A return to only one section?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 07:20 PM

From one of the other threads, Jeri had said:

"I'm guessing the Writers of the Code won't have time for this."

Maybe but trying to run ways possible ways through in my own head and with a best guess of how things work, it also seems to me rather more complicated to implement than say, to pick on one, kat's suggestion and I'd guess would involve rather more in the way of query complexity and/or comparisons when a thread is being opened. I could be wrong of course though...

One related thing that did interest me the other day was this script that works for the BBC boards.

What it does is after the page is loaded, it reformats it, etc. I haven't a clue how it does what it does but maybe one day I'll try to find out. Understanding it probably does open doors to one applying ones own personal ignore lists and other filtering not provided by the system itself.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 09:33 PM

It has???? Wow....then I won't post to it.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: dwditty
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 09:54 PM

Creativity?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 11:13 PM

Guest Bee (I think it was on the other thread, now closed) has it right--top priority has to go to people interested in musical topics--so they can avoid non-musical topics. It's easy now--why change?

I actually enjoy lurking in the Irish threads--learning what the various sides think--and why.

I've learned some things from the Israel threads too.

Mudcat is a window on--so many--worlds.

I just hope the person holding the gun to the heads of those who complain about the political threads' existence takes the gun away soon. It's a shame people are forced to read something they don't want to read--and forced to post too, no doubt.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 12:03 AM

It's a shame people are forced to read something they don't want to read--and forced to post too, no doubt.

Here we go again. For starters I don't think any one has complained about this existance of political treads, As far as I can make out kat felt it might be an idea to provide an optional way of splitting them as with the BS. No great crime there as far as I can see until it get's "Mudcatted" about.

I've no opinion over whether the idea is good or bad but I have one over where the shame lies. This is the great Mudcat Community at work again, as it was with the BS.

The original problem was quite clear. Some found it being mixed in distracting etc. Others had feelings it should be mixed.

A true community may have tried to work out a solution (and in this case it was patently obvious to me that there were simple tech ones that could help) and ways of working things together and trying to undertand the other's position.

But, no, this is Mudcat... People who found the BS mixed a problem wre dismissed as wingers, even now the BS split is plainly seen by some as a move caused by moany people who thought Mudcat should be about music.

This may surprise a number of people here but I take an entirely differnet view on this one and take my hat off to Jeff for arriving at an elegant solution that made life easier for 2 sets of people with contrasting views to get along together.

The trouble is, Mudcat is not a place for trying to understand others, it is a place where territory is feircly guarded and even bending over slightly is out of the question. It is a place where he (or the group" who shouts loudest wins.

Things like this IMO have contribute more to the loss of feel of comunity that some here feel than any guest contribution does. The trolls just latch onto what is there under the surface.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 02:47 AM

But, no, this is Mudcat... People who found the BS mixed a problem wre dismissed as wingers, even now the BS split is plainly seen by some as a move caused by moany people who thought Mudcat should be about music.

Jon - our forum evolved. Any poster joining could plainly see what it had evolved into with the owners full support and the BS was fully part of this. It was not a pedantic site encouraging posters silly arguments about what other people chose to post and what was or was not on topic.

To my mind any poster who did not like this was free go elswhere and anyone under these circumstances who posts only to complain about what other posters choose to post (especially when it is just them being able to see the thread titles) - can safely be dismissed.

For events have proved that if you change to accomodate such complaints - the same people will just be encouraged to complain more, others will leave and the site becomes obsessed with order and futile attempts at control and finding way to judge the worth of posters and ways or inhibiting posting rather than find ways to encourage it.   

Some of our 'moderators' now set the example of constantly complaining about what other posters choose to post and mounting witch-hunts with abusive personal attacks and name-calling against individual posters - which this only encourages others to follow this example.

And these people would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on others.

For when some of these 'moderators' have now openly admitted the failure of all these measures to impose the peace that they require - do they then take any responsibility for this, step aside and allow some other course to be tried by different individuals? No they blame everyone else, introduce yet more restrictions (and on me in particular) and openly propose that the public are now excluded from posting freely and try their best to turn our forum in to the private members club that they already treat our forum as.

If they want this - why can they not go and start one? I am sure you will be able to help them do this Jon.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 04:53 AM

Shambles when I joined in 1999, I could see it had BS and music. I could also slso see there was discontent over this issue, a situation which contiued by my rekoning until late 2002/ early 2003.

I don't know about other who joined after me but I did join accepting there was BS and in fact have always posted to both sections. Had there been a poll, I would not have been voting to have BS banished from MC.

I could see more than one side though. Those having difficulty with BS included some who had been around longer than some of the more "prominant" BS posters. It certainly wasn't a new wave of people coming in later and deciding they didn't like BS. Also, the casualties, the ones who gave up (or did woirse) were largely musical.

