BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?

Subject: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 05:35 AM

I dont like the word censorship and the other thread by using the word is attacking each and other.

I dont go on politics section much but i do read lots of it all. and the one thing that struck me was there are common reoccuring individuals. why not just give them written warnings then final banning. but only if they become offensive by extreme hostile language. posts like 'go f*** yourself' should be challanged by moderators. censorship no. moderating troublemakers yes?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 05:50 AM

shoot them.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 05:53 AM

Most of them are very well balanced in real life...they have a chip on both shoulders! Be nice to them, be caring, concerned, considerate...or bring yourself down to their level........
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:32 AM

Does everyone else need to be censored?

Don't worry - I hear that most of the biggest moaners and trouble makers will soon be leaving our forum on Max's site - to form their own private members club.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Azizi
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM

clairerise,

on April 14th on the "Do you need to be censored" thread you suggested that if "you all called censorship something else than
everyone would like the idea more".

As of this date and time, on that thread at least, no one has publicly responded to that comment of yours.

In that same comment you wrote that "the words you spin are the words that entangle you".

clairerise, if you had a burning need or a raging desire to make the point you are making in your first post of this thread-I'm curious why you didn't make it on that "censorship" thread.

In my opinion, starting a new thread on this contentious subject is like adding hot air to a fire. Switching imagery, this thread-imo- has a high potential to add trouble to already troubled waters, which is a very inharmonious thing to do.

That makes you-clairerise, in my opinion, at least in this instance if not others, a trouble maker.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..." I suppose that you know the rest of that well known quote.

Azizi,
"My name is Bess and I am in this mess".
-an African American saying I adapted for this occasion

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM

well ill join any folk forum so would welcome details

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:56 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Azizi - PM
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM

clairerise,

clairerise, if you had a burning need or a raging desire to make the point you are making in your first post of this thread-I'm curious why you didn't make it on that "censorship" thread.

In my opinion, starting a new thread on this contentious subject is like adding hot air to a fire. Switching imagery, this thread-imo- has a high potential to add trouble to already troubled waters, which is a very inharmonious thing to do.

That makes you-clairerise, in my opinion, at least in this instance if not others, a trouble maker.


No you missed my point. it wasnt meant to cause trouble. i dont believe in censorship so thought a new thread about curbing just the troublemakers and those using foul language which makes me only come on here when my sons asleep should be curbed.

im not saying a purge or anything. just when someone uses hostile talk they should be warned. not banned but only that as a serious last measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:03 AM

What will happen is what always happens, a complaint will be made about 'A' for his/her rude and intemperate language, and someone else will say, "Yes I know they are rude and foul mouthed, or a general pain in the arse, but they're very knowledgable about Peruvian Nose Flutes" and based on that alone, all their other faults are forgiven.
It's a bit like saying Hitler was such a good house painter he couldn't possibly be that bad a person!
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:07 AM

No you missed my point. it wasnt meant to cause trouble. i dont believe in censorship so thought a new thread about curbing just the troublemakers and those using foul language which makes me only come on here when my sons asleep should be curbed.

What's in a word?

But censorship does not curb anything. It is reactive and it can only remove something that has probably has already had an effect.

The difficulty for our forum is if those posters who you describe above who use 'foul lamguage' were curbed - it would mean 'curbing' many of those posters trusted with edit buttons who set the example of posting such things and that such things are acceptable on our forum........ And that can never be.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:07 AM

well maybe their fault should not be forgiven. im not talking about banning im talking about warnings and then if they persist over a period of 3-6 months and clock up so many warnings they should be temporaily banned for a period.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:08 AM

to make you happy ill be banned first. wink wink

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:28 AM

Do you mean 'curbing' as in the following attempt?

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1613798

NOTE*
I have only just noticed by accident - that when you run the cursor over to HIGHLIGHT the censor's words here - you can still see the original comment. Or you can certainly do this if you bring-up the thread in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Alba
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:56 AM

I see your a new member clairerise.
Welcome.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:44 AM

So what the fuck's wrong with colorful language?

Seems some adults' sensibilities here are a bit too Victorian.

I'm not advocating tolerating a lot of swearing AT people. But Jaysus, don't start censoring language that is as salty and expressive of "the folk" as one can get!

The needless censoring and "outing" of people that gets done around here is all about popularity in the forum. Censoring/outing of people by Joe Offer and The Mudcat Royals is nothing but a blatant abuse of power.

Any sensible person knows a decent, reasonable forum administrator wouldn't put up with a Martin Gibson. Joe admits to spending "hundreds of hours" cleaning up after him. Which of course means Joe has a martyr complex, so needs to keep Martin around. Without Martin around, Joe would have to go after and crush other forum users to show how great and powerful he is, and y'all would start to see just how far off base he is.

