The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: MMario
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 02:49 PM

blackcat - we want to know who to blame.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 03:15 PM

I thought the Chinese got here first. Well they might have, if they'd wanted to.

Rick

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 04:15 PM

Eve set the whole thing up and then split for the Garden so that Adam could live out his little fantasy!

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 04:25 PM

Actually, Adam was busy inventing beer so Eve went down to the river to bathe and now all the.............

(Now y'all don't need to be goin' "Oh, you're so nasty Spaw"....What else were you expecting from me after a setup like that?)

Spaw

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 04:40 PM

I think that these last few posts indicate that the future of Mudcat is assured!

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 04:43 PM

Blackcat2 said. "4) Sorry to bring up Bobby Sands Threat again, but if you look, many of the comments in that thread were compliments to the vast majority of the posters, thakinging them for keeping it a civil, intelligent and honest debate. It was a remarkable discussion - one in which I am proud to have been involved."

I am sorry Blackcat2, this is not a personal attack on you or your pride in being involved, but I have seen it said so many times how wonderful this thread was but just by saying it and repeating it does not make it so. The fact that it may be seen as a civil, intelligent and honest debate is mainly due to the restraint of the majority of Mudcatter's who did not contribute to it (not because they do not find the subject of interest) and the great care taken by those that did.

The main reason I stopped posting regularly here was because I did not think that the issues arriving from all the conflict in Northern Ireland could be discussed here in the same way that we were able to treat other equally divisive subjects, a fact that saddened me greatly. As I said in the first post, I have read that thread very carefully, in the hope that we could now manage to do that very thing. It is with great regret and disappointment that I have come to the conclusion that we still cannot. I may hold a minority view (as I note that many of the contributors took great pains to state what a great thread it was) but that does not make me wrong.

The best evidence, I would suggest, is not in the number of Mudcatter's that did contribute but in the number that did not. Despite it being stated in the thread, by Big Mick that he did not believe that people were afraid to post their views there, I can assure him that I for one was. I don't know if afraid is quite the word. I don't think I was prepared to be either patronized or bullied in the way that many that did contribute were. I would also refer you to the comments made earlier in this thread by mcmoo.

There were some fine contributions made there. There was one, brave posting, which made me cry but received generally, a pretty hostile reception, which I found very puzzling. Maybe someone could explain that reception to me? I greatly regret that I did not read this until the thread had ended for I would have supported those views. It was as if actually describing the horror of witnessed events resulting from the conflict of views, was somehow 'below the belt', when surely this kind personal testimony is exactly what threads like these require.

Again what's done is what's done, the only thing left to do is to learn from it, so we can do it better in the future. That can only be done if we are honest.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 05:00 PM

Shambles, I'm inclined to agree with you, I'm one of those who didn't post. I have very mixed feelings about the situation and felt that any comment of mine would only stir up trouble on both sides.

It took a great deal of restraint, but I kept my opinions to myself. If anyone is interested they can send me a personal message.

Bert.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: lamarca
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 05:08 PM

Sorry, Max - just wanted to make sure you wouldn't get bored...Seriously, we are all very lucky that Max is willing to share so much of his knowledge and skill in making this a really neat place to be!

As one of the perennial privacy advocates and etiquette noodges, I wish that all Frequent Users of Mudcat could take some of Shambles' words to heart:

"Why then should the forum be any different? It is a great place for making friends and I feel that I have made many here but are there not better ways of chatting with those friends, once made, or is it more important to be seen on the forum to have those friends and to belong?"

I would be more comfortable here if people would take more time to:

1. Read the previous posts and try to understand the questions being asked or the statements being made. Too many of the hard feelings have been roused by people making arguments against something that wasn't what the original poster said at all. Too much wasted space is taken by people who don't read the question being asked, and offer their "answers" - lyrics to the wrong song, redundant answers, etc.

2. Think your reply through before typing and posting - try not to post in anger or complete reckless abandon. Try to think of both your impact on the person to whom you're replying and whether what you're typing SHOULD be seen by everyone with access to the Web.

