BS: Off Topic

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 10:42 AM

Yes it was then OFF Topic and onto 'Double Deckers' as a consequence of which I have lost my eight pack...yes I had an eight pack not a six pack...it is now a keg, approaching a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bert
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:45 PM

I tried that a long time ago Alba and things got better for a while but now the sneaky underhanded deletions have started up again.

I know the post was nasty that was the intention. I think that it is nasty to delete a person's message without even say that you have done so.

I can see no reason whatsoever for editing to be done in secret. It just causes dissention and casts a shadow on all of us clones.

I am not saying that the clones have to give thier own name when editing a message but just let us know what is going on. The way things are at the moment it opens an opportunity for any clone to wage a personal vendetta against whom they chose. This is a situation which should not continue.

Hey Squeaks, this thread is about OFF TOPIC, I know you're a chocolate lover, so the question is... Do you get off on every bite? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:53 PM

Every bite of what Bert?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: jacqui.c
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 01:02 PM

'The way things are at the moment it opens an opportunity for any clone to wage a personal vendetta against whom they chose. This is a situation which should not continue.'

But the clones have to inform Joe of any deletions made and Joe then has the option to reinstate any that are considered to be unreasonable. I've never found that to be a problem and, from my point of view, it is better that deletions occur than that the nastiness is left there. I, for one, do not want to see threads hijacked to foster any particular poster's pet gripes or to have the filth that tended to accompany Martin Gibson. I like the way that this site is run, it suits me.

Bert - you seem to be in a very, very small minority that disagree with the way this site is run. What does that tell you?

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bert
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 01:08 PM

jacqui.c

...But the clones have to inform Joe of any deletions made...

No they don't. Joe would like them to of course as it enhances his control of Mudcat.

...I, for one, do not want to see threads hijacked to foster any particular poster's pet gripes or to have the filth that tended to accompany...

Nor do I, but I don't see any reason for editing to be done in secret. It just gives an opportinitgy for clones to carry out any personal vendetta they chose.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 01:31 PM

Bert, take a deep breath and consider what Joe said. Some individual, or a very few individuals, have been cluttering up the place with totally useless garbage. This includes multiple copies of the same junk, strewn over all kinds of threads. Joe, and the clones, have an ongoing thankless job of trying to keep track of it and shovel it away. That has to be a tedious, disgusting, use of time they would rather be using for any number of other purposes. You're insisting that, everytime they remove a shovelful of crap, they also take the time to print and stake out a separate sign of explanation. It's not about secrecy, conspiracy, or a vendetta against anybody. It's just that there is only so much that it is reasonable to ask of everybody. We're not talking about someone's medical care, or the evidence in a criminal trial; it's a bunch of conversation, usually casual and often frivolous.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: MMario
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 01:40 PM

Heey Bert! The same person who hijacks *ALSO* makes numberous posts complaining about editorial comments of any sort instead of as a seperate posting.

What's the solution to that? Because if they don't go where the deiting is done, then again, you've lost conitnuity etc - which is what seems to bother you.

the editing obviously isn't "secret" because the results are easily visible. and there are always fingers around to point at editing that has been done. god knows most spam posts are on site for less then a minute before people are complaining about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bert
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 01:40 PM

..It's not about secrecy, conspiracy, or a vendetta against anybody... OK. PROVE IT!

...It's just that there is only so much that it is reasonable to ask of everybody... Actually there are several of us clones but Joe has specifically requested that HE be the only one to delete messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Alba
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 01:47 PM

No Bert you need to prove it.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the accusations, and, if you are a Clone as you say you are then,how can YOU be a regular Member and a part of the Admin Team here.
That's a bit screwed up.
That means you just might have your favorites on the Forum that you allow to get away with all sorts of crap on here.
Sorry Darlin but I think you are WAY off base and are over stepping the mark with this one.
I just don't see what your getting pissed at. Honestly.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 02:00 PM

Bertdarlin', I remember when we were so excited about getting to be joe clones, we did often make a note of when we fixed html or deleted duplicate posts and we signed with anonymous "joe clone" appellations.

Ya know I love ya, but if you are not happy with the authority Max has given Joe and Jeff in regards to deletions/editing, then perhaps you should turn in your edit button. I don't think any of the joe clones, whom Max obviously trusts, should have to publicly make a note everytime they shovel a load of manure from the *stall.*

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 02:12 PM

If they clones DID put notes every time they deleated something then we would just have a different series of arguments. No less - just different. Ya can't please everybody. If Max is OK with how things are going that should end the argument.

Somehow I don't feel like that's going to happen however.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 02:52 PM

The starting post of this thread is completely wrong in my opinion in two implicit assumptions.

(1) Thread drift is no longer allowed or encouraged.
Actually, it still is and you can see many good examples each day.

(2) The 'shoolmarm' is guilty that the good old times are gone. If only she left we'd have the good old times again.

