 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST,heric Date: 01 May 06 - 09:10 PM rule.notrule: "If a post is an attempt to hijack a thread, it can be deleted." I am beginning to understand these rules. Can implies cannot must also exist, but it doesn't! It is beautiful when you look at it closely. Like the colours of the wind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 01 May 06 - 09:31 PM Bert's question needs an answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: jacqui.c Date: 01 May 06 - 09:36 PM I know Jeri personally and would take her word on the deletion, or not, of posts to this thread. I take with a large pinch of salt claims from 'Guests' that their posts have been deleted. Sounds to me like someone just trying to stir the pot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 01 May 06 - 09:48 PM Just what is going on? I thought that Joe, Max or Jeff were the only ones who had sufficient access to the database to determine whether a message has been deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 01 May 06 - 09:50 PM (I already took Jeri's word.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Janie Date: 01 May 06 - 09:53 PM Bert, I think it likely that nothing is going on. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Date: 01 May 06 - 11:17 PM Something IS going on and it has been going on for far too long. It is time for someone to step up to the plate and put a stop to this nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric Date: 01 May 06 - 11:22 PM Mine of an hour ago was just deleted. Funny place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Date: 01 May 06 - 11:28 PM Jeeeezuz .... mine was deleted too! Oh well .... "I get all the news I want from the weather report" sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric Date: 01 May 06 - 11:33 PM Oh, sorry. I see now that the weather diversion (sIx's weather diversion) was deleted in its entirety. (And 6 I saw you say HORSE on that other thread tonight.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Date: 01 May 06 - 11:49 PM Yeah it was .... I guess it's because I had a negative view on the weather ... I shouldn't have slammed it. I'll reverse my opinion ... I really like the gales and the rain that blow off of the Fundy here ... it really replenishes the soul.. the power of it, the rain stinging my face ... God, I feel like going out for a walk right now. And your right I did say horse ... oh, oh. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Date: 02 May 06 - 12:00 AM Re: ...Bert's question needs an answer... Actually GUEST, now that Six's message has been deleted - Bert's answer needs a question. Now there's FOUR people who have had messages deleted from this thread. Joe, it's time you stepped in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Date: 02 May 06 - 12:03 AM Or maybe it's just a moderator who needs to moderate their alcohol intake. Now THAT I can forgive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Date: 02 May 06 - 12:14 AM Looks like were in for some Stormy Weather ... "All I do is pray the lord above will let me walk in the sun once more. Can't go on, ev'ry thing I had is gone Stormy weather" sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 02 May 06 - 12:20 AM I've already weighed in on the "Something's rotten in Mudcatville" side of this argument numerous times, however... On the one hand we have Jeri whose moderator perspective, I presume, allows her to tell whether or not posts have been deleted from this thread saying that nothing has been deleted. On the other hand, posters are saying that perfectly innocuous posts have been deleted. Well, I'm practically a computer illiterate compared to a lot of folks around here, but that sounds more like a computer glitch than a rogue moderator to me. Unless that rogue moderator has also found a way to hide his/her tracks from other mods, that is. Let's eliminate the possibility that the root of the problem lies in the Mudcat's problem-children servers and bipolar programming first, then let's start pointing fingers at human beings. Maybe it'd be a good idea for folks to "take snapshots" of their posts, complete with subject line, date and time, and copy them to a word-processing file. That way if a post does get deleted a copy can be sent to the help forum along with a request for an explanation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Azizi Date: 02 May 06 - 12:41 AM This is a music site, right? Well then: They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. Wednesday's even worse; Thursday's awful sad. The eagle flies on Friday, Saturday I go out to play. The eagle flies on Friday, but Saturday I go out to play. Sunday I go to church where I kneel down and pray. And I say, "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy on me. Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy on me. Just trying to find my baby, won't you please send her on back to me." The eagle flies on Friday, on Saturday I go out to play. The eagle flies on Friday, on Saturday I go out to play. Sunday I go to church, where I kneel down, Lord and I pray. Then I say, "Lord have mercy, won't you please have mercy on me. Lord, oh Lord have mercy, yeah, won't you please, please have mercy on me. I'm just a-lookin' for my sweet babe, so won't you please send him home, send him on home to me." -snip- Now if we changed some words [like "post" for "baby"] than this song might be an appropriate commentary on the stormy weather we're having up in here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric Date: 02 May 06 - 12:47 AM The deletions were made ~after~ Jeri said there were no earlier deletions, b-d-e. They were made to delete a "highjack" diversion about the weather. They were all close in time. 6 and I recall ours easily. Not a big deal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Date: 02 May 06 - 01:21 AM OK heric, so now we're not allowed a little thread drift, to me that IS a big deal. That is NOT why people have been given an edit button. Actually, Bee-dubya-ell there is a computer glitch that does happen sometimes. If when you hit the submit button, the server take too long to post the message then it can get lost. This situation is always immediately apparent because the message never appears