 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:45 AM I wish I could think of something intelligent to say to spur you on to the 900th post, but I read this stuff and my brain glazes over! How you lot be bothered with all this is beyond me. This thread makes brother Amos's threads seem like a laugh and a titter! Swindon, the true path! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 10:17 AM Wolfgang I have found over the years that you have spoken a lot of sense. I have not found that to be true much lately I still have no idea what you are trying to say in your last post. (Shambles) Shambles, I have not tried to speak sense in these two posts. And I'm truly glad you see it this way. I have picked one of your posts, disregarded the context and intention, have turned this post into an accusation that you do not act consistently over time, have used the words 'this time...honest' as a character defamation and have constructed a contradiction between the one Shambles and the other (which one can we trust?). In other words, I have done to you what I perceive you doing to Joe and others here. The problem is that while you still can see when someone else stops making sense you fail to see that you have stopped making sense long ago. Outside of the context of these threads you seem a likable, sensible and good guy. In these threads, the way you argue makes so little sense. As Joe said what you seem to want is fair and debatable but the way you argue for that makes yorself the worst enemy of any reasonable discussion about the theme. I have parodied your style in my 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 post. You must have seen that. Making fun of your type of argumentation is kind an act of despair in this discussion. But no parody can be as good as the original. You are the one playing the fool since long and the saddest aspect is you don't seem to realise that. No, it's even worse, you are not playing. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM Wolfgang - perhaps we can leave the forum to judge all of our relative foolishness and our honesty? No one is forcing anyone to read this and no one is being forced into to making judgements of the worth of fellow posters. It is a sad day on our forum when folk post and encourage others to shout these honestly held and moderately expressed views down or to gang-up and play elaborate and silly games to ridicule them. It is a sad day indeed on our forum - when this sort of treatment of the views of fellow posters is thought to be acceptable. The evidence is all here and I have proved beyond doubt in this evidence what I set out to do. This was simply that what was defended in the 'spin' is NOT what was happening. I will leave you to judge from this evidence and the answers given to the qustions and suggestons made........... Just in the time of this thread - two instances of editing action being imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge - were judge to be wrong and had to be corrected. Without this thread - they would not have been corrected - so it has served this useful service at least. If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM Without this thread - they would not have been corrected - so it has served this useful service at least. complete and total conjecture - unsupported by any facts. |
|
Subject: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:54 PM
On December 18, 1985, you started a thread at the Mudcat Cafe titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request." There are 18 replies in the thread, all suggesting that you would get a better response if you started a thread titled "Lyr req: This Land Is Your Land." I see that there are 37 other threads titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request" - all from Guest,Lynn, and all requesting the same song. Would you mind terribly if I retitled the thread "Lyr req: This Land Is Your Land" and closed the other threads and crosslinked them to the first one? We here at Mudcat (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) realize that your thread is an expression of your Inner Being, and the 37 threads may be an important message to the Mudcat Communtiy, so we certainly would not want to change your thread title without your permission. Sincerely, WE of the The Mudcat Cafe (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) Dear Person who hasn't posted since 1997: In January, 1997, you started a thread at the Mudcat Cafe titled, "Sidmouth." Every year since then, somebody has started a thread titled "Sidmouth," so there are nine threads with the same title. Would you mind if I changed the title of your thread to "Sidmouth Festival 1997"? We here at the Mudcat Cafe (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) realize that the title of your thread may be very important to you, and we would not want to presume to change it without your permission. Sincerely, WE of the Mudcat Cafe (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM The evidence requested. Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bert Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it. -Joe Offer- [in brown] -------------------------------------------------------------------- It would appear that it far from covers it. Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain....... Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so. -Joe Offer- Here's Ted's (deleted) message: Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: flamenco ted - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM 200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again! ------------------------------------------------------------------ The title that the originator gave to the following B/S (non-music) thread was changed. I blame the Romans… It was thought important for some unknown reason - for some unknown but trusted volunteer to change the thread title to – I blame the Romans….