A parable: Once there were 6 friends who came together and made music and shared stories. It was wonderful and each of them fondly remembers these days. Word went around that they had a good time and more and more people arrived, received with open arms. The new arrivals were mostly known to one of them and if not they made themselves known quickly. They had still a great time with even more stories and songs to share and none of them was more equal than the others except that where they met was a place that belonged to one of them. They always cleaned up after the session and apologised after a heated exchange. There was no need felt for any 'officials' or rules because the session did run smoothly without them.

After some years, more and more people came attracted by the large crowd. Some of them even didn't actually like the music but wanted to seel things or were brawls or just liked to elicit heated discussions in which they could insult everyone. The place was often not cleaned after the session, people urinated in the bushes and those that came for the music at times did not feel comfortable any longer. Rules and officials to enforce the rules were then introduced. Most people did understand that these officials would let pass a borderline remark on a quiet night and would deal differently with the same remark on a night of fighting. Some few didn't.

The officials had a lot to do, for the nastiness, the garbage, the brawls came not in smaller numbers. Then one of the original six, Hans L., had a clever idea: If all those things we do not like still happen despite all the attempts at control and containement, how would it be if we had no controls beyond self control. In the good old times we had no control and it was great, now we have control and it is worse than it was. So if we remove the main difference between now and the golden age, namely the controls, we shall have the golden age again...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bert
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 02:58 PM

Wolfgang,

Re

1) If just one instance of thread drift is stopped then how do any of us know when and where it is OK to get off topic?

2) If the shoolmarm hadn't consistently and secretively waged war against a certain member then nobody would have anything to complain about and peace would reign over Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 03:12 PM

Perhaps if the member concerned stopped his all out vendetta against the 'schoolmarm'[not my description]he might receive more considerate treatment.
That is if he is being treated inconsiderately in the first place?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 03:28 PM

I've worked with and dealt with volunteers all my adult life. When a volunteer becomes unhappy with what another volunteer is doing you don't fix it by attacking the volunteer. If you want to continue in your position you don't make your unhappiness and discontent known to the other volunteers- You go to the one who supervises you.

God bless the volunteers.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bert
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 03:59 PM

...That is if he is being treated inconsiderately in the first place?
...

How would we know when it is being carried out IN SECRET?

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: jacqui.c
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 06:25 PM

Last week Shambles put the same post on a number of different threads. The message was nothing to do with the content of the thread, just Shambles trying, once again, to force through his opinion about the way the site is run. I PMd Joe to let him know that another outbreak had begun - it had been so pleasant for a few weeks not to have threads hijacked in that fashion. I presume that Joe did what was necessary to prevent up to eight interesting threads being turned into battlegrounds again.

I'm not sorry that I did what I did. I am sorry that there are members on this site who find it impossible just to enjoy the site without peppering different threads with posts that are obviously going to start trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 06:27 PM

uh, Bert...this all sounds too much like Shamble's routine, where convoluted debate about rules becomes an end in itself.

Are you sure it wouldn't be better to just either shrug and play the game as it is currently defined? (Or talk to Joe, Jeff & Max privately)

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 08:07 PM

Don't you just hate it when your dry erase marker goes onto the floor and instead of realizing it and going after it immediately you get lazy and forget and then you use a permanent marker?

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 08:13 PM

How would we know when it is being carried out IN SECRET?

If it WAS secret, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:57 AM

waged war against a certain member (Bert)

Wrong again, the behaviour is the focus of the action and not the member. Two completely different things.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:58 PM

That's if it were secret, kat! (*BG*)

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bert
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 10:27 PM

It was secret because the perpetrator kept quiet about it.

It is known now because the victim spoke out.


...where convoluted debate about rules becomes an end in itself...

Debate about the rules in this case is only happenning because there is a suspicion of them being applied unfairly.


Of course we'll never know as long as editors keep doing things surrepticiously.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 01:27 AM

How would we know when it is being carried out IN SECRET?

If it WAS secret, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

No, Mrrzy..."it" is singular, in the above, therefore "it is/was/has been."

It did pass the spelling and grammar check.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:13 AM

Hey, it's subjunctive, so it's were...

Subjunctives, the Lost Art of the English Language, lesson one:

It wasn't secret. If it were secret, then maybe I wouldn't have all these people bitching about it.

'Nuff said.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:18 AM

Bad grammar check! Thanks, Joe. Sorry Mrzzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 07:42 PM

looks to me like the more of us leave, the worse the infighting gets. maybe the place will just implode. the bs is a small minority of mudcatters but the majority of that minority just likes to fight and side with the power elite. same people saying the same stuff over and over. the editors are the worst. bert give up. it isn't going to change. its not shambles...its the people that keep fighting him. change the structure of mudcat or it will stay the same. all the talk in the world isn't going to change it. these people just have nothing better to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Off Topic
From: Bert
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 08:41 PM

You're probably right GUEST.