Joe and the clones have always been far too subjective and selective about policing the forum. If they like you, you can get away with any bullshit. If they don't, they harrass you, threaten you, bully you, etc.

It's always been amateur hour at Mudcat. Reliability problems, refusal of tech assistance from knowledgeable people, eejits policing the forum and bullying the users. The BS section was the best idea ever implemented, the member-guest log-in the worst.

But that's Mudcat. Always sold "as is".

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:30 AM

Is this the post of a 'troublemaker'?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM

BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't bite here so here we go.......

Okay Sham......I know I'm going to regret this.........You seem to have added a new phrase to your volumes of "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit." What the fuck are these "founding principles?" I get this vision of Max in colonial garb and sitting with Franklin and Jefferson................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:35 AM

Nope, it is the post of one with uncommon clarity of thought who is able to see through your lies and troll bait. Your post is simply part of your ongoing attempt to make falsehoods true by stating them enough times. Won't work.

It is pretty much accepted, even by those who once fooled by you, that you are the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST,Terry K
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:53 AM

With all due respect (*) Big Mick, if we're telling it like it is here, you are if nothing else very constant in the way that you bestow flowery praise when sucking up to your so-called "friends", and similarly vituperative when dismissing those who don't number within your rather small circle.

I'm no doubt of no consequence here, but I would have thought that the first essential of a moderator would be to try to be moderate.

cheers, Terry

(*) i.e. not much

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:04 AM

Your post is simply part of your ongoing attempt to make falsehoods true by stating them enough times. Won't work.

I dunno- seems to work fine for the BuShites with a significant percentage of the U.S. population.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:16 AM

Thanks for the chuckle there, TerryK. Not only are the Mudcat moderators immoderate, they function like a high school clique. Which speaks volumes of Max's maturity level, because he is the guy who hand picked this lot to "manage" the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:16 AM

Same old, same old. It seems to me this falls in the catagory of a duplicate thread. Of course that won't stop it from going over 100 posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:18 AM

Like I said, Mudcat has always been sold "as is" and ye gets what ye pays for, Wesley S.

Don't forget it's a holiday weekend, which could mean 200 posts or it could mean 34.

That is, if the thread don't get zapped by the "moderators".

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:20 AM

Which speaks volumes of Max's maturity level, because he is the guy who hand picked this lot to "manage" the forum.

We all make mistakes and errors in judgement.

One does hope that when it becomes clear that a mistake has been made - that we have the courage to admit this and to take the required steps to correct it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:27 AM

Max, Joe & the clones are about as good as Dubya about admitting and fixing mistakes.

And just as with Dubya, we all suffer for their blind arrogance and thin skins.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:30 AM

Oh dear me another parsimomious self righteous remark, disguised as concern for all, but in reality self interested and selfish sabotage of this site and certain of it's moderators.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:41 AM

We'd listen to your opinion Giok, but we already know you are with the Sycophant Swarm on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: kendall
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:45 AM

YES. Starting right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM

It'd be like herding cats Kendall!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM

...and what does "African-American" have to do with anything?

It just occurred to me that I have personally known 11 'African-Americans' and 7 of them were caucasian. (if that is where we were headed)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM

I have no desire to get really involved in another clone thread, but I couldn't resist... just this once...

They curb dogs, don't they?

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:58 AM

The moderators seem to be doing a good job of sabotaging themselves. But opinions, as they say ...

You notice that a lot of members intimate that unnamed GUESTs are the ones who are problematic, but it seems that some of the members cause just as many problems... from verbal abuse of other members and GUESTs, to logging out and posting cookieless - in some instances to have schizophrenic conversations with themselves about controversial subjects. Now that's weird. But since it's "one of their own" who has done that on occasion, it's easily excusable.

Visitors are most always encouraged to join: "you can PM, you can do this and that.."

Well, if I want to be verbally abused or have a schizophrenic conversation with myself, I've already got those bases covered as GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:08 AM

Good moderation of forums should be invisible. People shouldn't even notice it.

It should NEVER be done with red lettered, snide commentary after forum users' posts. Just as one for instance.

Or by "outing" people for fucking around with identities on the idiotic member/guest log-in, as one more for instance.

If Max, Joe & the clones don't want "troublemakers" fucking around with identities on the log-in THEN CHANGE THE FUCKING LOG-IN!!! END OF PROBLEM!!!

The FAQ shouldn't be a bleedin' tome like the one Mudcat currently has, which is in desparate need of good editing.