(for Rabbits). Not sure that we can blame the Romans for this, or indeed the Greeks? As this concerns me - I will do my best to bring attention (in this thread) to the routine tinkering to contributions like this and any other form of imposed censorship action - but as these seem to be increasing - I will not see them all. Perhaps when you see evidence of these - you could bring attention to them in this thread? Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM Unless of course you would not feel safe in posting a view that could be thought in any way to be a criticism of the semi-official line of our current trusted volunteers and their supporters and also become the subject of their displeasure? If that is the case - then you can send the details to me in a PM and I will post it here to inform other posters of the reality of what our public discussion forum has sadly now become. For example....... Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- From the following thread. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819 Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important. The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:35 PM Roger, sorry, but this does not constitute evidence of bad intention (to which you clearly allude) on behalf of the editorial team; you have posted this "evidence" before, and it has been found inadequate. In particular, the reprimand to the GUEST that was flooding the forum was well-deserved, in my opinion. And I find Joe's explanations for all of the actions (and prompt corrective action in the case of mistaken deletions or changes) fully satisfactory. If anyone finds this to be the case, they are free to say so - you don't need to, you posted the evidence in the first place, so your view is clear. One warning though: Repeated presentation as "evidence", without the context, of Joe's statements like the one towards the GUEST can appear as a willful attempt to besmirch Joe's (or the editorial team's) character; they in fact appear as judgemental "attacks" on your behalf. If you don't mean them to be taken as such, you should really make this clear. To summarise: This is not evidence of evil intent. This has been satisfactorily explained. If this is the only evidence you have, further insistence can appear as willful slander. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:40 PM How come if people on Le Sham's side are so scared of the clones, they don't just post as a Guest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM Sorry - typo: In the second paragraph below I meant to write: "If anyone finds this not to be the case"; though the statement makes sense as it is anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:47 PM El Greco, maybe I've missed something but I thought shambles latest "evidence" was in response to Joe saying: Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form. The "evidence" (where relevant) I see shambles has provided does indeed proove that Joe is willing to reverse an action where appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM "The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion??" yes, indeed it is. That would increase the time and effort to make non-controversial 'tidying' edits immeasurably. It would essentially eliminate needed 'clean up' of multiple threads, etc. Perhaps that would suit YOU just fine....99% of us disagree. Doesn't majority rule PLUS tacit approval of the owner mean anything to you, Shambles? No, I suppose not...you have the bit of your personal idea of 'righteous indignation' in your teeth, and you will run with it until you drop. True Believers aren't swayed by reason OR authority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:59 PM LOL, Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:01 PM which brings the conversation back to the point when he first brought it up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:02 PM 10 and 2 added to this post gives a skip-straight cripple mr. onion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: gnu Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:47 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:09 PM Do I get any credit for posting Message #866? Isn't that the Sign of the Breast, or something like that? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:12 PM No... that's 998, Joe. You got it upside down. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:13 PM Joe - we will have to check with the High Potent-ate of the Church of the golden Globes - but I suspect you are correct. Congratulations! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM I would think that 0 0would be more representative of the breasts, or perhapsU Uwith age.................Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM 'Spaw - figures you post on a 69! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:22 AM Dear Professor Hawking Or may I call you Stephen? I understand from your publisher's lawyers that you are unhappy with a recent action taken by this library? I refer to the combination of your book – A Brief History Of Time -with Professor Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dr Wolfgang von Pedant's two definitive works on the Aardvark – Digging The Dirt and The Truth About Termite Mounds. I think that I know our readers needs better than you and I think that this combination of the three volumes into one it makes sense and will enable our readers to find what they are looking for much more easily. This is my only motive in this as I have decided that the library's priority consideration must be to its indexing. I am sorry that you may not be in agreement – but "learn to live with it". The choice of title for this combined work was one suggested by one of the library's best behaved readers. "QUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK' is a title which I think will best enable our readers to find the information they require. Yours truly The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:38 AM To summarise: This is not evidence of evil intent. Calm down George - I agree. Perhaps before you go on to publicly accuse anyone of 'slander' - you could produce some evidence that I have claimed there was any 'evil intent'? The evidence provided - proves what I stated it did. Nothing more and nothing less. However, if someone was to accuse our volunteers of evil intent - a convincing defence against this charge may be difficult. If there is nothing to hide - then what is the harm in being open and making this clear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:11 AM I am calm, Roger - and I did not accuse you of anything, publicly or otherwise. Do me the curtesy of reading my words carefully: I warned you (as in "alerted you") that repetition of that statement, after it has been satisfactorily explained to the rest of the participants in this thread, "can appear as willful slander". Notice the words "can" and "appear". Repetition as a reinforcing method for an argument belongs to the kindergarden. In the grownup world it appears willful, and can be construed as malicious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:17 AM Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form. - Joe Offer Joe am I take it from this as OFFICIAL that my suggestion is rejected and that you intend to carry on imposing your personal tastes upon the titles chosen by fellow posters - as you wish - without their knowledge or consent? Or (as it is NOT in brown writing) is this just you expressing your personal opinion? The "evidence" (where relevant) I see shambles has provided does indeed proove that Joe is willing to reverse an action where appropriate. - Jon Jon I agree that (among other things) this evidence does suggest this. I suspect that it does prove is that some volunteer's personal tastes about what needs to be deleted or changes imposed - are subject to the persoanl tastes of other volunteers who are thought to be more important - who do not seem communicate very well together. There are times on our forum - when shooting first - and asking questions later - may be proportionate. But should this policy be the only response to every case - as it is not always easy to repair any damage cause by this. Perhaps the best way to deal with this - is NOT after the damage has been done and only after a lot of fuss is publicly made about the imposed change? If asking the original poster's permmission prior to any proposed change - is thought to be -too much trouble - perhaps it is? Doing something properly tends to bring more benefit than doing it badly. If it is thought to be too mucy trouble to first try and obtain the original poster's permission - perhaps the hoped for benefit of imposing the change without this permission is questionable? Perhaps the benefit of the doubt can always be given to the original poster? If they can't be contacted - then leave their contribution as posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:44 AM El Greko - Perhaps it is not a good idea to try and put words into other's mouths - especially as anything said here can be so easily retrieved? This is what you said. sorry, but this does not constitute evidence of bad intention (to which you clearly allude) on behalf of the editorial team; you have posted this "evidence" before, and it has been found inadequate. Perhaps you could apologise? For it is clear that my evidence in this post was simply to prove the facts of the two cases. For that purpose - I hope you will now agree that this evidence was perfectly adequate and these facts are established? Perhaps you can also agree that the evidence in this post was never intended to prove or show (in your words) 'bad intention' and that in many other posts - I have referred to all this routine imposed censorship as 'well-intentioned'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM Roger, I accept your statement that you were not setting out to prove bad intention on behalf of the editorial team, and I apologise for implying that that you did. However, my warning/alert still stands: constant repetition of that same evidence again and again can appear as willful and of doubtful intent. As we are on an apologising/retracting tack, would you now care to apologise for claiming that I accused you of slander (when all I said was that repetition CAN APPEAR to be willful and malicious)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:16 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:40 PM How come if people on Le Sham's side are so scared of the clones, they don't just post as a Guest? Perhaps this is why? ………But who are you scared of? Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM So, we have shambles who tirelessly posts to put forward his argument. And we have the regular little band who tirelessly post to tell shambles he should stop posting. Why are the regular little band unable to stop themselves opening this thread? Why do they persist in this game? Do they need to have a person to persecute? It's becoming unsavoury. Including you, apparently. You seem to keep opening it, and commenting. I guess that means that you are a part of the regular little band, no? If you don't like it, don't open it. [The anonymous editorial Comment (in BOLD) was in green writing] Robin Hood possibly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:54 AM As we are on an apologising/retracting tack, would you now care to apologise for claiming that I accused you of slander (when all I said was that repetition CAN APPEAR to be willful and malicious)? If the same questions repeated questions CAN APPEAR to be wilful and malicious - perhaps the same repeated answers can also? Repeated abusive personal attacks and name-calling - certainly are - whatever the justification given for them. El Greko - What I said was - Perhaps before you go on to publicly accuse anyone of 'slander' - you could produce some evidence that I have claimed there was any 'evil intent'? Did I accuse you of slander here? I did say 'perhaps before you go on to etc-' useing your logic - I am not sure if this can really be considered as accusing you of slander - But I will apolgise. However, you have stated in other posts - that you have found my evidence 'laughable' and I am still waiting for any evidence to support your claim that this same evidence 'was also found to be inadequate'. Perhaps you can finally make it clear to the forum - that this evidence is more than adequate to demonstrate the facts of these two cases - whatever your personal opinion may be of those facts? If folk are feeling truly masochistic - a look back at this thread from the start - will see that many posters are expressing opinions that are not supported by the true facts. And in some cases (it would appear) these opinions are strongly expressed - in full knowledge of these facts - but spite of these facts and the evidence provided. Which could be thought to be - and may in time prove to be - more than a little foolish? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:28 AM "Which could be thought to be - and may in time prove to be - more than a little foolish?" I have a hunch that - in time - this whole thing won't prove to be anything more than a hill of beans. At getting on for 900 posts, nothing has changed, the one person who seems convinced that this is an issue is no nearer 'closure' on the matter, no-one else gives a toss and most of us, I'd suggest are just bored witless and reduced to the point of prodding the thread with a stick now and again to see if anything interesting happens. Sadly Roger's now reduced simply to repeating himself like a parrot with Alzheimer's and - since Spaw's "Don't Fuck With The Aardvark" gem - there's been precious little in the way of decent invective. Let's either make this topic interesting, resolve it or walk away from the wreckage and start another obsessive compulsive thread full of weary cut'n'paste repetition (foxhunting, anyone?). Anyway, I'm off to see a ewe with a dodgy foot... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM Gervase said Anyway, I'm off to see a ewe with a dodgy foot... That reminds me of something that I was told once Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it. Bob, I'm sorry this happened. Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. -Joe Offer- Well if you can't find a good Aardvark. If this profound advice -about what not to do with the Aardvark - was so appreciated - I wonder why no one appears to follow it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,autoshambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: El Greko - PM Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM I happen to have met all three 'bullies', GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem. What I demonstrate is that the reality of all this (probably well-intentioned) censorship - is not the same as the 'spin' and justification that is given by those volunteers who mainly wish to continue to impose their reactive judgement upon others. Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse. Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me). This is part of Max's website that he has provided for all of us for open public discussion. So in that sense, although the website is Max's – the forum is ours. His stated role in this is only to 'facilitate' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,autoshambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement. The facts are all here – you judge……But these facts will demonstrate that if you should post and assume to judge our volunteer judges (in any way other than being totally uncritical)- you should probably be prepared for them to mount abusive personal attacks, incite others to do this and encourage the idea that this practice is humourous - when undertaken against certain (safe) targets. This evidence has been provided or linked to in this thread. There is no shortage of such evidence of our forum now being shaped by this - but if you are determined to hold and express a view that ignores all of this evidence - I am not sure why you would expect me or anyone else to take your opinion seriously. Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM Roger, your statement to me is there for all to see and judge whether you were accusing me of slander or not. Your refusal to consider that you may have offended me and to apologise (as I readily did) also stands there for all to see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:15 AM Calm down Bill. It is not as if Election Clerks have changed your vote for you - as they thought that it looked more tidy to have equal piles of votes on the table. "The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion??" Bill D says. yes, indeed it is. That would increase the time and effort to make non-controversial 'tidying' edits immeasurably. Is time or effort really a factor - where there is no question of any offensive content? We know Bill that you would always be safe from such impositions but are their not more important considerations at stake than the volunteer's time and effort? You may always agree to any proposed changes - so would most posters, I suspect. If a job is worth doing - perhaps the time and effort should be given to ensure it is done well - or if the time and effort is not available to do it properly - not done at all? And if non-controversial 'tidying' edits were only ever undertaken at the request of the originator - that would ensure that these were always in fact non-controversial - wouldn't it. It would essentially eliminate needed 'clean up' of multiple threads, etc. Bill please explain why you and 99% of posters think this? Who are these 'clean ups' so desparately needed by? All 99% of us? How do you propose to support this rather surreal claim? Or do you always think that 99% of the people agree with you? No one is suggesting that such 'clean ups' could not still take place. But as they would only happen with the originator's permission and never be imposed upon them against their wishes - these actions could never be confused as routine censorship - could they? Is this really such a terrible suggestion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jeffp Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:31 AM Time and effort IS a factor. We are talking about unpaid volunteers who are donating their time and effort to the Mudcat. Max's Mudcat. No matter what Max said 6 years ago about it being "our" forum, it is still Max's Mudcat. In order to help him manage the Mudcat, he enlisted Joe, Jeff, and the Joeclones a few years ago. They work to enhance the Mudcat experience for ALL of its members as much as is humanly possible. This takes the form of trying to keep it clean of vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such. It also consists of making retrieval easier by correcting spelling, linking threads, deleting multiple posts, and other editing functions that are essential to facilitate data retrieval. I for one appreciate that. When I am looking for a song, I don't want to have to search on every possible misspelling of "Diddle My Fiddle" in order to find it. If people were being paid by the hour to do this, they might not mind added hassles interfering with their efficiency. As they are donating their time, we owe it to them to make it less onerous for them. In addition, they are not "imposing their personal judgement." They are exercising their judgement on behalf of Max. They are not always right. There is also room for disagreement. Joe has the authority to overrule somebody's judgement if, in his judgement (also exercised on behalf of Max) it is warranted. Max obviously is pleased or at least satisfied with the way this judgement is being exercised, or else he would make changes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM Ya' know Roger, a lot of those 'Catters so concerned you say over Joe's censorship, appear to be asking for it over on the Mehlberg threads. Joe had plenty of time and opportunity to "impose his will" and did not. He posted later and explained some and asked for more input. That's what goes on almost all of the time. Now go and dig a few termites or something and we'll talk again later.............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM Well let's look at the reasons given - so far - as to why my suggestion is so terrible. That posters would respond in PMs at length and tie the server up. If this is a real concern - it (or the solution) is not a problem confined to my suggestion. That posters may not be contactable. Well the answer is to leave the post alone - as this 'indexing' is not a matter of life or death - just a matter of showing mutual respect. The time and effort of the volunteers involved in asking would increase if they had to ask for prior permission. This is one factor but if a job is worth doing - it is worth making the time and finding the effort to do it well. No one is forcing our volunteers to volunteer and if they find the demands too taxing - they can un-volunteer. It is is not really honest to bring into this discussion of the routine imposed 'indexing' - the other fine work our volunteers may be doing to protect us from "vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such" . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jeffp Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:21 PM Your suggestion has been rejected by the powers that be as impractical and unworkable. That should be it. That you continue in your quest is peevish and childish. There is nothing dishonest in bringing up all of the work that the volunteer Joeclones do. Anything that increases their workload unnecessarily is to be avoided. You have consistently failed to prove to anybody's satisfaction why the changes you advocate are necessary. As you say, it is not a matter of life and death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:42 PM The time and effort that our volunteers would save on non-urgent routine 'indexing' could be spent on protecting us from "vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such". In other words protecting us from Catspaw. *Smiles* Has my suggestion in fact been rejected by 'the powers that be'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jeffp Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:45 PM Since it hasn't been implemented, I think it's pretty obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:50 PM Not too sure if you can actually tell if - not doing something - can be implemented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM Yes, Shambles, you may take that as official. Here, I'll put it in brown:
