 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:50 PM What I just wrote my friend Dan: .... Life is too full to put time or energy into messes that are not yet ready to be cleaned up. I usually have my hands full feeding the positive, and encouraging that. I spend less and less time de-goofing things-- and I try to limit that to ONLY the stuff that comes to me, ripe for de-goofing. Sometimes I'm wrong about the ripeness, or exactly what God's asking me to do, and then I back off. Fast. Each time I back off I take a lesson with me. Hardi and I buried a lot of good people the last two weeks. I say "we" did it because I, too, am a professional member of the team. There will be two more on Saturday, then-- after a quick bite to share what cool things we saw God doing-- that Sat. Nite service I keep inviting you to visit. And ya know what's hard about all these funeral times? Not the deaths and not the funerals. The several people AFTER the funerals who can't look at anything positive God is doing right next to them and IN them. Not when there's been death and not, unfortunately, when there's been new life born, either. The energy to try to hold up all that pain-- the only one I know that is big enough to do it is Jesus. Of course we know that each person has to be WILLING to be lifted up..... by Him or by anything. (That free will thing is a bitch.) Oh, I can do my share, but then I need to sleep! :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:50 PM If insults are to be deleted, I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me to be insulting me. ;-) Seriously, I think life is better when it's not so easy to piss people off. If we can't even define 'folk', how the hell are we gonna come up with a definition for 'insult'. Know why I think the trolls down own Usenet newsgroups? Because people know nobody's gonna delete anything, they'll have to lie in the bed they make, and if they find themselves immersed in a hellish argument with hellish people, it's their own fault for diving in. Once again, for Joe and myself as much as anyone else: you can't control what other people do. You can only control what YOU do. You can get pissed off and start an infinite number of 'The problem at Mudcat?' threads to complain about things or people you don't like. WE can start them. In the end, I don't think anybody's gonna try to be more considerate and nothing will change, and there isn't much anybody can do about it... except learn how to live with it or go away. --------------------- And Richard, the pertinent verb is 'do', not 'discuss', and the action has to be something effective. Consider that what you do may only give them the attention they want and hurt a bunch of innocent bystanders. Does this help their cause or discourage them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:49 PM But that is not what Joe proposes. He suggests only responses in accordance with his views of moderate response, and not responses that illuminate the evils of religions (or the BNP). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:48 PM Perhaps the time has come for the 'right on' anything goes doctrine to be knocked on the head. People are allowed to post the most obnoxious crap on here, and it's allowed to stay up. Moderators [and they should be anonymous] should take down nasty contentious posts, WITHOUT COMMENT! I once asked Joe "what happened to taste and decency on Mudcat?", and I was told that it wasn't one of the parameters when Mudcat was set up !!!! Sorry but it's a necessary adjunct of everyday living in my book. If Max wants to finance Mudcat by allowing sponsored adverts, then he better discourage any putative sponsor from reading some of the content of Mudcat, or they won't sign on any dotted line. JM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:43 PM Richard, in response to the implication of your, "Evil will triumph when good men do nothing" comment. The appropriate thing to do, in this case, is to expose the wrongness of the idea, expose it to the light of day, not ban the free expression of ideas. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:38 PM In that case, McGrath? Joe, PM sent. Evil will triumph when good men do nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:37 PM "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." This I have heard many times here in the Mudcat ... and from some of the elder members. With that being said .... and a over all acceptance of a Laissez faire, "no barricades approach" to moderating ... the Mudcat is what it is ...... then I ask, what is the meaning of this thread? things won't change .... the Old Dudes and other good people will come and then they will leave .... the same old heated arguments will continue with the usual vengence. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:31 PM Shakespeare has a relevant quote when it comes to the futility of this kind of thing: "We have scotched the snake, not killed it. She'll close and be herself whilst our poor malice Remains in danger of her former tooth." Another way of making the same point is Nietzsche's "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" Which works equally well as "That which does not kill them makes them stronger" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:27 PM Ah well I am going to go to bed and leave you Americans to have a good old chin wag. Keep it clean boys and girls :-) God, I hope I don't have dreams on this :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jim Dixon Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:24 PM As Harry Truman said: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Maybe the people who "abandon their