3. In discussion threads (as opposed to "chat" threads like the tavern), don't just post for the sake of "joining in" and getting your name on the thread. Too often threadcreep results not from an interesting digression from the topic, but from people trading joking insults and trying to "one-up" each other with clever banter.

4. Remember - what's on the Mudcat is visible to more people than just the regulars who contribute here. Everything you post can be read by anyone, anywhere in the world. Try to use private E-mails and messages for personal comments; don't post info or rumors about third parties without their knowledge or consent. One of the responsibilities that go along with the right of freedom of speech is self-governance of that speech.

If we are not going to have separate forums for chat versus discussions (and Max has convinced me it's not a good idea after all) , I would like to see the "Mudcat Regulars" (or Mudcat Irregulars - wouldn't that be a good band name!) try to keep playful banter primarily on "chat" threads, and resist the impulse to turn every thread into a silly exchange of wisecracks.

Amen, brethren and sistren, I'll get down off my pulpit now...

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 05:21 PM

Shambles, you say that there were "some fine contributions" in that particular thread and that "it may be seen as a civil, intelligent and honest debate is mainly due to the restraint of the majority of Mudcatter's who did not contribute to it (not because they do not find the subject of interest) and the great care taken by those that did."

And then you say at first that you didn't contribute to it because of a unease about being patronised or bullied -but then that you would have contributed to it if you'd read it while it was going on.

I think there are some inconsistencies in there. Though I don't think that's a crime. As Walt Whitman said

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well, I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain mulotitudes.)

A free discussion setup like this can't avoid tensions and failures, above all when we are dealing with subjects where people feel strongly and which matter desperately. After all, if tempers can be raised about things like "what is folk?" or "is there too much BS?", it's not surprising that when we talk about the Irish troubles people can get heated.

I think that the Bobby Sands thread kept on the level remarkably well, far mre so than you'd expect to find in print or in broadcasting. It could have been better, most things can be better. It would have been better, I'm sure, if The Shambles had come in on it. (And that is not sarcasm on my part.)

But speculating as to why some peiople contribute and others didn't is just that, speculation.

Sometimes I don't post because I don't follow a thread. This may be for all kinds of reasons - I think it's probably going to be going over old ground, or I'm too busy, or I don't see it. Or it's not something I feel involved with, or its something I'm too involved with. And sometimes I follow a thread and don't post because someone else has made the points I'd make, but better.

And I'm wholly with The Shambles on the last point in the poist: "Again what's done is what's done, the only thing left to do is to learn from it, so we can do it better in the future. That can only be done if we are honest."

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 06:22 PM

There is a history. I did not intend to post to that thread for I have been there before, there is a pattern to it and I wasn't prepared to pay the price required. As I said I hoped that it could be dealt with better this time, the only way to see was to wait until contributions to the thread had ended. When I saw the treatment that the poster I referred to had received, I regretted then that I had not taken part. If that is inconsistent, so be it. It is nice that you think it would have been a better thread if I had taken part but I fear it would have become just another slanging match.

As for speculation as to why others did not post, yes that is up to them to say but there is no speculation as far as myself, Bert and mcmoo, we have stated our reasons. Only three of us, I know.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 07:11 PM

Jeeze Max, you can't make it on a $1,000 a year? My dad fed a fair sized family in 1930 on only $1,200! :>) Seriously, Suzan A-R and several others said it for me. I like Mudcat the way it is and I'm sure many improvements will be forthcoming without changing the format. You've done a great job and I think we are all grateful to you for founding the Mudcat and for all the time you devote to it.

DougR

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 07:18 PM

Exceedingly well stated Doug!!! Any possibility we could let Doug's post sumit up for us?