This has been our procedure for a number of years. While it does not follow your specifications exactly, it does attempt to respect the concerns you have expressed. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:21 PM I hereby invite anyone who feels they have been unfairly censored in the past to act on Gervase's suggestion and "let us have it". If no such actions take place in the next few days, this clearly and irrefutably is not, and has never been an issue.(El Greko, 28/04/2005) 29 hours later, not a peep on the above. No pent up frustration by those censored in the past. Not even arising out of the profanity threads discussion, though a "GUEST" there was grouching about double standards (it turned out he did not understand that it is not profanity that gets censored, but personal attacks). Meanwhile, the "powers that be" have not acted on Roger's suggestions. Further corroboration that all this is not viewed as an issue by them either. Roger, you do such good work both on Mudcat and on other fora, not only on the internet, on subjects that are so much more important to this community and the world; I am thinking of your sterling work on the PEL, where you kept us all informed and fought like a lion. Perhaps you should consider now that this non-issue is not worth your efforts or indeed anyone else's, and focus your energies on the things that do matter - a lot more. And I am sure your efforts will be a lot more appreciated then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:30 AM Joe Offer says (in official brown writing). Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Joe Your earlier opinion was that the priority on our forum should be given to its readers (rather than its contributors). Is now your opinion that priority on our forum should NOW be given to its volunteers? .....Is this now set to appear in the 'rules'? It would appear that imposiion by anonymous volunteers of 'cumbersome procedure and restriction upon' ordinary contributors - is thought (at least by by you) to be very neccesary? This is not a double standard - is it? As Catspaw would say (over and over). Have you discussed your concerns with Max? If so, what was his response? If not, why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:34 PM I don't see that as evidence of double standard, but rather of double (indeed multiple) considerations needed to be taken concurrently. Some things you do for one reason, some things you do for another. - you index threads as a consideration towards readers - but you don't seek pre-approval of contributors, as a consideration towards volunteer workload No double standard; just multiple considerations. This is not a case of the same criterion applied differently, but of two different criteria. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:44 PM No - I was sure it wasn't a double standard. Do I take that - from now on that all personal opinions from our volunteers will be posted normally and that and official statements and editing comments will be confined to the facts and be in brown writing - to enable poster's to know the difference? Or would this increase the volunteer's workload too much? If so - perhaps we need some more volunteers? Any volunteers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 05 - 02:48 AM Gee, Shambles, when Max said, "You get to make the rules," you took it a bit too seriously. You do get to make the rules that govern your own conduct. As Shula said so well many years ago, "You are responsible for your own wake." But your attempts to make rules for the volunteers are not appreciated. We are rational, responsible people; and we do not need your supervision. -Joe Offer- 896 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 07:58 AM Gee, Shambles, when Max said, "You get to make the rules," you took it a bit too seriously. You do get to make the rules that govern your own conduct. As Shula said so well many years ago, "You are responsible for your own wake." -Joe Offer- Joe - Do we assume from the fact that it was posted in the only way that the second-class Mudcatters are able to post - a method which refreshes the thread - and NOT in editorial brown writing - that this is ONLY your personal view? Or are you saying that it is OFFICIAL - that I and other Mudcatters are not now to take what Max (the owner of the site and originator of our forum) says - seriously? Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. It should be clear to all - that Max was referring to 'the rules' on what B/S is. And NOT "the rules that govern your own conduct". Do you accept Joe - that these are your words - and not those of the site's owner and originator. Unless you are saying that Max does not own this place now and the volunteers now do? Sadly - this senario is looking more - day by day - to be the case. I feel very strongly that self imposed 'rules of self conduct' and the example given by and set by this - IS just about all the 'rules' that have ever been needed on OUR forum. Perhaps those who do not think this is enough and tell us that we should ignore the site owner's wishes- and feel qualified to impose their personal judgement upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission - and who obviously have no trust in ordinary Mudcatters being able to censor themselves - are the ones who should start a site where they can impose as many petty rules as they wish ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 01 May 05 - 08:20 AM I wish that "self imposed rules of conduct" were sufficient these days...but... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 01 May 05 - 08:21 AM 900 ...I fear they are not. Too many trolls, too many axes wanting grinding...too many attacks, too much abuse |