 sj |
||
|
||
BS: or not BS? A suggestion
|
|
|
Subject: or not BS? A suggestion From: Bagpuss Date: 04 May 01 - 01:13 PM It's fairly obvious that there is divided opinion on the existence of BS threads here at mudcat. Some enjoy them and wouldn't be without them, and others think they shouldn't be allowed here. I hate to see anyone get upset and leave a site over something like this if there is anyway it can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. So here's a suggestion - I don't know if it is technically possible. Is there a way to add something to our cookie, so that if we want we can filter out any BS threads - something that doesn't have to be done each time we visit the place? Most of us are pretty good about using the BS prefix, so that would eliminate most of these threads for those who don't want to see them or even be aware of their existence. And the rest of us can carry on talking nonsense to our hearts content, sure in the knowledge that we are not getting up someone's nose by cluttering up their space and obscuring real music threads. What do you think? Bagpuss Click for BS Filter-link added by Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: gnu Date: 04 May 01 - 01:46 PM How about REQUIRING a prefix ? Wouldn't that solve the problem ? Even if it's a "write-in". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Peter T. Date: 04 May 01 - 02:06 PM We have had a myriad suggestions (I am not dousing water on this one, don't misunderstand), but I remain puzzled at the problem. All the reader has to do is scroll down and pick out the music threads -- they are obvious -- and avoid the others. It cannot take much physical effort, and only about 4 seconds of click time. The objection is definitional: some people just don't like the place cluttered up with conversation about this and that, and want it to be devoted to some kind of community of serious folk music scholars. They seem to be unable to digest the fact that even in serious music threads folk musicians and listeners are eclectic, chatty, and prone to take the mickey out of each other. We could try a grand experiment: get Max to set up a site where only serious folk music could be talked about, and all frivolity edited out. It would be really exciting -- for the 10 people who showed up. For the first week. And then came back to this messy carnival. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Bert Date: 04 May 01 - 02:18 PM Do you really think that there's as many as 10 Peter? From what I've seen here, it's more like 3 or 4. I thought everyone else was pretty much in the singer/musician/listener category. I might add that without that category there would be no folk music to study. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Kim C Date: 04 May 01 - 02:21 PM I like the carnival. Play on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 04 May 01 - 02:22 PM bagpuss there is a way to do it easily (just can't remember how). This subject comes up very often. I like the comment This is just another BS thread. Roger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: gnu Date: 04 May 01 - 02:30 PM PeterT said... All the reader has to do is scroll down and pick out the music threads -- they are obvious... Well, a LOT of times, threads about lyric requests (and others) are posted without a prefix. I have no idea why, except that the poster couldn't take four seconds to pick one and, thus, save thousands of 'Cats the four seconds you refer to. That's if the server responds instantaneously and you have a high speed connection. Anyway, a prefix is, at least, a courtesey which I will always employ. Me mudder would cuff if I didn't ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Bagpuss Date: 04 May 01 - 02:40 PM Oh well it was just a suggestion. I know people can just scroll down and pick out threads they want. But my point is that, though I cannot understand why this isn't an acceptable alternative for them, they state thate it is unacceptable to them. I was just suggesting something they may find acceptable. Shouldn't have bothered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: gnu Date: 04 May 01 - 02:46 PM And a darn good one. I didn't mean to seem as if I was pooh-poohing it. No offense, lad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Bagpuss Date: 04 May 01 - 02:48 PM (or even lass) ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Kim C Date: 04 May 01 - 02:51 PM (pssst --- gnu ---- Bagpuss is a lassie.) I try to be courteous and use the prefixes but I probably forget from time to time. I think this is one of those things like, why can't drivers use their blinkers when changing lanes. Some will, some won't, and you just have to watch out for the latter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: catspaw49 Date: 04 May 01 - 02:51 PM Bagpuss, I don't know either, but I believe that what Peter stated is very true........specifically this: The objection is definitional: some people just don't like the place cluttered up with conversation about this and that, and want it to be devoted to some kind of community of serious folk music scholars. They seem to be unable to digest the fact that even in serious music threads folk musicians and listeners are eclectic, chatty, and prone to take the mickey out of each other. Read the Bruce O. thread and you'll get even more of the same. If this place ever was a scholar's site, it isn't now, nor has it been.......even before I was around almost three years ago. There is a filter setup and perhaps Max can elaborate on that to some extent to make it operate in a different way, but I suspect the real problem once again gets down to the fact that there is BS here at all. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: wysiwyg Date: 04 May 01 - 03:22 PM I think it is sad that so many who deplore the BS side of the Mudcat miss the songs that arise out of even the silliest threads. I also think it should be noted that at our recent MudGathering, which was attended by several people who are *G* pretty serious *G* about the scholarly side of folk music, there was A LOT of chat about non-music. It always turned back to music, but if anyone got impatient for that to occur all they needed to do was start a song. Here, all they need to do is contribute a song to a thread, or start a thread with what is exciting to them in their life musically. I especially missed what I think might have occurred if people had not focused on feelings of upset-- threads between the heavy hitters of scholardom here asking each other the high-level questions that might have been at their level of interest and knowledge. I do not know why that did not occur much. I'd have learned a lot. But make no mistake that this is at all times a music site. Last night I decided that a certain thread I found destructive of community relations should sink in the thread list a bit. So I opened as many music threads as I could to bring them back up. In most cases I made a comment on the topic of the thread, though some had not required it because a request had already been met, etc., and those I simply refreshed. And I found that the overwhelming number of threads were music threads. I learned much and contributed little. I also noticed, for the first time, that I can only be "in" so many music threads at a time until my brain needs to head off into other territories simply to allow the music material to process. It's intense, this thing we call music, and it uses a lot of us all at once. In that sense, the BS here also reminds me of what I saw in the Red Cross' intense atmosphere, and also of what I saw when our two boys came home from Navy nuke school-- and also, with our friend in seminary. In these information-rich, highly-charged subjects, the BS has to assert itself to keep one functioning. It's a natural accompaniment to the intensity of the experience. Maybe the music scholars have a higher tolerance for that intensity, and if so, great for them. But most people need to bust loose to keep their attention flexible enough to handle the serious stuff. A good text for the purists here might be-- if they want to understand the rank and file around here-- SURELY YOU'RE JOKING, MR. FEYNMANN, the stories of the great physicist Richard Feynmann, who was to the development of the Bomb and other scientific wonders what a few of our members here are to folk music. (Their egos are as big as Feynmann's so I do not need to name them for them to get their strokes!) People are just going to be PEOPLE. Why not just work with that? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: mousethief Date: 04 May 01 - 03:22 PM The problem once again gets down to the fact that somebody is unhappy that the Mudcat isn't the way THEY want it to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: kytrad (Jean Ritchie) Date: 04 May 01 - 03:52 PM The trouble I have with the given prefixes is that there isn't one for, "News," meaning some happening (serious illness, happy marriage, someone getting deserved honors, etc.) within the tradition music/blues community that one wants to share. I really don't like putting a "BS" prefix, and there isn't another that fits. It wouldn't have to be, "News," but something like it, which does not indicate frivolity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: katlaughing Date: 04 May 01 - 04:12 PM That's a good point, kytrad/Jean. I'd proposed NM, for Non-Music, some years ago, but it never took off. I like your idea of news. Even though there isn't a prefix for it, we could just take it upon ourselves to put it at the beginning of any title for a thread of that nature. I don't like using the BS for some things, either. Bagpuss, your intentions were good, please don't get discouraged. We have been through this many times and the ones who complain KNOW that Max provided a BS filter just so they wouldn't have to *wade* through any of what they consider "muck." If they fail to use it, that is their problem. I do respect Sandy's request and I don't mind using a prefix to help busy people like him who are understanding and accepting. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: catspaw49 Date: 04 May 01 - 04:19 PM "News" is an interesting term and although the filter program won't pick it up, I think I may use that myself on a thread I'm about to start. The term fits a lot of applications. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: RWilhelm Date: 04 May 01 - 04:36 PM Y'all have managed to turn a folk music site into AOL. Congratulations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: wysiwyg Date: 04 May 01 - 04:37 PM It's a fabulous idea. But what about a prefix-- FYI. That is what I would use in most applications in other types of correspondence, and the writing would then tend to be in the form of a brief press release. In Red Cross we also had, I think, CIB-- Community Information Bulletin. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: CarolC Date: 04 May 01 - 04:39 PM What if, instead of a BS prefix for non-music threads, since there are so many topics that don't really fall into the category of BS that aren't musical. What if there was a prefix that serious musical scholors could use that could be filtered to only include threads with that prefix, and then they could ignore all of the others? SM maybe, for 'serious music'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Kim C Date: 04 May 01 - 05:17 PM I like News. That's a good one. Anyone who thinks that several hundred people from all over the world can get together and talk ONLY about music for longer than five minutes is deluding themselves. I love to talk about a lot of things, music and history being the top two, but not the only two. And when people find out they have something else in common besides just music, well, something called Conversation inevitably ensues. I have got a lot of valuable stuff from the music threads AND the non-music ones. Your mileage may vary. I visit a long hair site that has two forums: a long hair forum, where a bunch of gals (and occasionally a guy) talk about - well - Hair. This site also has what they call a Friendship Board, where they talk about Stuff Not Related to Hair. I don't know if something like that is a viable option or not. It would certainly be a lot of work that probably isn't necessary. So all of you who want to use your blinkers while navigating the Net, please do. Maybe the others will catch on eventually. :-) Cheers--- Kim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Dave Wynn Date: 04 May 01 - 07:03 PM I would like to able to filter out the music threads and keep the real stuff.....Music is for scholars and musicians....(wierdo's I reckon). Lead me to the scandal and rumour.... Spot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: John Routledge Date: 04 May 01 - 07:18 PM Can I underline Peter T's post. The minority of "serious" people can devise their own prefix and the more rounded people can read these specially prefixed posts if they wish.*BG* Life to all GB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Matt_R Date: 04 May 01 - 07:23 PM SM also stands for Sado-Masochism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: RWilhelm Date: 04 May 01 - 07:51 PM Has it really gotten to this point? Only scholars and sado-masochists (lower case is sufficient) are interested in discussing folk music? The point is if someone interested in folk music came to this site by accident and found all the threads about Jewish jokes and pop trivia and "what's your favorite" and those ego-centric "bash me" threads, why would he stay? I don't want to spoil anyone's fun and I don't want a scholarly discussion of ethnomusicology but shouldn't a folk music site be mostly about folk music? BG my ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: John Routledge Date: 04 May 01 - 08:39 PM Earl - A little clarification. I would certainly prefer the percentage of folk music postings to increase dramatically. Most of the people I know in the 3D world feel the same. What to me is self evident however that a completely unsupervised Forum will from time to time degenerate as indeed Mudcat has done in the relatively short time that I have been here. It does not necessarily follow that it will stay this way. Indeed I greatly hope that it does not.In the absence of control the goodwill of a majority of posters is required to focus on consideration of folk music matters. Without this focus all of us who care about folk music may as well concentrate on making music and learning in our smaller but(at the present time)much more rewarding pools. My next post will be about music.Most of us can do little more than this to try to re-focus discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: CarolC Date: 04 May 01 - 08:45 PM "The point is if someone interested in folk music came to this site by accident and found all the threads about Jewish jokes and pop trivia and "what's your favorite" and those ego-centric "bash me" threads, why would he stay?" --Earl
And yet they do. Practically every day, someone new comes to the forum saying they came here for the music and stayed for the camraderie.
Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: RWilhelm Date: 04 May 01 - 08:59 PM Geordie, I agree that no control is the only way to go. I am an anarchist and an idealist at heart and I think we are all here (at mudcat) for a reason, it will all work out. It just makes me sad if Bruce O. is really leaving because of all this frivolous nonsense. In any case, you are right, let's ride it out :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: mousethief Date: 04 May 01 - 09:16 PM People who want more music threads are perfectly welcome to start more music threads. Put up or shut up, I say. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: kytrad (Jean Ritchie) Date: 04 May 01 - 11:19 PM Getting back to the point, my suggestion to use as a prefix here, "News," assumes (since this IS a blues & traditional music site), that it means, "News about blues/trad music,"--too long for a prefix. Also, it says a real word- I have to stop and think, even, about what FYI means! And by the way, the word "news" is used in many, many songs: "Good news! Chariot's a-comin!" and, "What's the news? what's the news, O my bold shelmalir, with y'r long-barrelled guns o'er the sea?" and, "Give ye heed to what we say. News! News!" Well, this is getting tacky- a very non-musical comment, so I'll hush. Jean |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: catspaw49 Date: 04 May 01 - 11:54 PM Well Jean, I tried it and I like it....but I used it as FYI/News......I think that hits about everybody regardless of age. I like "News" but then again, "FYI" has become really used in the media. I do think it's a good idea to have an alternate to BS besides saying "Non-Music" which sometimes isn't the case either. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: gnu Date: 05 May 01 - 12:01 AM Bagpuss.... just got back from the BBQ. Dear lass, my apologies. I was in a hurry to get to the BBQ and didn't think, as I am prone to do sometimes. I always try to post to the exact name that appears in other posts, even though it appears silly sometimes. Apparently, I slipped. This type of thing can happen, even when imbibing Gibson's Finest whiskey. Anyway, whether lad or lass, to which I make little distinction as grow older, I apologize if my comments were interpreted as poohing. Please forgive me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Skeptic Date: 05 May 01 - 12:31 AM Alex, I agree. It is, after all an unregulated site. In the finest entrepreneurial spirit, those who want more music threads should create and post to them. And ignore the BS sites. Thus threads are a demand driven commodity in the finest tradition of the free market. Which makes Mudcats a secret bastion of capitalism disguised as a folk/blues site. It subtly lures in the unsuspecting and infects them with the logic of the market, corrupting all good socialists and such, craftily converting liberals to die hard conservatives (or at least libertarians). I just knew there was a conspiracy going on. And no one asked me to join. I am soooooo disappointed. I suspect Spaw and Troll as the secret masters.:-) (Well, not really but they like the attention ) Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: SeanM Date: 05 May 01 - 01:54 AM As noted, this is a topic that I'd feel confident in saying has been chased 'round the tree since the site first founded. I've been around since '98, and in those few years I've watched this site go through a pretty steady cycle - more music, followed by more social spawned by the music, followed by vitriol from a few recurrent assholes (who may or may not be the same from cycle to cycle, but does it matter? Stupidity is), then back to music. Oddly enough, the site still goes on, and people still contribute what they can to the greater knowledge base. It was also noted that there's only so much that can be said about any given topic. I got uptight about the 'it's already been talked about, here's the link' answers that usually shut down music request threads, but eventually realized - how many times CAN you discuss the variants on "Lark in the Morning"? So what does all this mean to me? I'll side with the "Please use prefixes, please try to be somewhat polite, or at least human, and please keep things going". Now... back to music. I just scored a full '65 set of Child's 'Ballads' for $10 for all five volumes! Woohoo! M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: GUEST,it works Date: 05 May 01 - 02:32 AM Maestronet.com a Bowed Strings forum was recently split it into 3 parts. Musical/Constuction/Bs. They call the pages Fingerboard/Pegbox/Soapbox. Before there would be a bunch of junk at the top of the first page as if there was a contest between different memebers to see who could post