Spaw

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: _gargoyle
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 07:28 PM

MAX

It would be fascinating to read the "banned songs" list, please post it.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Max
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 07:40 PM

OK, OK, I will tonight. I'll start a HFA NMPA round 3 thread.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Mudjack
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 07:42 PM

Max,
Thanks for addressing the Fox issue, I really was curious to the present status. I guess I might have sounded a bit dubious but was wondering why not much is said about it after all the hoo-ha, but more importantly, the future of MC is in good hands and I'll try to keep a civil tongue when posting.
Mudjack

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 Jan 00 - 08:21 PM

Max, since you seem to be reading this thread, can you answer the question about what will happen to contributions from us to things like record or concert reviews, articles, or whatever (I raised it again in the Mudcat Cafe for Kids threads)? You recently sent out a request for contributions, but I have no idea what their resting place would be. I have contributed this sort of thing from time to time to a thread, and it disappears after a day or two, so I stopped. I imagine other people would contribute too to a Mudcat magazine -- there are the places on the main page. Can you give us some idea if there is, or would be some dedicated space, magazine like, where we can contribute this sort of material and it won't go into general threads?
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 12:04 AM

Well, Rog, I guess I just don't get it. Seems to me the Mudcat was doing fine before you ran off, survived your departure, and is doing fine since you have come back. Don't take me wrong. I am glad you are back, because you are a valuable contributor. But the Mudcat survives just fine with or without you or me or anyone except Max. Now if I can just figure out what you are saying here, I will be fine.

I am trying to understand. Please believe that. But I am compelled to ask a question. Why is there a need for you, or anyone, to say that just because the participants in a debate, for the most part, felt that an intense debate on a sensitive issue (that has spawned several genre's of music) felt that it was valuable and went well but in your opinion that was not a fact. I believe that you said, "saying it doesn't make it so". Well, for the most part the players felt it was so, and quite frankly I tire of the constant attempt to change that. I would reiterate. If you are not comfortable with the topic, stay out. I don't blame folks that do this. In fact I applaud them. I think Bert's response was the exact correct one. He didn't feel comfortable so he went to "another room".

As for your "crying" over the post of the horrible scenes of the conflict, I understand. I have seen these scenes in other venues. But I need you take take off your "feeling" cap and put on your "intellectual" cap for a minute. You have debated with the best of them in some earlier threads. I have seen it, and been very impressed by it. I know that you know what demagogery is. It is easy to come up with stories of experiences to make any point. But we were faced with a person who sought to put forth the view that we were all out of line for discussing an issue because we had no way of relating to because we hadn't experienced it. She sought to make this point because she had seen this horror. She made no cogent arguments in support of anything that we were debating. Just a "shame on us" for even talking of this thing. I never sought to insult her, rather point out that this wasn't germane to the discussion at hand. The only point made by her post was something that all sides were in agreement on. We all agreed that there were horror stories, but the point is?????

I will restate it again. The events that spawn the feelings, and hence the music are fair game here. If a thread makes you uncomfortable, you are doing the right thing by moving on. But if you engage in the discussion, then your views are open for rebuttal, at times fierce rebuttal. If your response to that is to run off, we will miss you. But this community will survive just fine thank you. It is much bigger than any of us.

Now send the damn checks. Max, I will send another in a few weeks. That is a tangible way to express ones concern for the future of our village.

Big Mick

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 12:13 AM

Or auction items....it's empty at the moment.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 06:02 AM

Mick, I know well that Roger can respond for himself and with much better words than I, but I respond nevertheless to a part of your post to Roger. The reason for that is that I felt an uneasiness similar to Roger's to join that thread. I am reading books about that topic (NI) at a rate of two per month right now, and that's books from all sides. "If you are not comfortable with the topic, stay out.", you have written. That misses the point, at least for me. I am not uneasy with the topic but with the way it is dealt with in that thread. If I had joined I would have had to write about selective memory (of incidents), selective reading (of posts) and the 'yes, but...' attitude, an expression with which I mean that the 'yes' part swiftly brushes away what the 'opponent' has written or said without a serious attempt to understand the feelings or arguments of others, whereas the 'but' part with many more words attempts to impress the 'opponent' with a story of an incident or of general misdeeds that are at the basis of one own's feelings. I've read many interviews with actors from all parts and too many of them show exactly that 'yes, but' attitude. 'Yes, but think of what they did to...' 'Yes, but think of the brutality of the...' 'Yes, sure that's sad for any family, but haven't you ever considered that...'. I do not want to say that the content of the thread was full of such examples (it was not, and I personally think it was better than other threads on NI), but there was just enough of that attitude to make me not want to join the discussion.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Micca
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 06:47 AM