membership" are merely practicing their own version of getting out of the kitchen. I say, more power to them. (That would be will power, I think.) I say this as a person who decided to stay out of the kitchen a long time ago. A long, long time ago, I ventured to speak my mind about a few controversial topics. I tried to be tactful, but some people replied with unkind comments, and I felt really bad about it. Then, instead of going back for more, I decided I'd had enough. I decided to stay out of BS threads that are about controversial topics. I have never read any of the BNP threads and I expect I never will. Out of my last 200 messages, only 19 of them were to BS threads, and none of those were about politics or any other subject that people tend to get angry about. I have no regrets. I have found plenty of interesting things to do and read about in the music section. I feel good about Mudcat. I have never felt tempted to "abandon my membership." If I want to discuss any controversial topic—and I do, sometimes—I will do it face-to-face with my friends, people who know me and like me, people I can trust not to abuse me. This strategy has worked well for me. I'm sure my mental and physical health have benefited from it. I recommend it to others who are feeling distressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:22 PM Correction: their status within the Mudcat hierarchy.
-Joe Offer, who finds it best to respond directly in a situation like this- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:18 PM >>I have turned a discussion into an argument, and it destroyed what was worthwhile in the discussion.<< That is not too bad, but if you start insulting somebody personally, then your post should be removed instantly. That doesn't always happen on Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:15 PM Dick, you and many others seem to forget something. It is a discussion forum, not the barricades. If you want me to come man the barricades with you, I am there. I have been doing that for 30 years. But in a discussion forum, we should discuss. Lord knows I forget that often enough, but that is the nut of it. Joe makes an excellent point, and it is a lesson I have learned the hard way over my many years here. Sometimes, even when I am sure of the rightness of my position, I have turned a discussion into an argument, and it destroyed what was worthwhile in the discussion. If you are talking of George, stick to what is objectionable in her arguments, and the discussion stays worthwhile. But when it turns into a slagging contest, the whole thing gets lost in nastiness. Next thing you know, very good Mudcatters of many years standing start disappearing and the beauty that this place represents gets more and more faded. Joe is right on. We must not adopt the tactics of that which we despise, lest we become that. Next thing you know, you end up with the Patriot Act (sorry, USA reference/joke). All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jack Campin Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:14 PM As for the BNP, that is a poisonous and evil organisation, fundamentally at one with other racist movements that have disfigured history over previous generations - but personal attacks on people who have made the very serious mistake of swallowing its message merely serves to strengthen it, and to distract attention from the task of countering that message. That doesn't match what I'm seeing. We had one poster who was fully identifiable - MBSGeorge - but who wasn't just swallowing the message; she was senior enough in the party to stand for election. She was delivering the message; she was as complicit in their actions as it is possible to be. The other people posting pro-BNP messages were all anonymous. It is not logically possible to make a "personal attack" on someone who has no identifiable persona. We have absolutely no idea who any of those anonymous propagandists are, and owe them no consideration whatever as individuals. They have chosen not to be individuals. If they want to be a faceless gang, they can accept the consequences. (I'm not seeing the anti-Christian bias Joe is describing - maybe I'm just not looking at the threads where it comes up. Precise examples?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:12 PM Sorry McGrath, I didn't really mean next morning. More as you suggest. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:10 PM In response to the brown text inserted in my post above (a practice that in my opinion, is as counterproductive as any kind of bad behavior that posters engage in), I note that while I am not permitted to respond directly to posters, even though I do not have a history of going around (on a fairly regular basis) saying "fuck you" or "fuck off" to other posters, and other equally abusive tactics, at least one of the posters singled out by the head moderator above does have such a history and is still being permitted to do so without being forbidden to respond directly to other posters. While I guess I ought to be flattered that I am considered to be Mudcat's biggest badass, I think that the fact that I have been singled out in the way I have been while other, far more egregious violations of Mudcat rules happen on a regular basis and are not subject to corrective actions is a demonstration of the problems that I described in my first post in this thread. And there is at least one moderator who even goes into other peoples posts and changes what is in them for the purpose of ridiculing the posters in question, and they have not lost their moderator status. This has happened as recently as this week. This a culture of officially sanctioned and permitted abuse, and whether or not one will have corrective action taken against them is entirely dependent upon their statues within the Mudcat hierarchy.