at all. We have all lost messages that way. There were earlier deletions on this thread because I had two PMs from different members complaining that their messages had been deleted. This is a different situation because the messages originally appeared. The two PMs came from members who I KNOW have been 'deleted' in the past and those deletions were confirmed. I have no reason to believe that they would both independently complain about messages being deleted from THIS thread. Too much of a coincidence. I think it is time to STOP deletions from taking place without an explanation. I can accept that some editors are too chicken to put their names down, but I don't see anything wrong with saying something along the lines "This message was deleted because ....". Perhaps Jeff could fix it so that if a message is deleted then the header remains and then there could be no denying that a message had been tampered with. Whoever is deleting these messages surreptitiously is doing a great disservice to the Mudcat, and is the DIRECT CAUSE of all these censorship threads that are wasting so much of our time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: heric Date: 02 May 06 - 01:28 AM Yes, I'm good with all that. I just don't want to press charges. Selectively deleting in a string does mis-shape the course of a disucssion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 03:08 AM Suggestion for Rules of Engagement I know Jeri personally and would take her word on the deletion, or not, of posts to this thread. I take with a large pinch of salt claims from 'Guests' that their posts have been deleted. Sounds to me like someone just trying to stir the pot. Bert is also a moderator on our forum and has been one longer than the rest he is the one who needs your support as he is trying to OPENLY address the wider issue - not limit his words to a few carefuly worded ones - which do nothing to address the problem at all. There should never be any question of any doubt when any editing action has been judged necessary and imposed. Nor the reasons for it or who was responsible. All this should be clearly stated so all posters can be aware of the level of censorship, before they are expected to support it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Joe Offer Date: 02 May 06 - 03:22 AM I think I'd have to agree, Bert. I undeleted all the messages that had been deleted from this thread. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 02 May 06 - 04:21 AM The deleted posts have not been reinstated in the 'Rules of Engagement' thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 05:17 AM The following 'editing comment' appears in the Rules of Engagement thread Max no longer has the time to review offending posts, so in January, 1998, he chose to delegate authority to Joe and later also to Jeff, who supervise a number of volunteers in this work. Joe and Jeff are responsible for reviewing all volunteer editing actions. Entire threads are deleted or closed on relatively rare occasions, when the entire thread becomes combative and the problem cannot be resolved by the deletion of a few offending posts Joe Offer No complaint that a posters contribution has be subject to any form of editing action cannot be seen to be either bogus or valid - if no record of the imposed judgement is recorded. Surely if a post is judged to warrent such extreme action - there should be no harm in recording in the thread that it in fact took place - the reasons for it and who was responsible. For without this - there is no deterrent value in a censorship action which is only reactive and which currently offers no protection for posters from personally motivated editing actions nor offers any editor protection from any accusation that such actions are pesonally motivated. How can any action be expected to be viewed by our forum as not being personally motivated, when it is imposed anonymously or by two moderators who publicly state that certain posters should be banned and the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who sets the example of posting abusive personal attacks, judging a poster's worth and publicly calls them names? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 05:29 AM Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM Hmmmm. Name-calling? As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name. -------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM >snip< Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 02 May 06 - 05:40 AM 1. No personal attacks. Stay focused on the issues This is what kat posted on the rules of engagement thread. My posts that were deleted between 8.47pm and 12.21am pointed out that she might not be the best person to advocate this as she is unable to adhere to these rules she wants imposed. Her recent shambles bashing spree and calling for him to be banned and her very recent (yesterday) foray into hijacking threads that get too near the truth for her agenda all illustrate her inability to moderate. Mine along with another poster who also spotted the glaring hypocrisy in her starting that thread have been removed. That thread is not representative of what was posted. It has become a version of the truth that suits some people.
joe@mudcat.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Big Mick Date: 02 May 06 - 08:09 AM OK, let me get this straight. You folks want consistency in how the threads are moderated. So a moderator deletes a couple of posts that were clear attempts to hijack the thread from its discussion of moderators that aren't consistent, and you are mad about that as well. Shambles, and others, you have won. You have pretty much taken the Mudcat from the wonderful haven for folk musicians, famed and unknown, and those that love the music, and turned it into a gathering place for a bunch of malcontents who love to hear themselves talk. Look at the icons thread, but only for the purpose of figuring out who has left. Way to go. And those that feed these creatures, you are no better. You are as responsible for what it has come as they are. And on a personal note, I am too. Really makes me sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 02 May 06 - 08:39 AM To the contrary. My deleted posts were very much highlighting the inconsistency of moderators. And the thread