The way I see it is that both BS'ers and non BS'ers had laid the foundations to the point where I'd joinded and the very early "work" was making a music forum. I saw no need for one side to have the "if you don't like what it is now (and probably wasn't when you started) attitude, especially as it was all so poinless.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:06 AM

It is about as underhand and devious as it comes, pasting a link to a thread showing the newest posts first, so that it looks at first sight as though the last 8 or so posts were not from the same monomaniac.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 05:34 AM

It is about as underhand and devious as it comes, pasting a link to a thread showing the newest posts first, so that it looks at first sight as though the last 8 or so posts were not from the same monomaniac.

Underhand?

A look at the first post in that thread - Closed threads and deleted posts   will now give the impression - from the spam posts dumped there unbidden by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that the first poster to that thread was not its orgininator but someone called 'porn' or similar.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 07:18 AM

Shambles when I joined in 1999, I could see it had BS and music. I could also slso see there was discontent over this issue, a situation which contiued by my rekoning until late 2002/ early 2003.

You talk as if this discontent was now over? I see no evidence of this. We have just had one of our 'moderators' start a thread asking for a separate forum for political BS. Although that thread has now been closed. And this thread is partly in response to that one.

Well I think you may agree that you can't please all of the people all of the time? You have to clearly say this is it - warts and all - take it or leave it. And that includes BS or non music related threads and posts.

For people (especially when they can do this from a distance or anonymously) need no encouragement to pass judgement on, complain and gossip about what others may choose to do. Once you do encourage the minding of everyone else's business - there is no going back.

There are posters who are encouraged to haunt the Mudcat Help & Trouble Forum just in order to mind everyone else's business. It has always been my view that request for editing action should be limited only to one's own posts.

And then you have the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who does not give the message that - this is it - warts and all. He makes it perfectly clear that BS is secondary. That it is a wart that he would rather hide (or now limit to members only).

I am not saying he is not welcome to his view - but it is one that is at odds with the site's owner and one that causes conflict.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 07:22 AM

"Well I think you may agree that you can't please all of the people all of the time? You have to clearly say this is it - warts and all - take it or leave it. "

Quite. So which are you going to do?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST,49th
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 07:39 AM

He'll piss and moan as usual I guess

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 07:47 AM

"Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell."

The above was posted by Max, the site owner, in his "State of the Union" thread on May 11, 2006.

THAT is the view of the site owner and THAT is causing conflict. The Shambles needs to leave. All of his words mean nothing since he himself is the biggest liar on the site. He cannot have any idea what the site owner's view is because he cannot follow the simple instruction given to HIM by the site owner.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 07:53 AM

Thread title = A return to only one section?

It has been done. Well, it can be done by any individual who wants to.

So the object of the thread has been achieved.

What's the problem and why is the thread still here?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 10:28 AM

"You talk as if this discontent was now over?"

Yep. BS v Non-BS arguments have not been a regular feature for around 4 years which IMO is good. I don't know whether Political BS vs Non Political BS will ever become a comparable issuse but to date, it is nothing like comparible. Even if it does, it wouldn't mean the original move failed in its intentions. The forum is not static but constantly evolves. Needs can change and adaptions be made in that process.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Grab
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 12:03 PM

100% apathy would have just left it alone. Someone has made a lot of effort to quickly close it

Would it? No-one except you has posted on that thread for over a week. And since you've raised the exact same issues here that you also raised in that thread, why are you surprised?

with abusive personal attacks and name-calling against individual posters

No, not "posters" plural. One specific poster who's repeatedly insulted them.

He makes it perfectly clear that BS is secondary.

Yep - this is a *music* site. The chat amongst the community is great, but the reason for its existence is *music*. If Mudcat became simply a forum for chat without any association with music, then people wouldn't be here.

I am not saying he is not welcome to his view - but it is one that is at odds with the site's owner and one that causes conflict.

I think you'll find that Max has also said that BS is secondary to music.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: kendall
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 12:48 PM

How many members do we have?
Out of that figure, how many mal contents do we have?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 12:57 PM

I stand by my original view that this discussion should have been kept above the BS line as it started as a serious suggestion worth discussion by the FULL membership.
I am also somewhat disgusted by the members who have simply used it as an excuse to "have a go" at Shambles. I am aware of the disagreements which various people have had with him, but just because you do not like somebody doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they say should be ridiculed. Before you all started in with the anti-shambles postings there was a valid point which I for one was treating as a worthwhile subject.
I can also to a point sympathise with his position that whatever he might post somebody will try to "shout him down" without even listening to an argument.
I personally would like to see a clean thread in the main section to ask for members opinions about the pros and cons of the BS split. I would like to see a serious discussion with arguments for and against the different positions. I would like to see some civilised behaviour from members who ought to know better.
Quack!
Geoff the Duck.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 01:05 PM

Geoff, the BS-nonBS split is a member option. If you want to mix them, click on the "Membership" item in the banner at the top of the page. Scroll down to the radio buttons near the bottom. You will see a choice to mix or separate the BS. Simple as that.