The moderators should have some knowledge of how to do the job. In the past, I've posted links to some really good "how-to" websites. It's clear that friendly advice was ignored.

Because constructive change so rarely occurs here, especially on things that are easy to fix, as far as I'm concerned the shit that Max, Joe & the clones get now is self-inflicted, and what they bloody well deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST,11:08
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:14 AM

Hey 10:58! We cross-posted! Now we can sit back and be entertained by the accusations that we're having one of those schiz chats. Yawn.

Personally, I will never become a member posting with a consistent identity (I use both Guest and other Guest monikers routinely), just to continue making the point that the log-in and so called "moderation" system is a sham.

And because I love to be a thorn in the side of the Mudcat Royals.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Azizi
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:16 AM

For the record, GUEST 15 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM

With regard to your question "What does African American have to do with it?", if "it" means this thread topic, then my response is that "African American" is the source for the folk saying "My name is Bess, and I aint in this mess" that I adapted and used as an ending statement for my 15 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM post on this thread.
By citing this reference, I was not attempting to bring the subject of race into this thread. I don't deny the fact that I am African American. However, except for that fact that I cited, my race does not factor into this discussion.

As to your other comment Guest about having known African Americans who were "caucasian", it bes that way sometime. That said, in my opinion, that is a whole 'nother discussion, and I'm not goin there right here right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:27 AM

Yes, Azizi, it is a topic fir another discussuion... And probably a very good one, I might add...

On the "censorship" thread I made a comment about folks trying to divert threads because they have no real position on the subject at hand... Or maybe better put, no defendable position...

That's purdy much the way I define troublemaker... It isn't the language they use or the ranting ut an inability to stay on topic... Kind like a bandmate who isn't in tune...

MO,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM

clairise,

The longer you can lurk when you're new to a place the less likely you are to put your foot in the middle of it. Take a reading of the membership by reading multiple posts and threads, and if you're curious about how a topic has been discussed in the past, use the "Lyrics and Knowledge Search" at the top of the page and deselect "DT" (Digital Tradition, where lyrics to songs are stored in a database) and search on "Forum" only. The fewer search words the better usually with that.

As you have discovered, "censorship" by any other name is still censorship. You've put your thumb on a hot button here at the 'Cat.

Rather the prescribing censorship, take in the waters "above the line" for a while and immerse yourself in the more civil side of Mudcat. It'll do you good.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Azizi
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM

Of course, Bobert as you know, there are some threads where word plays & going off thread in a creative way is desired and expected.

This aint one of them.

I stand by my first post to this thread. It's there to read, and a portion of it was quoted here once, so I certainly don't need to repeat it or summarize it.

But I will yield to the urge to say "I told you so".

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM

Depends on your definition of troublemaker. Is anyone who isn't 100%satisfied with the status quo and is willing to openly suggest changes a troublemaker? Is someone who speaks out about what he or she perceives as hypocrisy in the way this forum is run a troublemaker? If so, curb 'em! But while you're at it you might as well take that little catfish picture from the opening page and replace it with a swastika.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:01 PM

LOL Seems like that a number of people are unhappy with the Mudcat- and yet 'most every one of them takes for granted that they are staying right here. I suggest that they are not as unhappy as they sound.

As for me and my house, we loves the Cat, warts and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:11 PM

Ebbie, I started a survey of forum users above the line because I'm curious as to how many folks only come to Mudcat and "take it" as is.

I go to a lot of places on the web everyday. But I rarely come in here anymore, except when I have a holiday or a vacation. And even at that, I'd describe my coming here to other folkies as a bad habit I haven't gotten around to breaking completely yet.

I keep coming because I still like looking for interesting music news. I rarely find anything here, though. And even rarer do I post in the music section, because there isn't much new there for me after all these years in online folk music forums and newsgroups.

But I also have known for years I'm a distinct minority at Mudcat. Not because of my insistence on posting with either full anonymity or pseudonymity (hey, if it was good enough for James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, it's good enough for me), but because I've never come here because I love the company of fellow forum users.

Mudcat has always been a time killing endeavor for me, more than anything else. I don't think most people here are really nice. In fact, I think most the regulars here have a host of psychological problems, and I'm really glad I don't know them personally.

But sometimes the entertainment value of observing their bizarre behavior is irresistible--like watching the train wreck in slow motion, or slowing down on the freeway to look at the scene of the crash. It's an interesting place in a chasing ambulances and fire trucks sort of way.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:18 PM

Well Guest thank you for your breathtakingly banal assessment of the Mudcat and the people who use it. I would suggest you visit an addiction clinic to break yourself of the habit of coming here, which you obviously find distressing. I wish you complete success in breaking the habit, and want you to know that I for one am missing you already.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:20 PM

If I found it distressing, Giok, I wouldn't come here. The regulars seem to let their blood pressure shoot up over things that get said/happen here, but I certainly don't.