the most items. Some of them were not even interesting. Now all of that ends up in the Soapbox and the admins do move things if in the wrong place. It should work here too, gets rid of a lot of junk. It would make a lot of extra work for Max and the Elves but it would keep the Song pages neatly together on the first page. Since I am not a member I would not want to influence the issue, but if I was, a very big YUP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: SeanM Date: 05 May 01 - 03:08 AM I suppose the day that Max actually makes enough money off the Mudcat to make a living will be the day that the level of effort required becomes available. There's been talk on occasion about splitting the forums, but if I recall correctly, Max came down pretty clearly that he'd prefer things the way they are, and I have to agree. I don't particularly play in the BS threads. Not because I'm offended by them, but mainly because I'm not much into 'creative writing' and don't really feel that I can contribute to them, and I'd also like to spend my time reading up on musical threads that interest me. However, I DO appreciate the large amount of inspiration they give to others, who go on to write songs or perform older songs that they'd never have thought of if it hadn't been for one of the "BS" threads. Heck, I've even gone off looking for songs because of some incidental mention. So I guess my point is that I don't think separating the forums would be a particularly keen idea. While there would then be little pigeonholes that those who need them could then look in, overall I believe it would destroy a lot of the more useful features of the site, as people would generally tend to be devoted to one forum or another and not look in areas where they might be able to contribute. My eighteen and a half cents M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: wysiwyg Date: 05 May 01 - 04:30 AM Hahahh... News, FYI-- use GW. For Guess What!? However do NOT use BBQ when trolling, for flamethreads. Too much like Roast, which has good associations, you know, celebrities would roast each other. No... KK-- a thread for knock knock jokes. LP-- Limericks Please. Again, do not use for flame threads-- Liquid Propane is dangerous. FWIW-- threads that start, "Here's my opinion, shouldn't don't we all agree?" YMMV-- threads that tell what YOU experience about something, like my Just GOTTA thread running now BRB-- threads where you plan on posting madly to wake yourself UP USA-- Unbelievable Smut Alert, look out! The dirty jokes department, natch. PAN-- Please Argue Now Or maybe a ratings system-- naw, never work, no one could agree on segments or content, never mind. ~Susan *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Peg Date: 05 May 01 - 10:27 AM Sean, wow! Great deal on those Child Ballads! on vinyl I assume? I got three of a five part set a couple years ago; wish it was complete, but it is still nice to have them...I love vinyl! Peg
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Date: 05 May 01 - 12:16 PM I still think it would be easiest to have TWO forums. One for the BS, and let that grow as it needs to, and NOT index, or put it to the search. Then have a separate forum, which is searchable, for those topics which are more aimed at people who are specifically looking for information. I know I would be daunted by the number of messages which don't pertain to music, if that was why I was coming here for the first time. Max, Joe, etc? What are the chances of having two message forum bases? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 May 01 - 02:06 PM My understanding is that Max is agin the two forum solution which would no doubt lead on to people wanting a third forum and so forth. So it won't happen.
And I hope it won't happen because it'd complicate things, and I'd miss stuff I wanted to find; and it wouldn't work anyway, because good no-music threads end up bringing in music, and good music threads end up bringing in other stuff. Also sooner or later we'd have busybodies launching-in about "what are you doing quoting a song to illustrate a point when this is clearly identified as a non-music site", and the other way round.
Given that, I agree that it'd be good to have a requirement that every thread has a prefix, and that there should be a non-music prefix alongside BS - a post about "A good friend has just died" for example doesn't fit too well with that prefix. The advantage of "News" is that it's fairly self-explanatory. PN for Parish Notices would be OK, and it's a term that has been used in lots of folk gatherings for announcements about future events and births deaths and marriages, but it'd need constant explaining. And somebody would probably say it offended them.
