Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM

Yes - 400 posts based on a SUGGESTION - just a SUGGESTION !!!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:02 PM

Yes, the sky is definitely falling. And you heard it here first. And second. And third. And ...

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:30 PM

" do you think there anything nice about anyone who would feel themselves qualified and wish to impose their judgement on their fellow posters and do so anonymously?"

yes...with the caveat that "impose their judgment" is a loaded, biased, irresponsible way to describe the editing porcess.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM

How about, "wish to do their assigned tasks as best they can."

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:35 PM

oh, MUCH too reasonable, jeffp....you are not in the spirit of high-level whining!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:38 AM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

Shambles, what part of what MMario said do you not understand? It is quite clear to most of us that this site belongs to Max. We have NO say in how it is run.

Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

However this is a part of Max's website that he has very generously set aside for invited contributions from the public and called the Mudcat Discussion Forum. I have some agreement - for my reference to this part of Max's site - as our forum. It is from a very unlikely source - and perhaps you would agree with the both of us?

[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.
-Joe Offer-

Our forum is certainly not Joe Offer's and it does not say that it is in the FAQ - yet.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:42 AM

Joe Offer is Max's earthly representative.
G. ☺

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 06:01 AM

Only Shambles in the Shamblecentric Shamworld using his Shamlogic could interpret what is written in such a way as he does. It is truly a thing of beauty. Completely fucked of course but a thing of beauty in its wackiness nonetheless.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM

What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM

A highly unlikely scenario.

What is your goal, Shambles?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:32 PM

Why you think requiring people to have an identifiable 'moniker' in order to post is equal to excluding the public is a leap in logic I can't fathom. How does it discriminate against anyone? There is no cost for membership, so those who are less than well-to-do are not excluded due to economic factors. Who else is affected? Pray tell.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 09:34 AM

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM

What is your goal, Shambles?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM

World peace and to work with children and to be a model......

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:16 PM

Shambles,

"Why you think requiring people to have an identifiable 'moniker' in order to post is equal to excluding the public is a leap in logic I can't fathom. How does it discriminate against anyone? There is no cost for membership, so those who are less than well-to-do are not excluded due to economic factors. Who else is affected? Pray tell."

You answered: Proposal for members only posting of BS

My response to your response: This will make things clear!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:37 PM

"World peace and to work with children and to be a model.."

*big grin*...now THAT'S funny & clever!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 08:32 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: manitas_at_work - PM
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:45 AM

If Guests can only post above the line then you will get a lot more BS appearing there.

This rather obvious 'knock-on' effect of any attempt to further restrict access to the BS section was seeming overlooked by those who thought their next imposed change to our forum to be a good idea.   

Which is why the additional proposal to restrict Guest posts to the music forum then needed to be made. And so it goes on and on, every change requires more changes and produces more unforseen problems to be countered by yet more restrictions in attempts to control every aspect of our forum.

I have often sent link to threads on both sections to friends, safe in the knowledge that they will be able to open to opened. I trust I and others will be able to continue doing this.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 11:22 AM

Why you think requiring people to have an identifiable 'moniker' in order to post is equal to excluding the public is a leap in logic I can't fathom. How does it discriminate against anyone? There is no cost for membership, so those who are less than well-to-do are not excluded due to economic factors. Who else is affected? Pray tell.

The public have been freely invited to contribute to our forum - I trust they always will be.

Perhaps our forum can be told if this proposal is to be accepted?

Subject: RE: BS: Your favourite Shamblism?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 12:21 PM

Well Bill?

As anonymous posting is another cause for you to post to complain about - why is the introduction and defence of anonymous editing not also a problem for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 01:37 PM

Censorship and Attitude rolled ito TWO

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 06 - 07:26 PM

Why isn't this thread also closed?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 06 - 09:21 PM

Fucked if I know.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 02:42 AM

Do you need to be censored

Why is this one still open when the thread linked to above has been subject to imposed closure - despite the following editing comment being inserted into an exsisting post there?

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 05:28 AM

What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether?

This is not an unlikely senario - it is the one that that since this proposal was publicly made and formally recorded - is now the case on our forum. So what do you do?

Especially when the bouncer's public request is not granted (yet) but you know that it will remain their wish and reflect the future attitude displayed by them towards all of Max's fellow invited guests?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:19 AM

INCITEMENT:- Who is it who has for several months been asking Joe to go and set up another forum? Who is it who has for several years been inciting the membership to join his campaign to get rid of the moderators, and continues so to do, thankfully without result?