And thanks for missing me. I don't miss you too.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:33 PM

That's where you are mistaken, Guest. You are not anonymous at all. Your name is Legion.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

Thanks Ebbie. I live for that kind of attention. Need it like I need me Wheaties.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM

john giok has a point. why do people still come on here if disatisfied? but i also think that a lot of poeple who are called troublemakers are poeple who show what theythink are problms on mudcat, but are labelled troublemakers. the truth maybe the reason they dont just up and leave is like everything in life. you have to push for improvement, change. mudcat no exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM

Good point clairerise about pushing for improvement. But I can tell you for me it isn't that, as I gave up on thinking improvement and change would be a regular part of the Mudcat experience back somewhere around late 1999. Some people will fight change tooth and nail, and this site is home to quite a few of that sort of folk.

That said, for me the dissatisfaction has never been enough to make me break the habit of coming here, as I do still do, but only now and then.

For those of us who have been online for over a decade, we do develop internet habits. Some people compulsively check their email. Some people compulsively do instant messaging. Some people compulsively check in at Mudcat. See what I'm getting at?

Just because you are dissatisfied with something doesn't mean it is of completely no use.

Take my hometown newspaper, for instance. Or should I say, please. Even though I detest the rag, I still check it several times a week for information I'm seeking. But that is because my online compulsion is information seeking. I'm a surfing junkie. And a gatherer of bookmarks.

Also, Mudcat has (I'm guessing, actually) a fairly high number of transients who just pass through here. Transients don't really care about the community. I guess I'm just a long term transient. I come and go, and don't really care about this community. However, there are two online communities I'm a regular at, where I do care about the communities. So I understand why people here care. I'm not contemptuous of it. I just look at Mudcat as one of those really dysfunctional families we all know, and often make fun of. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson from London
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:20 PM

Have a few minutes to relax and use a computer here in my son's hotel

If you don't like it here, quite. Or as Shambles said way up the thread, some are ready to quit and start their own members only forum. Good. the PC prigs and easily offended whiners need a place to stick their head in the sand.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM

but martin some dont want to quit but want to see improvements. like threads getting hijacked by guests and all sorts.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:31 PM

Just some friendly advice from a long term forum transient, but I wouldn't get your hopes up on the improvement thing, clairerise. The folks here like things the way they are, and are the kind of people easily threatened by a change in the status quo, be it politics or the forum management.

Many folkies are like that. Once something happens more than a few times, it becomes "tradition" to them. And nothing is more sacred to that sort of folkie than "tradition". Or maybe that should be Tradition. Or "Tradition" (tm)

Anyway, there are at least two kinds of folkies, the ones who worship tradition and the status quo, and the ones who try to subvert, upend, and overthrow it.

This is really a traditional status quo kinda place, visited often by the latter type folkie, because...well, as I've admitted before, it's kinda like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:35 PM

I see Mudcat as a tolerant, sometimes too tolerant place, and while I agree with the ethos I do not always agree with the means of retaining it.
Yes I rail against Shambles and the other malcontents, but that has as much to do with their methods as anything else, and not totally to do with their aims.
I too have my issues with some of the decisions made on here, and if the anonymous Guest who accused me of sycophancy had read all my posts he wouldn't have made the accusation. However this selective memory syndrome is prevalent on the site, and as has been said before, "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?"
I believe that the way to change things is to get folks on your side, and take them with you, not to bore them by engaging in endless repetitive wind bagging, and thereby alienating them. This is a lesson Roger has yet to learn, and he might find that when he stops pushing, the wall might just give way from the weight of those pushing from the other side.
I would suggest that someone start a thread under their own name, asking for suggestions on how this site could be improved, we can then all see them so there will be no accusations of the 'Management' not taking any notice or ignoring PMs.
Now you and I both know that it won't guarantee any changes, but it might just sow a seed or two, it will engender some sensible discussion, and if rigorously edited it will not degenerate into a mud slinging exercise.
Try it, just because Presidents and Prime Ministers get elected by minorities and Gerrymandering, it doesn't mean that democracy is dead.
Try it Roger, you've tried almost everything else!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
From: kendall
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM

I know Max. I know Joe Offer, and at least 4 clones. I've never had a problem with any of them, and in fact they strike me as being decent people doing a good job for free. I also know that the clones are not clones just because they want to be. They are selected because they are intelligent,and they are not nut cases. They infrequently make mistakes that upset certain malcontents. Is there something wrong with me?