So I'd go for News. And maybe also Misc(allaneous) in case somebody wanted to start a thread that didn't fit in any category. And a firm requirement that all thread-titles have to use a prefix, assuming tghat is possible without additional hassles.
If it isn't, we could have a "self-denying ordinance". By which I mean that, once the the additional prefix options (News and Muisc or whatever) were in place, we could abstain permanently from posting-on or even looking at any threads without prefixes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: Wolfgang Date: 07 May 01 - 04:48 AM I think nobody so far has linked to the thread in which a way to avoid BS-thread (if they are labeled as such) has been described: Mousethief's argument above (People who want more music threads are perfectly welcome to start more music threads. Put up or shut up) that has often been made in these threads (most often by Bert as far as I recollect) always reminds of this: I was in a folk concert and the people behind me talked and talked all through the music. I finally turned around and asked them rather loud to be silent. One of them said to me: "Right in this moment you are the loudest talker. If you don't want talking during music, why don't you give a good example?" Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 May 01 - 05:44 AM But there's a big difference between talking and writing/reading. If someone is talking when you are listening the are interfering with you.
The existence of threads you don't want to read is more like the existence of books in a library you don't want to read. Unless they crowd out the books you do want to read, they don't interfere with you.
a way to avoid BS-thread (if they are labeled as such) But they aren't much of the time. I think good more consistent labelling would make things easier for everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: SeanM Date: 07 May 01 - 06:40 AM May I also point out that if you have a "Mandatory" prefix, then a fair amount of the time it will be useless? Wait... wait... hear me out... You go to a website, seeking advice, but you don't 'surf' much (as quite a few of our 'querents' probably don't). You go through the process, and chances are you don't really know where your question fits in, or you don't even bother to look at the list. So for now, the thread then starts on the forum without a header. With a mandatory choice, we'd see a LOT of default headers. With warts and all, I think the current format is the best. By splitting it into 'serious' and 'non-serious' rooms, you first of all create massive headaches for Max, Joe, the JoeClones and anyone else 'working' on the site, and you eventually end up doing nothing more than creating two identical sites, just one of them the participants feel more justified at yelling at OT posters. Plus, unless you have either appointed monitors who will go through EVERY SINGLE POST on every thread, how can you keep track of when a serious discussion has gone BS, or when a BS thread has spawned a serious music discussion? And while not technically censorship, who will volunteer to handle all of the complaints from someone whose thread is hijacked from one forum and dumped on another? There are a LOT of issues wrapped around any split of the forum. Heck, even using the filter will cause some of the problems noted above. With a hard filter in place, you'll miss the occasional gem that comes through the rest. Personally, I like the thought that this place is almost a benevolent anarchy. I only wish those with a desire to 'reform' the website by attacking it would realize that they're responsible for more harm, and I suspect for encouraging more BS and vitriol than any other source (Ireland, Bush AND gun control combined). M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suugestion From: katlaughing Date: 08 May 01 - 03:09 AM I had a thought about this, but it would probably be too much work and run into problems, anyway, like som eof those listed just above. Anyway it was to colour-code the threads. When someone went to start a new thread, they would choose a category, then it would automatically show up in the appropriate colour, which would make for quick and easy scanning of the list, theoretically. But,a s has been pointed out, 1) most drop-ins might not be that savvy and 2) what happens when one coloured thread diverges into anotehr category. Nope...don't think that'll work, either, alhtough it would be kinda purty!