My understanding of our our forum is based on Max's founding principles. The way I see it is - if the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and those who support his latest proposal to pervent the public from freely contributing to our forum, wish for such a major change - they are free to form another forum of their own. For it does not look (yet) as if Max is in agreement with this change.

Any 'campaign' has been for a long time been to the effect of suggesting that it is any poster who does not like all the current imposed changes to our forum who should leave. Again this is quite at odds with the original concept of a tolerant forum where the public were invited to contribute as they wished on an equal basis.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:38 AM

PERSONAL JUDGEMENTS:- Almost every post from you contains your personal judgement of the moderators (and, by association, Max who places his trust and faith in them). You have, over the years stated that they are unfair, biased, incompetent, and bullies. You have not so far used the word corrupt, but it is clear, from your expressed opinions, that the word is in your mind.

Whatever I may have suggested (rather than you say I have) - I have provided the evidence for. I do try to make it clear my problem is with the 'system' rather than the (mainly) well-intentioned individuals involved. They may not see it that way.

I make no claim for perfection but I hold no position of authority and have no more responsibility to set a good example that any other poster. So why would you judge my conduct wanting - but not take issue with the example set by those who do have such a responsibilty?

Those who repeatedly post only to make personal judgements but also set the example of posting abusive personal attacks on fellow posters - respond in kind to any they receive and subsequently excuse, justfy and defend this example - whatever the effect and cost of this?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 06 - 10:52 AM

INSULTS:- Your personal judgements ARE an insult to the integrity and honesty of the moderators and to the intelligence of Max, who appointed them.

Piffle.

I say what I mean and mean what I say and I feel I have the right to do this on our forum (and posters have the right to respond). If anyone sees that as an insult to their integrity or honesty - so be it.

Unlike many - I do not use offensive language, make abusive personal attacks or respond in kind to the many I am subject to and not protected from - whatever the provocation may be.

What would you judge it to be when those who Max appointed to protect our forum from abusive personal attacks set the example of repeatedly posting abusive personal attacks on their fellow invited guests and of subsquently justfying such examples?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 03:13 PM

Joe Offer even stated that ONE thread was not to be deleted or closed, to ensure that you COULD continue.
Don T.

And you will also no doubt tell me that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is a man of his word - even though that thread has now been closed also?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 06 - 07:56 PM

Gads. This one is open, ain't it?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 06 - 08:20 PM

Yes but it's early closing on Thursday.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:04 AM

I rather struggle with the need or justification to judge and impose closure on any thread and that any posters should be singled-out for any form of 'special' treatment.

And that our forum is seriously expected to accept that such unequal treatment is NOT personally motivated - when it is so clear that it is...................

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 05:06 AM

Gads. This one is open, ain't it?

If I remember rightly - you once accused me of lying. Presumably being seen to tell lies on our forum is not something you approve of?

Is not the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team guilty of telling lies to our forum by informing us that thread Do you need to be censored was to remain open and then be seen to close it?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:06 PM

Good lord. When did I accuse you of lying? Source, please.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: MMario
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:10 PM

hey Roger - putting sugar coating on poison doesn't make it any less poison.

and whereas Ebbie most likely hasn't called you a liar - you certainly feel free to distort the truth on a frequent basis. To most people that would deem you a liar.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:12 PM

Shambles you pathetic loser... this is not "our forum". You do not own or control it whatsoever. It is Max's forum. Stop whining and go away. Open your own forum and make your own rules. Putz.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 06:34 PM

PM] Ebbie Tech: Closing threads? (140* d) RE: Tech: Closing threads? 04 Sep 05

"As my recent efforts have all be subject to imposed editing from our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - for no good reason (including this one) " The Shambles

This is the clearest evidence yet that I've seen of your duplicity, Roger. You LIE when you say your posts have been edited. ONLY a heading has been changed (added to). That is not censorship, or editing. That is CAPTIONING. And you know it.

I will waste no more time or thought on you. And forget about PMing me anymore. I will not answer.

Elva Bontrager

As you appear to have wasted quite a lot of time and thought on me since then - perhaps that statement can now be seen to have been a lie also?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 06:37 PM

yep.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 06:44 PM

Actually I had forgotten that bit of riled-ness on my part. Although I do stand behind this assertion: You LIE when you say your posts have been edited. ONLY a heading has been changed (added to).

