 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Guest Postings
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 26 Dec 03 - 01:34 AM Shambles-You are mad! I once shared a cell with a bloke called Terry, he was convinced there was a big conspiracy, and the russians were putting rays into his head, your posts on this thread remind me of him! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Dec 03 - 06:42 AM "some of us always seem to need to be in a controlling role," Like always telling everybody ELSE that THEY want to be.... "serves no purpose at all and can be gotten rid of entirely" :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 22 Dec 03 - 06:40 AM The following thread - from the help forum - is an example of value judgements being taken that resulted in editing action - even when the W.G (subsequently but too late) disagreed with the action taken. Questions resulting from this remain to be answered. How can a similar situation be avoided and exactly where the supposed controls over the controllers - went wrong and exactly what idividuals can censor what, and when? The Memorial Thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Dave Bryant Date: 22 Dec 03 - 06:35 AM catsPHiddle - You could always ask for this thread to be closed She already has - and I have too ! Why not shut down this thread, then if Shambles and any others wish a JO/JC knocking thread they can start one of their own - after all Khatt started the thread about an issue which has now been concluded to her satisfaction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 22 Dec 03 - 05:36 AM The first post asked for ideas. References on the forum to 'the management' and to 'editorial policy' may be relevant to other aspect of The Mudcat Café but are not really apt when applied to a forum provided only for our contributions. Is not the fear expressed by the Witchfinder General of our forum being 'taken over' or as a result of many postings from one troublemaker or from a combined and determined band of 'troublemakers' – a rather unlikely practical possibility? But the argument could be made that our forum has already been 'taken over' by The W. G and that the whole issue, rather than one of protecting us, is now one of control and of the fear of ever losing that control to anyone else? Many of us accept that controlling ourselves is hard enough and would not ever wish to exert control or judgement over others. But some of us always seem to need to be in a controlling role, even when making the attempt to control something like our contributions to our forum – is clearly unrealistic and more importantly counter-productive. The heroic image rather like in a Hollywood western comes to mind. Where one person with an edit button is all that stands between us being murdered in our beds by all the hackers, spammers, trolls, flamers and general 'troublemakers' that we largely learn just to ignore elsewhere on the internet. The Witchfinder General's so-called protective control is only to censor posts that are considered unsuitable. That is any post from a "known" 'troublemaker'. This action is reactive and relies on the W.G to see the offending post or for someone to bring it to his attention. As the 'trouble' has already been caused this control can only at best, be one of damage limitation. The W.G may not have directly censored 'Birthday Threads' or others of a type that the current postholder expresses a personal dislike for - or a value judgement on. But the result is that posting to these threads are inhibited. Why should these thread subjects should be thought of as any worse than any of the other BS threads? We appear to have moved from a position where the poster is respected and asked if their postings can be edited, moved or deleted to one where it is largely accepted that permission to post must be personally sought by our W.G on subjects personally approved by our W.G. Even when it is clearly prefixed with BS and will only appear in the section of our forum specially set aside for it! If the the BS section is to act as a safety valve - it is either allowed to freely operate as such by the W.G or it serves no purpose at all and can be gotten rid of entirely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Peace Date: 21 Dec 03 - 05:14 PM Dear Shambles, I am of a milder temperament than my buddy, Raedwulf. However, the sentiment inherent in his last post finds a gentle harbour in the interpretative part of my heart. Give it a rest, will ya? I've had a few guests tear a piece off me, and in the event the guest and I ever meet, we'll finish the converstaion. Life has aspects of that simplicity in it. Joe, wanna find some songs about witches? (Just kidding.) Joe has guided or directed or presented me with songs and threads on a gang of occasions. He is excellent at that, and the main purpose of the 'Cat is music. I think we'd be better expending our energies to thank the guy instead of criticize him. Thank you, Joe. Bruce Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Dec 03 - 05:03 PM Hey, I think "Witchfinder General" is a rather colorful title, don't you? Let it be known, though, that when Shambles wanted lyrics on the topic, it was Joe Offer who found them - (click). Let it also be known that I get no pleasure out of playing policeman around here, and I do it as little as I can. I'd rather be finding songs than witches. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Dec 03 - 04:21 PM catsPHiddle You could always ask for this thread to be closed... :-) Robin (but that would be the W.G who would close it ...) !!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Catherine Jayne Date: 21 Dec 03 - 03:48 PM Please Shambles give it a rest. I started the thread because I was pissed off and you have completely missed boat. The ORIGINAL issue...which was why the thread was started....has been delt with in a polite and adult manner, we are all friends so please get over it and contribute something of a) interest and b)use to the 'cat instead of going on a Joe slagging off session. Khatt |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Raedwulf Date: 21 Dec 03 - 03:13 PM For crying out loud, Shambles! Shut up & give it a rest!! You are not a "vocal minority", you are eunuch, sorry, unique! ;) You are the one sole & solitary voice in this thread bitching at Joe. Absolutely no-one is voicing any support for your p-o-v. There are plenty of us for whom some of the Guest postings remain a problem. There are a variety of possible remedies for this complaint. Neither Joe, nor Jeff, nor Max, seem inclined to adopt even the mildest of them. That's up to them, Mudcat is their (much appreciated) gift to us. You, sadly, are a bore. 69 posts went by without your intervention. In the next 70 posts you've contributed no less than twelve bloody times, banging out the same tired message that no-one has even remotely agreed with. Your opinion appears to be of interest only to yourself - ergo: PM the Government & kindly spare the rest of us! