was members only people would behave more reasonably? I believe people would behave more reasonably,but I cant prove it,then we have the problem that banned people,can come back as a member under a different name. personally , I dont think Shambles or Lizzie should have been banned,but its not my forum. I think the best thing about mudcat,are the threads where someone asaks for help,with an instrument, and gets it. I look occasionally at www .session org,and someone might ask, can anybody recommend a good fiddle tutor book,and some ass hole comes in,and says you shouldnt ever learn irish music from a tutor or from the dots. all that happens is another potential member gets frightened away,there question unanswered,and they feel totally intimidated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM 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- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Celtaddict Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:18 PM Thank you, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM Some respond with restraint to repeated and regular personal attacks for years, but eventually they get tired of them and they decide it's time to respond. Since the rule is "no personal attacks", why should those who are abiding by the rules be the only ones who suffer consequences (in the form of repeated and regular personal attacks against them)? That's not keeping the peace by any definition. It's condoning abuse out of a lack of will to enforce the actual rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:26 PM Carol, I can't give an answer that would satisfy you. All I can say is that I try to treat you equitably. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Azizi Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:31 PM Big Mick you wrote that "Personal attacks are simply not allowed... But members need to understand that there is a difference between a personal attack, and an attack on one's position." Imo, one problem with that statement is that individuals may have different takes on what is "a personal attack" and what is "an attack on one's position". I could name a recent thread in which I was the object of a personal attack. The thread starter-a guest btw-even posted the comment that "I hate to be minatory, but I'd be grateful if we could stop the personal attacks and stick to the point, if people wouldn't mind." But, in my opinion, those comments that I consider personal attacks continued. To my knowledge, only one post to that thread appears to be deleted {as a subsequent comment alludes to it}, and the thread was not closed. And, before someone asks, no I didn't complain to any moderator. Some moderators posted to that thread, and one of them-you Big Mick- along with other members spoke out in support of me and you, Big Mick out attempted to re-direct one of the posters {all of whom are members of this forum} who had targeted me. My way of dealing with that situation was to leave that thread. Though I wouldn't wish that experience on anybody, I do believe that there could be some educational value in threads like that-for instance, in off-line classes or online & off-line discussions about group dynamics. Part of me is glad that those posts weren't deleted or that thread wasn't closed. In my opinion, it shows a non-sanitized aspect of Mudcat which is as real as the informative, supportive, positive threads that I think are much more numerous than the other kind. However, based on that experience, and based on other threads that I have read where it appeared to me that other people were unfairly targeted by members, my sense is that in some instances some members can be just as problematic as some guests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:32 PM When I go to my search engine, and Mudcat Cafe, comes up, there is a warning above the area which is where you register, saying that there is a risk, of a potentially harmful virus, (with an exclamation mark), that comes up on my screen. whether is a virus, or unneeded spyware, or a keylogger, I don't know...but being as I have original material, both copyrighted, and not, on my computer..well, that's deterrent for me. Nor do I want my mail filled with spam. Perhaps the operators at Mudcat would care to look into that...and if you receive financial compensation for selling web addresses, to advertisers, perhaps you should inform us, before we make the choice, that could open us up, to be hacked. By the way, really enjoy the site, and have made friends on here, even the ones I disagree with......(you know who you are...smirk!)
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: irishenglish Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:33 PM One thing I have always wondered about. Other than Joe, and Big Mick, I suspect who some of the moderators are, but I'm not sure. If moderators do a lot of posting themselves, I think seeing that association next to their name would help keep threads from degenerating into nastiness, or way off topic. Why the mystery? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Celtaddict Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:52 PM And in answer to Joe's question, what people would think about banning guests from initiating BS threads, I think that is reasonable. I don't go 'below the line' all that often, just when killing time; it seems to be a place for folks to hang out and chat about whatever they wish, which is all right, but is not necessarily appropriate for strangers to wander in. (We don't like strangers in our 'break room' at work either.) That might indeed help, but not cut visitors out from the primary networking and information sharing of the music related portions and the DT. Come to think of it, why would a non-member choose to start a non-music thread on a music site, other than to stir something up? It seems to me more reasonable to go to a site on whatever non-music topic they wish to bring up. I would hate to see guests banned altogether, both because of my first experience which I suspect is fairly typical, and because of work restrictions on cookies and the valuable visits of well-known musicians who drop in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Im My Humble Opinion Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM *If Mudcat had required registration, I probably would never have posted here.* Who was it who said "I wouldn't become a member of a club who would have me as a member"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:00 PM To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest' In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:02 PM Hi, Irishenglish. We get the question about the identity of moderators quite often. The names and access level and functions of the moderators vary, and we see no need to spell all that out. Some work only on songs - they have editing ability, but they don't usually deal with "problems." The names of most of the active moderators are generally known, but not officially published. We like to try to work with a unified identity. The general feeling is that if editors are officially identified, it's easier for some people to manipulate one moderator against another. Also, identifying moderators gives the impression of a heavier level of moderation than we want to have. Our moderators are present to help people, not to monitor the conduct of participants. In general, we have a laizzez-faire philosophy of moderation. And the general idea is that if you have a problem, you should go to the public contact person - namely, me. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM Joe, thank you for your response. I will look into it...Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: irishenglish Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:19 PM Joe, thanks for the answer. Its not really an issue for me, I have taken care of any misunderstandings or cooled down through PM's, and yes, I have had a few dustups on here occasionally. But I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on your answer. Whatever "clearance" someone has is not as important in my opinion as seeing every 10 or 20 posts or what have you, the word moderator next to someones name. It might give people an impression that they might want to watch their step. This won't keep me off here, but I genuinely think the time might be right for an opinion poll, etc based on some of the things you wrote earlier today. In any case, on to another thread! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Bert Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:28 PM We could give moderators an ID that is not their Mudcat handle. Then Joe could ensure a more consistent policy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: The Sandman Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:41 PM Joe,I agree with Irish English,I think if someone sees that a moderator is posting on a thread they behave themselves better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: artbrooks Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM Personally, I have no interest in seeing "Moderator" next to somebody's name. If Big Mick (and I name him only because he regularly "outs" himself) or one of the other JCs wants to post, there is no reason why there should be some kind of mental dialog of "is he speaking for himself or just commenting so we all know a JC is watching?" among the others involved in a discussion. In fact, I kinda wish I didn't know the JCs I do know. BTW, there was a brief mention of a vote...I agree that it's time to decide the issue of guests being allowed to initiate BS threads. This is clearly not the place, and this isn't a democracy anyway, but perhaps Joe could begin a heavily moderated thread, with that the only issue, with only members being allowed to vote, and present the results to Max for his decision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM *Joe could begin a heavily moderated thread* some of the permanent threads are more actively moderated and edited, I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Severn Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM Consider: Not only do you have to consider a Guest from Sanity, you must consider guests from Santee and Sant-a for that matter. We're all reduced to playing Guests in the annual gift exchange. Or someone using a amusing Guest name in a humor post for making a point. Or lost or blown cookies or honest mistakes Or guesting in on a strange computer How would these harmless or inadvertant Guests get screened? Or the mere music browser, sticking a toe in the water? A total blanket ban would kill or at least delay a lot of good just to discourage a few cretinous scumbags. It would sound like what we condem the CIA or FBI for doing to our privacy, the FCC to our media etc. Some of the undesireables (to SOMEBODY's tastes) will always find someway in. It's up to the individual to know when to fight back, how to fight back and when not to do a knee jerk reaction to someone pushing your buttons to watch you jump just because they can. Sometimes you make a stand. Sometimes you just walk away. Sometimes you got to take it straight to Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM Yeah just paint a target on their back and stick a placard round their neck saying "Kick me" I think I will start a new thread "BS: Why not just BAN JOE" after all lad if you wurny here tae pick oan ahm sure abody wid play nice. Meg ducks whatever it was Joe threw and heads for the door as fast as auld legs and a wlking stick will allow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:59 PM Ah, Meg, when you talk that Scots stuff, I just melt. Even though I can't understand it, I think it's sexy as hell. What did you say???? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Wesley S Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:01 PM Joe - I think that means -"Snatch my walking stick so that I'm helpless to escape your advances...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM even if he got the walking stick he wid hae tae avoid Dauvitt in the wheelchair :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM Let me get in the last word which I do not know the meaning. Solopsisim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,A Word From Our Sponsors Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM Insouciance |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:06 PM "Solipsism," he said to himself.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:08 PM "Soliloquy," he added.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:10 PM Aw jings these days Solipism is definately no me:( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:16 PM For dyslexics only: Why not just NAB Guests? I suppose we could get their IP info, visit their house and video the ensuing rendition, stress position , sound thrashing, and water boarding. Then we could watch it on You Tube. But whats the point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Im My Humble Opinion - PM Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM *If Mudcat had required registration, I probably would never have posted here.* Who was it who said "I wouldn't become a member of a club who would have me as a member"? One of the Marx Brothers, probably Groucho. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Helen Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM This is one reason why we shouldn't ban Guests. Like all humans, they are all types of people. This one is very special: BS: Any Mudcatters in France:Albert/Pozières And I look at it as paying forward. There have been times when I have found info for Guests and they, too, like me, have been overwhelmed by the helpfulness and resources of Mudcat. But the link above shows that an Oz Mudcatter can be helped by a UK Guest on a trip to France to research war graves. Helen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Amos Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM It was Groucho, yes; but the humor hits deepest in those who wrestle with self-loathing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: akenaton Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:53 PM In case anyone is in any doubt, the thread Azizi referred to was "Loyal Slaves" in which I called her up over her attempt to edit a post by another member to suit her agenda. Azizi immediately started to infer that I had called her a racist. I was then subjected to a personal attack from Mick, one of the Mudcat moderators, who suggested that I "have been a thinly disguised bigot, and the place would be better off without you." I was also attacked and portrayed as a racist by several others whom I wont bother naming Now, don't get me wrong, what these people think is of no consequence to me and I wouldn't think of complaining, but when newbies read this thread I want them to understand that a lot of the nasty language comes not from guests, but from the "old guard". I would also like to say that in my years here, to the best of my knowledge, I have never had a post purposely deleted for any reason and for the most part Joe is fair and more importantly, understands what the members are saying. I would hate to see the guests banned,as some of the most original and entertaining posts come from them...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: the lemonade lady Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM is this the fastest thread to reach 100? I'm amazed at the response. Joe, I think a vote is on the cards here. sal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM 100 |