You toss around 'censorship' freely but you have never shown us more than we already knew: that some of your threads's titles have been added to and some of your posts, as Joe O says, (although you would say, admits) that duplicated others that you had made were deleted.

I call that 'moderating', not censoring. YMEV

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 07:15 PM

Ebbie do you accept and do think that our forum can really accept - that whatever word you chose to describe it - these imposed actions on my contributions by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are NOT personally motivated?

For that is what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is expecting you and our forum to accept.

The following is just a recent example that continues to be set to our forum, of repeatedly posting to judge the worth of fellow invited guests and of calling posters names and expecting censorship actions against these posters to be accepted by our forum as not being personally motivated?

Or do you not think that it matters?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

Shambles quotes Joe saying: I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either.

Shambles sez: You could always ask him? But......

Shambles quotes Shambles saying: If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

Well, Roger, I don't want to be drawn into the discussion, and I try to avoid "pissing contests" as much as I can. You'll note that most of the time I don't comment unless there's something new to discuss. Lacking that, you attempt to insert me into the discussion, against my wishes, by posting out-of-context comments from me that are sometimes several years old.

No, I shouldn't be obligated to look them up and give reference information for them - they're from your stalking library, and I would assume that you should have that information if you post the quotes. If you believe in fairness at all, the least you could do is furnish dates and context for the quotes you post. I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information.

Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression.

But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy.

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: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 07:46 PM

and whereas Ebbie most likely hasn't called you a liar - you certainly feel free to distort the truth on a frequent basis. To most people that would deem you a liar.

Source please?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 08:19 PM

Shambles, it is not mandated that Joe must like you.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:26 AM

Shambles, it is not mandated that Joe must like you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ebbie do you accept and do think that our forum can really accept - that whatever word you chose to describe it - these imposed actions on my contributions by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are NOT personally motivated?

For that is what the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is expecting you and our forum to accept.

As a fellow poster Joe Offer can be seen to like and say what he wishes.

Can the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team do this and still expect our forum to accept that his censorship actions are NOT personally motivated against those posters he makes it so clear he does not like?

Does this then turn those posters that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team clearly does not like into easy targets for other posters to follow the example set and think it acceptable? And be encouraged to also subject these easy targets to abusive personal attacks and create conflict rather than lead to any form of peace?

Any answer to any of these questions will be welcomed.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 06 - 04:08 AM

I dunno. I can't really think of any Mudcatters I don't like. I may use a stern approach to some people who cause problems and I may have some people "on probation," but that's just the way I deal with them. Certainly, I pay closer attention to those people who have a history of causing problems - but that's common sense, not personal dislike or prejudice. I'm generally detached from the people who spend most of their time in the "BS" threads, and have no reason to either like nor dislike them. I simply deal with them in the way I find most effective - and sometimes the situation seems to call for me to speak strongly.
Shambles is certainly an interesting psychological phenomenon. I don't know whether I like him or dislike him.

I'm here for the music. I like the people who talk music, and have no particular interest in the others.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:36 AM

Does this then turn those posters that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team clearly does not like into easy targets for other posters to follow the example set and think it acceptable? And be encouraged to also subject these easy targets to abusive personal attacks and create conflict rather than lead to any form of peace?

I mention this unanswered question - as I will include in the following examples a (then fairly supportive) post from a posters who has subsequently become my resident shadow - possibly thinking that posting abusive personal attacks in any thread where such an unwelcome easy target posts, is now acceptable and sure to gain them 'brownie points'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index.

Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them.

So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads.

So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted.

Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted.

So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair.
So, that's the story.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way – In reference to Joe Offer's claim that I have compared him with Hitler - I put The Shambles - Joe Offer and Hitler in the advance search and the only post that came-up was the following.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 06 - 09:45 AM

Shambles has a new title - Chief of the Mudcat Whining Team.

That last message mentions something about PEL. I have been visiting Mudcat for a number of years, and I do not recall the posts. It is obvious that the Chief of the Mudcat Whining Team is very ineffective. All this complaining has done nothing more then separate the Chief of the Mudcat Whining Team from any postive message he might have had to offer. His unskilled debating tactics have backfired against him, and all you need to do is check his last posts and you will see where he has been posting. As long as he relegates himself to the BS threads, the rest of us can avoid his whining.