To refer back to the" house with many rooms and conversations" post, I agree with this, with one addendum, everyone is conversing in sign language, to hear what is being said you have to look. I think that is the key, I like the 'Cat, as it is and applaud Max also for the work he puts in and if I ever get to his neck of the woods will buy him a large beer/drink of choice. I am relatively new here but feel I belong nonethe less but would admonish you with a sying from my (Irish ) grandmother,( the blind woman who lived next door to Frank McCourt in "Angelas Ashes") " For an insult or slight to hurt, you have to accept it" That is receive it in.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 09:03 AM

Remember the old Irish saying; "when everones chasing the poor bloody fox, tis best to be dressed like a hound"

I love this site very much, and for the most part all the people on it. Although many of us would not meet or have social interaction under normal circumstances, we experience to a certain degree a pleasant human community here; based on our mutual love of music. It is both refreshing and informative, while sometimes controversial. The odd time a thread turns personal, or too disturbing, one can leave it and chat elswhere. Should the subject matter be offensive to you, by all means aknowledge it and register your disgust; but one should respect that others do not share similar opinions. This site has a wonderfull moderator, like the channel on your TV, you can change it at the click of a button; or by not clicking on submit. Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 09:23 AM

People,

Seems to me that, as someone said earlier here, "the shape we want mudcat to take" (whatever that might be from ALL our perspectives)will invariably NOT be the path it takes. It's the way of the world---and the universe---and life, for that matter.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Roger in Baltimore
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 10:32 AM

Rick (and perhaps others),

I know full well your fear that you might "miss something" on the MC. Seems like only a year ago I could log on and read all of the threads. There are just too many now. And so, I do miss somethings.

If you want to follow up on music requests you might try typing lyr in the filter and set the age for whatever length of time you want to cover. It brings up most of the music related threads.

I ignore some threads based on title. For example, I have not logged onto the Bobby Sands thread. Having read comments about it here, I am glad of that. It was about what I would have expected.

Occasionally, I will skip a thread and then get "suckered in" because the number of posts keep growing. I guess I'm thinking "Could that many people be wrong?" Well, yes, sometimes they can.

I have skipped the Mudcat Tavern and it's relatives, because they seemed to be clearly a "social" thing. Of course, I have missed out on Jello wrestling and the velcro wall of death because of that. I have also missed out on a few postings where I would have wanted to reach out and comfort someone in as best a cyber way as I could.

In my life, I have learned, as Art might say, "I can't have it all."

Roger in Baltimore

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 03:31 PM

Mick

I will respond publicly to you here once only. Out of respect to the other contributors to this thread any further personal conversations between ourselves I will conduct using, Max's personal message system.

When I 'ran off' I sent a very long personal message to you and all the other people who were kind enough to contribute to the 'goodbye' thread, explaining my reasons for leaving and to which you chose not to reply to.

For I could have only stayed at that point if I was prepared to continually challenge your behavior and attitude to other posters on any thread that involved the subject of Northern Ireland. It was not due to any lack of courage on my part. I was not prepared to do that for the divisions it would create. For the issues would have been lost and it would have become a popularity contest with you, in which I would come a very poor second. I think now, that was a mistake, I could have handled it better then. I am now prepared to do that. I suppose I hoped that someone else may have challenged you and I am a little surprised that no one has. They may be have but I doubt if you would have taken any notice. You probably will not take any notice of this anyway but I feel I have to at least try and get you to understand.

I think you are a very nice bloke, a good contributor to the forum and generally a good influence, except when it comes to this subject, which seems to bring out all of your personal 'Achilles heels'.