**BG** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: Joe Offer Date: 08 May 01 - 04:12 AM I dunno. I hate to see regimentation, although there is a need for some sort of understanding of things. I can't really see why a thread prefix should be required. The main thing is that thread titles should clearly describe the contents of the thread, so that people will know whether they should open the thread or not. "BS" seems to be commonly understood as recreational conversation, and I think that "BS" tag should be used for threads intended for that sort of conversation - please do not use "BS" for any threads that have anything to do with music, and please don't post lyrics for the Digital Tradition in "BS" threads. The harvesters do not monitor "BS" threads - please alert me by personal message if a song does turn up in a "BS" thread, and I'll make sure it gets harvested (or at least looked at by a harvester). The thread labels don't fit every situation, and it's better not to use labels if they don't apply. Also note that we try to have a "one song, one thread" policy - opening multiple threads on a single song tends to confuse the discussion, so it's best to resurrect old threads and add to them. I am now able to rename threads, and I have been doing that on a limited basis when it makes things more clear or aids searching. In fact, if you're really sharp, you might have noticed that I renamed this thread. Jeri and Jon have the ability to rename threads, but they and the other JoeClones are supposed to use their editing ability only to solve technical problems or delete duplications. Several people have suggested that the Forum should be "moderated," mostly to control the nastiness that goes on here from time to time. Max and I tend to be opposed to that, and I think that Dick Greenhaus is uneasy about even the small amount of forum editing that Max and I do perform. Susan of DT, as usual, is diplomatic about these things - which means you can't quite read her, and it makes her appear very wise [grin]. Those of you who propose some sort of moderation - could you give more specific suggestions? What do you think we should do? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: nutty Date: 08 May 01 - 04:44 AM You are a very brave man Joe Offer Are the dam walls stong enough PS......I presume you are looking for constructive comments and not more of the conflict we have had over the past week |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: nutty Date: 08 May 01 - 04:48 AM PPS ...... just seen the time DON'T YOU EVER SLEEP??? *grin* 2 AM in California - my usual bedtime. G'nite. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 01 - 06:25 AM Quis custodiet custos?
It's messier having us moderate ourselves collectively, and toes get trodden on, but I think the risks of having a system of official moderating are too great. I think the present situation where it only happens in exceptional circumstances is as far as it should go.
One minor change that might help a litle would be if the word "optional" were taken out of the wording of the start bnewe thread facility. It'd still be optional, but I think the change might encourage newcomers to have a look at the prefixes available. As it is, it seems like a direct invitation to people not to use the prefixes, even when there might be a perfectly suitable one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: Shula Date: 08 May 01 - 07:33 AM Dear Folks, I've been away for quite a spell, so the prefixes are new to me. I haven't used them yet. A couple of thoughts: I just posted a new thread about something I call "lyric drift," which relates to music but doesn't fall under any of the non-BS headings. I think there needs to be a "miscellaneous, music related" prefix for threads like mine, and one for "procedural" discussions such as this one. Secondly, I don't consider everything that is not specifically musical, "BS." I would like to suggest a more neutral term, like "off-topic." The FYI/News idea seems like a good one, too. One reason I'd like to see a couple of choices, other than music-related categories, is that I'd like to skip some of the *way* off-topic threads, but, as a "spinner" myself, I am interested in other folks "yarns," like the ones in the recent thread about "cute kid" doings. And here's the thing: folk *music* virtually never occurs in the wild, except in the company of folk *tales," and popular politics. The stories, and current events are intrinsic to the creative dynamic. They are the stream-bed down which the music flows. That's how it was on my Gampop's porch, that's how it was in the coffeehouses of my activist youth, and that's how it will ever be if we are to go on *making* and not merely archiving music. This is the Mudcat *Café*, not the Mudcat *Museum*. When we share stories and ideas, we resurrect the memories of forgotten musical treasures, and fertilise the ground for new songs. Where do you think the Digitrad would get its "harvest," but for a little "BS?" Shalom, Shula |
|
Subject: RE: BS: or not BS? A suggestion From: sophocleese Date: 08 May 01 - 08:13 AM I rather like the idea that there are several headings for music related threads but only one possibility for non-music threads. Without being a control freak and trying to tell others what they should or should not be writing it is a site with a focus on folk and blues music. It is therefore reasonable that there should be more dicrimination for heading threads within that focus. Other stuff is other stuff, it may be important and worthy of discussion but if its not folk or blues its still other stuff. I have the options both of not reading it and of not posting it. |