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM An Edit button that allowed us to quietly remove the stuff we wish we hadn't posted when we read it in the morning would just make things worse by adding an extra layer of confusion. If we post in haste stuff we recognise later we shouldn't have posted, the only honourable thing to do is to leave it there, but to make another post apologising for what we wrote, and saying what we now recognise we should have said. That happens from time to time, though not as often as it should. A five-minute edit button, to allow us to correct mistakes immediately might make sense, but not a "light of day" one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM A block feature as mg mentions is another useful option. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:05 PM Bill is right in the ballpark, as usual. The only times I find him objectionable is when he isn't agreeing with me...... damn guy doesn't get that I have all THE answers....... tongue planted firmly in cheek, for those that don't realize it*** I look at most problems, whether on Mudcat, or in the world at large, and it occurs to me that the enemy is not Christians, Jews, Atheists, Fascists, Anarchists....... it is fundamentalist thought in whatever form it shows itself. When someone justifies objectionable behaviour because they have declared themselves the arbiter of what is best for the rest of us, they become dangerous. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:04 PM Joe,you know very well I have not done that. The best way to fight the BNP is to send money to searchlight. please answer my question, does not MBS George bear some responsibilty for the unpleastness she created,if she had not announced her candidacy,this situation on Mudcat would never have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: mg Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:03 PM One thing that would help me is a filter to just not have to even see posts from certain people. I am up to two people now whose posts I will not read, even if they are recipes for chocolate chip cookies. I presume they or others would do the same for my posts. If it is technically possible, I hope we can do it and it is done on some other places. I realize that bowing out of a conversation with people is not always the answer, but sometimes you have to set boundaries and this is one of several ways to do it. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:03 PM McGrath, that is exactly how any forum should be run. Until Mudcat gets its head out the sand, it will never sort it. >>I don't give a rat's ass how evil the BNP is, Dick<< Hmmm, that sounds a little bit like how Neville Chamberlain saw the Germans in the second world war Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:57 PM Don't ask people to moderate themselves, because very often, for one reason or another they sometimes can't. Surely, thats why you have moderators. Many of the better sites have Edit buttons, so that you can go back and alter something, either for possible spelling errors or because when you see your post in the light of day, you wished you hadn't said something in the way you had. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:54 PM I don't give a rat's ass how evil the BNP is, Dick. If all we can do is fight evil with evil, then we've sold our souls to them. We've conpromised our own integrity, and then what good are we? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:53 PM This comes from a "Codev of Conduct" I found on the website of Sojourners - they seem to make a lot of sense here too: I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: The Sandman Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:50 PM JOE , I disagree with you. You asked for honesty. you are apologising for mbs george,she is a nice person etc,she only applied for a minor position,I think you are either out of your depth or naive. the BNP are unpleasant people,their members attack foreigners show disrespect to Muslims[burning their churches]harassing them and other Asians and other ethnic groups.[the BNP and Griffin have the support of a KKK Leader] it is irrelevant whether MBS George is a nice person,or how minor the position she stood for,she supports a party whose members attack foreigners,and whose leader denied that the holocaust happened . I have not attacked MBS George,in fact I have communicated with her privately in a polite manner[I thought this the most likely way to get her to reconsider her views]even though I disagree with her strongly. I seem to have been absent[playing gigs] over the last ten days when it appears most of the nastiness occurred,so not guilty. MBS George is not just a member of the BNP,she stood as a councillor,that shows extra enthusiasm for her cause,why was it necessary for her to even mention her political affilations?. MBS George must take some responsibilty for the unpleasant situation on this forum, a situation she started, and she alone created, is she really an innocent victim?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: GUEST,Number 6 Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:47 PM Good point Carol. very good. waiting for an answer. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: CarolC Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:43 PM I think the big question would be, if they are using aggressive and abusive tactics, why have no corrective measures been taken? Why are they being allowed to continue to do those things with no corrective measures applied?