Jeff

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 01:08 PM

It was all thrashed out years ago, it does no good to go over the same ground time and time again. There is a way round it, by setting the site up to the view you prefer. As for it not being read by all members, I would think it will be missed by very few.
The ones that will miss it are those who have been chased away permanently by the likes of MG and other foul mouthed and abusive posters. Not to mention pointless arguments like this.
Giok

Subject: A return to only one section?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM

From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 04 Sep 06 - 07:55 PM

Actually Susan, I do not think this thread belongs in BS. It is an attempt to raise a serious suggestion concerning the running of the daily outlook of the forum.

I agree entirly but unless there is any chance of it being returned to the music section - where we may judge this thread belongs appears to be thought to be of little importance.

But had it remained there - it may have been possible to obtain the views of posters who are not usually able to contribute to issues that affect them equally, in such threads as these, as they would not see them in the BS section, but whose contributions in them may have been useful to the discussion. Perhaps that was one reason why it was so quickly relegated to the BS?

If this had remained in the Music section then those with an interest in Bullshit might not have had a chance to see it.
You can't have it both ways Shambles, unless you run two identical threads, and fortunately that option has been denied you.

CHEERS
Nigel

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 03:09 PM

I am also somewhat disgusted by the members who have simply used it as an excuse to "have a go" at Shambles. (GtD)

Shambles' first post was met with respect by all posters. His silly and completely nonsensical third post was the trigger.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 03:21 PM

With all respect, Geoff, Shambles gets exactly the treatment he has earned. Given that you don't spend much time in BS, you might not know that. I have been here since very near the beginning. In all those years, it is rare to see Max post, let alone to have him suggest someone leave. That says something.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 06 - 08:32 PM

For those skeptical that certain people do want to eliminate political threads--since there seems to be doubt that such sentiment exists--a quote from a recent thread on the topic:

"I've got a better solution. Why don't all the people who want to discuss politics find a political web site and join discussions there?"

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Grab
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:00 PM

Duplicate post, Shambles...

Geoff, it *was* a clean thread asking about pros and cons of a single-section Mudcat, until http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=1827054. In reply to that post, Shambles, it's evident that the issue in renaming is *not* what the prefix is, because the multiple threads that have got up the mods' noses were all BS. You may believe it's personally motivated - and I know I've said I'll not voice opinions about this because it gets us nowhere, so sorry (to others and to you) for doing so above - but whatever it is, it's not just because it's prefixed (or not) with BS.

For myself, I find it easier to have the two sections. Since I'm posting in free moments at work or at home, it's useful to have those two sections, because I'll check music threads first and skip the non-music if I'm short on time.

And I'm not sure that there's less creativity here - still plenty of useful stuff going on.

Graham.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:07 PM

You are correct, of course Geoff. However, Shambles provides a convenient target for several individuals on this forum with loads of rage, who enjoy having a reason to discharge it. If they didn't have such rage, they would not have to respond to Roger. They could be silent. I for one, have evaporated becaue of this rage. Now I'lll get the rage for being a "coward" and all manner of other dastardly qualities...oh well It's really their loss. I'm a nice person with much to offer.

Also the fact that Max suggested that Roger leave means one of two things. He can't block him or he doesn't want to. So why keep saying the same thing over and over? Perseveration from anyone in any form is either a thinking disorder or a lack of imagination. Both apply to our resident cyber bullies. They don't like having a spade called a spade so they attack back in all manner of ways. Just watch.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 08:04 PM

" He can't block him or he doesn't want to"

It is my understanding that blocking is a last resort for several reasons. One- it often requires blocking a range of IP addresses, which 'could' inconvenience an innocent party. Two- it is relatively easy to get around IP blocking if one is determined.(never mind how...if you don't know, you don't need to know) Three- It is sad to NEED to resort to that. It is always better to convince the 'offender' to repent and settle into a more congenial manner.

   In this case, it is hard to find any particular sin or crime to justify banning....being terminally tedious is sort of a different matter. Don't you have relatives who don't 'quite' merit being disowned by the family?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 10:37 PM

What family?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 04:00 AM

A previous Guest asked why say the same things over and over regarding repeating Max's injunction to S to leave.
I suggest you ask that question of S, he is numero uno in the repetition stakes.
Giok