Well as you say in my absence, The Mudcat has continued. Did you seriously think, that I would think it would do otherwise? Why don't you try the same thing and just refrain from contributing to the Northern Ireland threads for a short period and see what happens? For I do really think that we all do know what your views are now (as indeed you know what mine are on this subject). I have found that just by lurking and really reading the threads, without being tempted to post, to be a better way of understand the whole dynamic of the subject being discussed. It could be a measure to take, that may enable you to "get it", as you put it. The concept of commenting constructively ON a thread, after it has ended, rather than commenting IN that thread, is something we might all try from time to time?

Mick even if only ONE person said that they were inhibited from contributing, by the tone of the debate, should you notlisten to that? You just seem to dismiss it, in the manner that Wolfgang refers to and which caused him not to contribute. It is not the topic that people are uninterested in or uncomfortable with, can you not see that? You admit that it is a sensitive subject, the nature of which means that the majority of contributors do 'walk on eggshells', I do not think that you recognize that they are mostly, doing that and that you, in my opinion, certainly do not take any extra care.

You talk about "fierce rebuttal". Why? Can you not see that there is never a need here for such thinking? It is not a personal battle, just a difference of views, all the more so in what you admit as a sensitive subject. You may disagree, but why would you ever need to be fierce in that disagreement and to what end?

Yes it was a valuable thread but that was despite you, not because of you. It could have been even better. Why should contributors to a thread need constantly be congratulated or be congratulating themselves on what a wonderful job they are doing and how wonderful their writing is? Is not a respectful and informed debate pretty much the normal course of threads on The Mudcat? Is that not why the disrespectful threads stick out so much? What is the point of stating that you have received an E Mail, expressing concerns, if you are just going to ignore those concerns and plough on anyway? Mick why don't you just stop talking, for a while and justLISTEN? Then you may just 'get it'.

Lamarca, in this post (and elsewhere) has taken the time and trouble to make a list of simple measures designed, if followed to make it possible for this forum to involve everybody on any subject. Others have also made many good suggestions as to how The Mudcat can be a better place in the future. Please read them. It would be nice to see any indication from you that you may consider for one moment that you may have made mistakes in the past and that you may be prepared to try and do things better in the future. That is pretty much all I would ask. Is it really too much?

"I Think, Therefore I Am (A Pain In The Arse)"

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 04:10 PM

Good points, well made, Shambles.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 05:04 PM

Ah, Mick, looks like it's your week to wear the sackcloth and ashes...here ya go, I've done with them.

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 07:09 PM

Jeez, Mick. Pick a topic. I'll disagree with you.

Rick

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jan 00 - 07:44 PM

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 10:28 AM

Yes Kevin?

Or has this thread been censored too?

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: Frankie
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 10:51 AM

I just want to duck in under the fire and toss in my .02. I agree with Mc Grath's philosophy of passive maintenance, this place is running just fine and improvements like the super search make it all the better. Kudos, Max. I also like kat's MR idea. My time and access are limited and adding a Music Related prefix to threads whose names are somewhat ambiguous coupled with some encouragement to use prefixes on the Create a Thread page a la Lamarca's idea could be a real time saver. I know this would create more work for you Max and it's something I can live without as this is a pretty magnificent place in it's present state.
Also Sandy Paton, in an earlier posting, said something to the effect that it was rude to mention a song and not post the lyrics in the database. That seems like a good idea and I'd be happy to do so but is it officially (or unofficially) encouraged? Anyone?

Off to the Mudcat store to buy something, Frankie

Subject: RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think?
From: JedMarum
Date: 15 Jan 00 - 12:00 PM

shambles - I agree with your comment on the Bobby Sands thread ... there were very very strong emotions expressed in that thread by Mudcatters with opposing points-of-view. And perhaps some of the reading was 'hard' - but most of it was civil. When in battle of words, where personal relationships are to be preserved, you can still fight fiercely if you attack your opponents views and comments; not his/her person. Some of the Bobby Sands comments crossed the line, but I think most Mudcatters tried their best to respect the humanity of their adversaries. Seems to me Big Mick is one of the masters of that approach, but others did a good job, too.