-Joe, who spends a hell of a lot of time on "corrective measures"- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:43 PM One problem is that a lot of people evidently find it very hard to disentangle strong disagreement from abuse. By that I mean two things - on the one hand there is a belief that, in order to express disagreement, it has to be hyped up with hate talk - and on the other there is a tendency to assume that expressions of strong disagreement must actually imply this kind of hate talk, even if it doesn't actually appear. Put those together and it's inevitable that disagreements spin out of control, especially in an online setting where the normal inhibitions that apply in face to face confrontations don't apply. No one is going to break your nose for insulting them here. What happens instead is that at some point a moderator steps in and the thread is closed, and that people walk away. Sometimes it seems they walk away from the Mudcat, and that's a shame - though I can never understand the logic of that since threads that go bad have never been more than a small minority. Mostly they just walk away from the thread involved, and the cost there is that the opportunity to discuss things that deserve to be discussed gets aborted. And that is a pity because there aren't too many opportunities to explore real differences in the face-to-face world. One minimal rule which we can surely make for ourselves is to decide never to post in hot anger. Write in anger, maybe - but stick it on one side. Read it over the next day and maybe post it then. But perhaps someone else will have made the same point by that time, and perhaps you'll see a way to make it that gets it across better, and won't just provoke a kneejerk response. ................ As for "the Christian thing" , like Bill D I'd disagree with the assertion that "The Conventional Wisdom at Mudcat is that Christians are evil". It's a view that a few people seem to feel obliged to express persistently, often in ways that are undoubtedly sincerely held, but also intended to provoke anger and heat. But so what? The way to respond to that is simple enough in principle, if not always in practice - turn the other cheek. Hold off on posting the response, and do it in a way that doesn't set out to provoke anger. As for the BNP, that is a poisonous and evil organisation, fundamentally at one with other racist movements that have disfigured history over previous generations - but personal attacks on people who have made the very serious mistake of swallowing its message merely serves to strengthen it, and to distract attention from the task of countering that message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Ed T Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:41 PM "The most savage controversies are of matters to which there is no good evidence either way. Every man is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. If a man is offered a fact that goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something that gives a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidenc All movements go too far. Too little liberty brings stagnation, too much brings chaos. It's a waste of energy to be angry with a man who behaves badly, just as it is to be angry with a car that won't go. It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this". Bertrand Russell (compiled) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:39 PM "...ideas are generally shot down by site mgmt or ignored, except ..." Hmmm... that's another pretty general statement, Susan. I wasn't referring to ideas about moderating, but rather ideas about how to make the right points TO chronic offenders that there are better ways to disagree. There 'are' basic rules we are supposed to follow....no ad hominem attacks, etc., and obvious trangressions are dealt with...eventually. But it is those 'gray areas' where someone is being one-sided and mean without actually saying nasty stuff that are hard to cope with. I suspect that, for some people, there are issues that they have such overwhelmingly strong opinions about, that they lose all semblance of rationality and just resort to ranting and name-calling. Religion and Race (as in BNP) are just a couple of the 'hot buttons' .....yeah, we 'could' ban any discussion of politics, religion, race, sex, Nationalism, war, guns ...etc.... but those are human things...the things that NEED discussing....discussing, not declaiming and demanding. I have watched this for...gee.... 12+ years now? and tried to discuss, debate and sometimes defend various issues, and I have mostly not had serious clashes with folks...(even MG *grin* only made one half-hearted snide remark at me). It is not that I don't have opinions, is just that I really try to see both sides and try NOT to make flat declarations that I HAVE all the right answers. ------------------------------------------------------------------- (well, typing that just reminded me of the sig in someone's posts I saw once: " Those who think they know it all are becoming very annoying to those of us who DO!") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:35 PM Well, I don't have time to read everything closely right now, but I do want to raise my question about the BNP threads again, and compare it to the "Kill for Peace" pacifists and the "pro-life people who think it's right to kill abortionists. Those same people think that anyone who opposes their tactics, opposes their cause - and that's not necessarily the truth. If you feel obliged to use aggressive and abusive tactics against BNP members (many of who are NOT "thugs"), are you any better than they are? I think not. Think about that, Gervase and "Peace" and others. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Dave Roberts Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:34 PM I think I've mentioned before that my first ever post on Mudcat (quite a few years ago) led to a baptism of fire. I copied a light-hearted (some would say just plain silly) article from the then Salt Town Poets website in which I erroneously used the word 'whence' instead of 'whither' and was met by a virulent and totally unexpected attack on my credentials as a poet and writer of English. I have to admit this gave me pause for thought, my trivial error seeming to me to call more for a humorous ticking off and gentle correction than a personal attack. Please understand, this was not the kind of ultra-nasty stuff we've seen so often on some Mudcat threads and I didn't lose a second of sleep over it. But the whole affair had the effect of well and truly marking my card as far as the Mudcat forum goes. I persevered and have, I hope, been able to contribute something of value to Mudcat through the years. But I too know quite a few people who have given up visiting the Mudcat because of the nastiness. The point Joe makes about remembering that 'real people' are reading these threads is a telling one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:32 PM I believe the main troll in the BNP thread is a disgruntled member and he doesn't give much of a shit about the BNP. Just wants to piss off those who pissed him off. Hence, you have the Mudcat multiple identities, the Wikipedia vandal and the Facebook identity thief. Same guy (I believe) with only the motivation that Mudcat wasn't the 'nice' place he wanted it to be. Max once said something like "Don't get angry. Anger turns to hatred, and hatred leads to the Dark Side". Pinched it out of Star Wars, but it's true. The worst assholes at Mudcat are the ones whose affection for this place and the people here has been turned. Hell hath no fury like a Mudcatter scorned. As for the 'problem', I think there are two main problems People think just because they have a right to say something about whatever bothers them, they should. Sometimes, yes, but I wish people would ask themselves if what they want to say will make things worse. Too often these days, I think the reply to that would be "I don't care. I feel like I have to say it, and if you don't like it, you can fuck off." People also seem to get their buttons pushed with some regularity, and the disruptors around here know it. There are troll sluts here who just lie back and say "Do me... piss me off, baby--I'm all yours." Again, no consideration for anybody but themselves. People have absolutely no resistance, and it doesn't bother them that they're so easy. I look into Usenet every once in a while. The same attempts at trolling are made there, but people usually ignore them. I wonder why ignoring trolls in a completely unmoderated forum works and Mudcat is so hopeless. One other thing that helps me: I don't have any control over what other people do here. If I sense myself trying to bitch or whine YET AGAIN over the same people doing the same annoying shit, I remind myself I have no control over them, they aren't thinking of me or anyone else when they post and likely don't care if it bothers me or anyone else. Some of us have such a big problem because we remember Mudcat being better, and it was. In some places, it still is really good, but it's never going back to the way it was. Max once said that Mudcat is whatever people make it, and we just have too many people here that like all the negative stuff and too many who can't see anything else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:21 PM AND, I meant to say I mean no offence to our UK members!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rasener Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:20 PM Mudcat will always have these problems becuase it is far too leniant with people who Flame and insult individuals. Every time anybody suggests that tougher moderation is introduced like most decent forums, they get ridiculed or told it doesn't need such moderation. It is time that Mudcat moderated in a proper way and delete posts that flame or insult. Ban people who can't behave. You knopw only too well who they are Joe. When people see that you are moderating properly, you will find a total change in the way people behave. Long live the day when that happens. Mudcat has lost lots of people through poor moderation, but I suppose it will be heads in the sand as usual. I think you will find that many mudcatters would endorse the above, but very often do not want to get involved in such things, for fear of reprisals from the very people that cause most of the issues. How long will it be for the first mudcatter to post on here and say " We don't need such moderation" At least I am prepared to stand up and be counted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: katlaughing Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:11 PM One suggestion which I would like to see carried out and that is a required country of origin designation for a thread, esp. a BS thread. I love our UK members and consider some of them dearest friends, but they are an incestuous lot (said with a BIG GRIN) and they do seem to dominate around here more than ever. I would like to see a "UK" before the title of a thread, or any other country for that matter, so that I could easily filter them out. I would also like to see folks think a bit more before they name threads for shock value; it's puerile and off-putting esp. to anyone who may have come here for the first time. Thanks, Joe, and good luck. I am another who has had to take breaks and posts much less due to the constant barrage of crap. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Azizi Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:10 PM **YOU** may have strong opinions about something, but simply declaring that YOU are right, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or ignorant or lying or....whatever... makes it hard to have a real discussion of issues, AND hard for moderators like Joe to decide what to do. -Bill D Although I have strong and heartfelt positions on certain issues-particularly issues of race- I try very hard not to be nasty or arrogant or indulge in name calling. I recognize that what I just wrote about George may not sit well with her, or with other people here. But I felt the need to say that and tried to do so as succiently and as free from emotion as I could. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:03 PM I agree 100% with what Joe Offer has said. I also feel that CarolC nailed it when she said: "I would say the answer would be to hold everyone to the same standard and apply the same rules and the same consequences to everyone - something that has not ever been done in the Mudcat, and has been the source of most of its headaches throughout its history. This means that no matter how deeply entrenched a poster is in the Mudcat core group, or how esteemed they are as a musician, hold them to the same standards as the least regarded and most peripheral posters, and apply exactly the same remedies for their behavior. This is doubly important to apply to people with moderator powers. Things will never improve in the Mudcat until this happens. Personally, I don't think it ever will. I expect that ten years from now, if the Mudcat is still here, this kind of discussion will still be taking place, because the Mudcat social order is and has always been built around the notion of "good guys" and "bad guys", and those designated as the "good guys" are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, and those designated as the "bad guys" are designated as official and legitimate targets of whatever anyone wants to do to them." Bingo! Be that as it may, my own solution has been mostly to... 1. Not let it get me down. 2. Maintain a sense of humour and detachment as best I can when the shit starts flying around here. 3. Simply avoid certain threads which have devolved into a self-righteous hate-fest and an excuse for certain people to vent their emotional dysfunctionality on other people who may hold different views about something. Accordingly, I haven't even looked at any thread about the BNP for a long time. As for the religious/anti-religious threads, I know what to expect there and from whom, but I just refer to 1. and 2. above. I almost always succeed in not letting it get me down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:02 PM I am one of the site mod's and I have been posting less due to the ugliness. With regard to the BNP piece, I believe we are looking at a genuine cultural difference. While US and UK posters, seem to share the same disdain, or in my case, outright revulsion towards fascists and racists, our approach seems to be different. The UK'ers (and I understand I am generalizing here) seem to want to ban the discussion outright. The US posters, while generally just as opposed to these types, are rooted in a feeling that one cannot stop the posting of opinion, even or most especially, opinion with which we strongly disagree. It is the "free speech" as a Constitutional right thing. I typically review all deleted posts. If they are deleted just because they express what some might consider an objectionable viewpoint, they are reinstated. If they are from a GUEST in a BS thread,constitute a personal attack, or are simply an attempt to use the Mudcat for some agenda other than a legitimate discussion of an issue, then they are allowed to stand deleted. These are our rules, you simply cannot have posts deleted because you find the content objectionable. That is a trick box you do not want to be in. As to the contention that BNP is trying to take over the folk music scene in GB, that is up to you in GB to take care of. As to the anti Christian bias, I agree with Joe completely. My response is to simply not get into any arguments over it. When I see that start, often from people that I consider good friends, I just have to get out of it. Otherwise I would lose friends. I prefer to express my beliefs/values in how I live, approach daily life, treat others, etc. Mother Theresa, in her years in Calcutta, never tryed to evangelize by proslytizing folks. She simply tried to emulate the values that were taught by the man from Galilee, and to take care of the least among us. That is the best example to follow, IMO. But I do wish my friends would at least have the courtesy not to make blanket statements about "Christians". Those that know me, know that I am first and foremost an imperfect human, but that I act on my beliefs and values. These come from my upbringing and understanding of what the man from Galilee taught. It would be nice if you would remember that in your discussions and not be quite so dismissive of us. As someone once said, disagreement need not be disagreeable. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Amos Date: 28 Oct 09 - 07:02 PM Of late I have steered well clear of both those contentious topics and a lot of other foofara as well, being content with a few "good" threads that suit my style. I don't mind a good argument, as anyone who has been around here a while knows, but I have no belly for bellyachers and no taste for haranguers whose logic is riddled with holes and high in volume. Joe, if you want to add to your burdens, you could tighten the criteria of hateful posts that get deleted. You could set or tighten the policy of deleting ad hominem remark, abusive communication, and so on. The truth is that people who wail and moan about religion, at least, are mostly aiming at the wrong target, and are bashing their own nightmares, not the things they talk about. Likewise many political issues, although at least politics has a concrete referent you can trot out for display. But neither one is really reason for abusive discourse, at least since Bush left town. ;>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:58 PM My comments on the 2 issues raised: I am a Christian and so I welcome what Joe has said about that. I did have points I considered making about Question Time when Nick Griffin appeared but decided that I just couldn't be bothered. I've decided to ignore all BNP threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Azizi Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:55 PM I feel the need to say this: I'm one of the few American members of Mudcat who has occasionally posted to the BNP threads. I've done so because of my strong concerns about racism & fascism. I believe that the BNP is very similar-if not the same as-the KKK and the Nazis. I believe that most Mudcat threads-including the ones about the BNP-are read by many more people besides Mudcat members. And it seems to me that discussions about the BNP on Mudcat forum may be helpful to some people who are not aware of the true nature of that political party. And with regard to your comment, Joe, that George is a nice person- a person can be a nice person and still be a bigot and/or still support those who have been documented to be bigots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: akenaton Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:55 PM I suppose I must be one of the members who hold the most radical political views, but I have friends here of all political persuasions. I love the diversity of the place and I think the problems you mention Joe, are not symptoms of something wrong here, but something wrong in society at large. People seem less able to think for themselves these days, and prefer to live their lives to a mantra supplied by their political leaders. No matter how obvious the corruption and deviousness of these leaders becomes, people seem to remain entrenched behind a wall of divisive rhetoric created by the politicians. Religious belief has been politicised in this way, as have all the other important moral, sexual and racial issues. The answer as always is use your brains, believe no one, trust nobody.....they fuck you up.....politicians. As for the BNP, they will soon be accepted into the soft warm bosom of "liberalism" where they will no longer be a threat to the fascists who live there. View others not as "political threats", but as fellow humans who may have differing opinions to us The problems of our society can only be dealt with on a personal level....Polititical oraganisation of society is the real threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Rowan Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM When I first got involved with Mudcat I stayed as a guest for some time, reading and occasionally posting, trying to get a feel for the place and the people. I noticed there were quite a few people who seemed to respond, on Mudcat, as though they knew each other in real life and had axes to grind from that life outside Mudcat and, no matter how rational a post from any one of them, ascerbic and even vitriolic responses were elicited from the others. The topics Joe has described are only two of several that seem to generate more heat than light. I learned early in life that beliefs that are founded emotionally rather than on rational logic are supremely resistant to change; discussion may allow us to explore some of their ramifications but almost never result in believers changing their beliefs; whether the beliefs are political or religious, the behaviour seems to be the same. So I don't bother opening most threads where it's clear to me that the topic is centred on a belief system with strong emotional foundations. It matters little whether I think I might share or disagree with the beliefs if I can't see how anything I may contribute can improve the situation. Occasionally I might be able to offer an example of something I've experienced but it's rare. I find it's difficult enough to have a positive discussion about things when strongly held views are on display but, when the discussion strays from the dispassionately rational and degenerates into ad hominem attacks I bow out from even reading the thread. I appreciate the supportive and communal nature of most of what goes on at Mudcat but it might be that many of us are living in circumstances where the pressures against seeing ourselves as a community are increasing and limiting our abilities to 'rub along'. I don't envy Joe his "duties" as a moderator and wouldn't wish to increase his load but I see no need for ad hominem attacks on Mudcat; I wonder if such posts could be deleted and posters sent a notification. I'm aware of the traditions of free speech in the US and how such suggestions can be interpreted but it's quite clear that Mudcat does have rules and ought to be able to apply them in ways that serve to support contributors who make positive contributions. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:43 PM I wrote this for "olddude's" thread but when I went to post it, it had been closed. It kinda' fits here........ This friggin' joint can require a skin tougher than shark leather sometimes and I notice a lot of long time members are a lot more selective about where they post as even the most inane and silly threads can turn into load of crap and that also means a lot fewer fun threads since the bickering bullshit gets old. Who the hell wants to start another fight over something originally intended just for fun. Sadly around here, a lot of people! Try the "Saying Nothing " thread as an example. Happens on the music threads as well and at times even moreso! We got some folks out there who will argue over which flea bit their dog's dick! So when Dan and others take a break for awhile......good for them. And if you're like me and posting less to avoid the crap, good for you too. Let's all just check in now and again in some way. Lately its apparent how precious some of these friendships have become. as if we didn't know already........just been a bit tough to take. Had I never come here, I wouldn't have all these people that I feel so close to nor the pain that their leaving brings. Its a cost we pay and I don't mind as so many of you have so enrichened my life, I will be forever in debt to you all. Now go have fun and let the dipwads just playy diddle my fiddle or whatever it is they seem to enjoy.......perhaps its "Stomp my fiddle" instead............. Just a thought..................and I am sorry to see Dan go...... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:37 PM Bill, ideas are generally shot down by site mgmt or ignored, except with occasional, technically-elegant solutions to them. Over time one learns to take it as it is and/or be elsewhere. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Bill D Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:35 PM " The conventional wisdom at Mudcat is that... etc... That seems a wee bit over-general, Joe.... much as I do see the points you are trying to make. What I would say is that very few issues have such clear, obvious, cut-and-dried answers that folks should feel free to make hateful, nasty, derisive and otherwise critical remarks about them... or about others who may differ. It is one thing to feel you are 'right', and quite another to know HOW to express your supposed 'rightness' in a fair & reasonable way. Mudcat allows more freedom of expression than most fora (forums?), but it is STILL the case that people will type stuff here that they would probably not say directly to someone's face, or in a group conversation. Some of the comments are in the gray area...not exactly nasty, but still insensitive and, to be blunt, arrogant. **YOU** may have strong opinions about something, but simply declaring that YOU are right, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or ignorant or lying or....whatever... makes it hard to have a real discussion of issues, AND hard for moderators like Joe to decide what to do. Maybe someone has an idea....
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: Charmion Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:33 PM Thanks for opening this thread, Joe. That took guts. I think of Mudcat as a publication to which we all contribute. (I'm an editor by trade. Does it show?) Max is the owner and publisher, you are the managing editor, and the Joe Clones are the editorial staff. Every successful publication has an editorial policy to say what it publishes and a style guide to say how the content looks when it's ready for publication. Mudcat should, too. To a large extent, the FAQ is the editorial policy and style guide, so now the editors should do their work consistently, politely and without apology. Spike (i.e., delete) the contributions that don't meet the standard -- not because the contributor can't spell, but rather because the contributor has failed to express an opinion in a reasonable way, as determined by the editorial staff. The FAQ says no insults, backbiting or nastiness (or if it doesn't, it should); consequently, in my opinion, you and the other Clones should simply delete posts that contain insults, backbiting and/or nastiness. A button that says "Report this post" would be nice; I've seen them on lots of other forum sites, so the code can't be that hard to write. Unless you and your colleagues actually change the way you manage the site, this problem will continue and, with it, your angst and disappointment. By the way, as practising Anglicans (we're trying to get it right), Edmund and I also find the anti-Christian bias kinda offensive. I have learned to ignore any thread with religious content. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The problem at Mudcat? Moderated thread From: artbrooks Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:21 PM OK - I really can't comment intelligently about the BNP and the pros and cons of the on-going discussion, so I won't. And I've been taken to task, justifiably or not, for using the term "Yank-basher" about some of our friends from the UK, so I won't say that either. However, it does seem to me that a significant number (or perhaps its a small number of loud individuals) of our across-the-pond colleagues don't recognize the very wide range that the term "Christian" can cover in this country. I see many comments that indicate that they lump all believers together - that is, to them the high-church Lutheran and the pray-out-the-devil snake-handling Free Pentecostal are identical...and equally foolish. Europe, generally, is much less religious than the US, but I hope that people there can accept that we are not where they are. I am not a religious person myself, but I hope I recognize the difference between non- and anti-religious. A bit of respect for the beliefs of others, shared or not, would be welcome. |