that you are mentioning was 'hijacked' by one of your moderators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST,The Ghost of Jimmy Hoffa Date: 02 May 06 - 08:51 AM Is it not the case that Personal attacks against Members are not allowed. Guest 02 May 06 - 05:40 AM remarks are out of order and should be deleted if this is still the way it works around here. If Guest 02 May 06 - 05:40 AM is a Member their name should be outed under their remarks. If however this malicious Moron is not a Member, just what business do they have coming into to this Forum and posting their narrow, twisted and nasty view about any Member here or sharing their shit stirring comments on any topic dealing with Mudcat Policy. If this Guest wants a say then this Guest should join up. Until then Guest is nothing more than a Troll. Guests ain't Members...or are they? Question for Bert, Bert, what is wrong with you lately? Why are you suddenly attacking the Moderators here. Are you a Clone? Why are people PMing you about deleted posts. Is this a Union shop now and are you the Union Spokesman? The Mudcat Teamsters. If the People who sent you PMs about their deleted posts are some of the Guests on this Thread, why would they sign back in just to PM you Bert and not Joe Offer? Why you Bert? Is it because you have taken up the plastic sword and are willing to SHOUT LOUDLY in Threads on behalf of the cowards who hijack them and as a result have had their posts deleted. So now if that happens they PM you! Why? Is it because they know that you will keep at it till you have spoiled yet another Thread. Publicly bashing the Moderators here. These people do THAT rather than sending a private PM with their complaints to the People who actually run the Mudcat. You don't think that is kind of pathetic Bert. Do you not think that maybe your being used and most likely getting laughed at for doing this for these people. Looks that way from here. If you are so public about bashing Moderators here then you open the door for a public opinion about your tactics. Perhaps it would be better if the person that started this Thread ask that it be closed now. The Thread has turned into yet another pile of shit thanks to the usual suspects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Date: 02 May 06 - 08:54 AM Mick .... I'm certainly not a malcontent, far from it, and I do beleive I make myself clear of that in my posts. My posts in this thread were pure nonsense, yes a diversion from the contenet of some of the posts in this thread. Whether they were deleted ot not certainly doesn't bother me, but it was a surprise as to why they were singled out. Some people may not like the subject of my threads and posts, but I certainly don't expect every one to. But overall they are harmless, and are not attacks directed at anyone or anything. As to music. This is a subject dear to me as others in this forum. Again, my taste may not be exactly the same as yours, but then why should it. Overall ... I think you should lighten up a bit ... show some more tolerance. As most of us say around here .. if we don't like a thread, stay away from it ... if you air your opinions, than be prepared for to defend them. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 02 May 06 - 08:55 AM How very level headed. When the owner of the site bans guests we will go. In the meantime we are here. 6 and kat are members? 6 and kat hijacked the thread. Not palatable is it when the problems lie a lot nearer to home than you would wish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Big Mick Date: 02 May 06 - 09:15 AM 6, you have always been a level headed decent poster. My point was that these folks always bitch about the double standard. A clone tries to apply the standard more evenly, and they still complain. It is my opinion that the rules are what they are, or aren't, but I agree they should be applied evenly whether we like the person or not. I don't believe they have been, in fact I have done things which I would delete now. My opinion has been changed. While I do not want, nor will I become, overly legalistic about it, none the less I am will apply these rules as I have stated several times in the threads. When I see a thread started that is nothing more than troll bait, or a personal attack, I will delete it. When I see a legitimate thread, and I see an attempt to hijack it (no matter who the hijacker), I will delete the offending posts. I am going to apply these rules without regard to the poster. I will not debate my judgement with any of you. That is a prescription for the destruction of any sort of civil discourse. No moderator should. The owner of the site is the judge. You may appeal to Joe, Jeff, or Max should you choose. Long ago my friend Jeff told me that mod's should always be anonymous to avoid this stuff. I thought he was wrong because I believed in accountability. I have come to understand the wisdom of his philosophy. He was and is correct. But the genie is out of the bottle. When we are dealing with the plethora of agendas and personalities, these judgements just need to be made and folks have to live with them or leave. This is the last time I will explain this, I am just going to act in my appointed role. When you see me post, those posts are simply my opinions as a member. How I perform my duties as a moderator will be judged by the owner of the forum, not public consensus. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 02 May 06 - 10:05 AM When I see a legitimate thread, and I see an attempt to hijack it (no matter who the hijacker), I will delete the offending posts. I am going to apply these rules without regard to the poster. It's mighty hard to see what you define as a 'hijack' post. number 6 and kat's little concourse about the weather half way through this thread obviously aren't your definition of a 'hijack' then. Because they are not deleted. Glad we got that sorted. Actually those posts were deleted for precisely that reason. The judgement was made by the powers that be that they should be put back in. Not much I can do about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 10:24 AM I will not debate my judgement with any of you. That is a prescription for the destruction of any sort of civil discourse. No moderator should. The owner of the site is the judge. You may appeal to Joe, Jeff, or Max should you choose. I don't believe I am reading this dangerous piffle! Mick - If you feel yourself qualified to look down in judgement on the worth of Max's other invited guests as you have for many years and refer to them now as 'you' - make no mistake - YOU WILL BE JUDGED. If you do not impose your judgement - there is never any need to debate it. If you do choose to impose it and feel qualified to impose that right - with that right come certain responsibilities. The first and most basic of these is to record for our forum's benifit when these judgements have been imposed. So at least there is no argument about whether the judgement was imposed or not. If you can't accept this reality and can't stand the heat and feel you have some right to throw pots and pans at the customers - you should not be in the kitchen - you should get out now or be thrown out. Our forum has been needlessly divided for far too long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 10:30 AM Quite intentional attempts to 'hi-jack the following were ignored by our moderators (except for those who joined in with these attempts). Do we need to curb the troublemakers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 10:33 AM Proposal for members only posting of BS Music posts by Guests to be reviewed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 11:01 AM Those are from 2000. A lot has happened since then. I wonder what Max would say now? The following is from a little later. There is talk of 'members only' but as it has not been actioned in the last 4 years - unless Max tells us otherwise - we could perhaps assume that he is still as 'uncomfortable' with that now (and in 'censorship and rules') in 2006 as he was in 2002.... So perhaps those few who wish this change and to impose futher judgements and restrictions on our forum can find somewhere else where they can do all this and be finally happy and leave the rest of us in peace? [PM] Max BS: What annoys me about mudcat (118* d) RE: BS: What annoys me about mudcat 12 Jan 02 We've been toiling with the issue of topic here for a while. We are a folk/blues/traditional/historical/folklore Web site, but to try to control it manually is an endless if not impossible task. I keep hearing the members-only recommendation, but am not comfortable with that. The fact that long-time core members, who seem to have the most to offer us, are visiting less often bothers me even more. Can't help to take things for granted, but as far as specific-topic Forums, I'd say we're among the best. And even more importantly, we maintain a significant desire to continue to improve. The new version of Mudcat is in operation to a select few volunteers for testing and development. It's pretty damn cool if you ask me. Anyhow, it includes some advanced filtering technology that should make the 1%ers more satisfied with the content without the other 99 even noticing. I'd be surprised if it takes more than 2 months to finish at this point, though one of our important helpers is going on a honeymoon for a stint. Without getting on a rant here, just trust that we are very aware of these issues, and we choose to deal with them in technological ways rather than with rules or censorship. You all have your own reasons for being here, and we all have our reasons for creating this Web site and this database. Mine is to collect data that may not otherwise be collected and to facilitate a community of people who have similar interests. (Emphasis on the Period at the end of that sentence) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: The Shambles Date: 02 May 06 - 11:21 AM So we are told that the posts in this thread that were judged as needing to be deleted (to protected us from something or other, by persons unknown) have now been judged differently and undeleted by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Despite at one point being authoritive told by another moderator and accepted by some posters that no imposed editing action had taken place. Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Jeri - PM Date: 01 May 06 - 07:40 PM There haven't been any messages deleted from this thread. How does our forum know what these messages were? Could this (now and always) be indicated in this posts by a small editing comment to this effect? Despite this display of complete incompetence and final demonstation (if any were needed) that this is NO SYSTEM - as no one in has the slightest clue what any other is doing or why - does our forum receive an apolgy or any assurance that this sort of shambles will no be repeated? No - just yet more public complaints from some moderators who are upset because they feel they are subjected to the sort judgement they are only too willing to dish out to their fellow posters. But we do get criticisim of the only moderator who comes out of with any credit. Bert is at least trying to openly address this current mess and heal the wounds. It would be positive if these attempts were supported. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: number 6 Date: 02 May 06 - 11:39 AM Ghost of Jimmy Hoffa ... you can go back to thug heaven, Nirvana or wherever your from .... don't try muscling into the Mudcat Central ... we don't need no Teamsters union here ... we'll straighten our differences out amongst ourselves. And don't slam the door when ya leave. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Alba Date: 02 May 06 - 01:40 PM Ah well looks like MY Thread has gone . Roger, sorry. F*** the Book ,write it yourself. You can have the illustrations I have already done but as for helping with the promotion..... You're on your own Buddy. I'm done, Im out of this one. Oh and by the way the posts about the Weather that got deleted, they were A RELIEF! Why would someone delete those posts and leave the REAL hijackers comments! There lies a mystery we shall never know the answer to. So Mudelfs, my Darlings. I started the Thread for laughs, which we had for a while, till the shite sneeked in or should that read 'plopped in'..... so now I am asking. Please can someone close MY Thread now...Thank you Bunches Jude
[per request of originator of thread]] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: GUEST Date: 02 May 06 - 02:17 PM They are not deleted. |