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 03 - 02:18 PM Aw, Sham, give it a rest, then, man. Really, truly. All this socialist mumbo jumbo doesn't really work, y'see... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 21 Dec 03 - 02:12 PM The Governor General is a term used at the BBC. I use the term Witchfinder General as it perfectly sums up the expectation and function currently undertaken on our forum by Joe, but is also an attempt to separate a fine chap from the role to enable the role to be examined. However he seems to have proudly adopted and claimed the title….? It would be a term I would use in the rather unlikely case of it ever becoming vacant and of someone (other than Max) volunteering for the post. Having just seen The Return of the King – I would think of The Steward of Gondor as another example of the role – as a 'holding' position (come back Max, all is forgiven and I have fixed the sword). The (rather hopeful and dangerous) expectation of the role from some posters - is that the W.G (Witchfinder General) will always correctly burn others as witches but will never turn their inquisitorial gaze upon them………… The term 'troublemaker' is never defined but I think it would be fair to say that in practice it covers anyone who posts to our forum - anything that The W.G personally considers not suitable to appear on our forum (except anything from YOU of course). The term 'troublemakers' is one that is often used when justification for censorship action is taken to protect us from them. Even when the 'trouble' is simply one of understanding what the poster is trying to say - or indeed simply the number of their postings. As the W.G has also decided that there is an undefined but hard and fast limit to the number of postings that they will allow us to post on our forum, which the W.G will censor if exceeded (not a lot of people know that). There probably is another analogy in the sport of football (or soccer). There are experienced players who become 'player-managers', often by default. They pick the team and also are also responsible for picking themselves and of dropping players from the team to enable this. They also buy and sell players, are responsible for their wages, for sorting out their player's personal problems and deciding on their squabbles. Many full-time managers and full-time players consider the 'player manager' role, to be the worst of both worlds and a very difficult – if not impossible trick to pull off. In fact there has been very few who have done this 'juggling-act' successfully for anything but a relatively short 'honeymoon' period and it is usually a temporary 'holding' position. Perhaps the problem is really with the range of the W.G role and it can finally be accepted that it is an impossible task? We hardly expect someone appointed to be the school caretaker to be responsible for the delicate task of excluding errant pupils do we? For there is no simple 'black and white' here - even in the case of a seemingly so-called racist attack. Is calling someone a 'Pommie Bastard' to be judged by our W.G – as a racist attack on our forum to be deleted from it by our W.G? It might well be but if we substitute the word 'Pommie' for any number of other words and it automatically would be. Our forum can have GUIDELINES to encourage posters to post respectfully but where transgression will be tolerated. Or if it has hard and fast rules where transgression is never tolerated - shouldn't these hard and fast rules be spelt out - so that the first time we know of these hard and fast rules is not when the W.G considers them to have been transgressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Dec 03 - 09:22 AM That was me BTW John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 20 Dec 03 - 08:41 AM A palpable hit with a 9 iron I think. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 20 Dec 03 - 05:35 AM Qoute "john-it appears you are now happy, though it appears you were not at the time" I was pissed!, This issue has been resolved via PM, why are you dragging up old stuff? As far as Joe purposely deleting stuff from dislexic [sic] members or others with learning disablitys, or users of english as a second language, thats bullshit!, it just does not happen. The only stuff that gets deleted here are duplicate postings, offensive stuff, off-topic cut and paste stuff and spam, and useless crap from me that does not make sense. I have been a member of this forum for 3 years, I have seen very little deleted, I have actually requested that a few [less than 10 in total] posts were deleted, and if you saw them you would understand why, though I do NOT go looking for posts that need deleting. Jow has stated his opinion here [which he is fully entitled to do], on the appropriateness of certain threads, [Healing threads, Birthday threads, etc], BUT, as far as I know, he has not deleted any of them. It seems that everyone else here is happy with the way this site is run, Shambles-can i suggest we let this thread die, and if you still have concerns about the cencorship policy here that you PM Joe or Max? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Dec 03 - 04:39 AM Anyway if the IP address for the deleted posts was the same as Khatt's, and there are several people in her large office who post to the Cat, are we any nearer finding the real culprit? Or has all the general arguing and semantics given him/her a chance to diappear?? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 20 Dec 03 - 03:24 AM John this was your original complaint/request. Why are my threads been deleted We may accept that you are now happy - however, it would be fair to say that you did not appear to be at the time. But perhaps you could provide an answer to what is preventing threads from dislexic, or other posters, that may not have quite the expected command of written English, from being deleted simply because a Witchfinder General may not be able to 'figure it out'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:06 PM I suppose you're right, Sorcha. I do enjoy the verbal jousting, but I suppose Shambles is serious about what he says and doesn't see the silliness of all this. I quit. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:06 PM Joe has been entrusted with the amount of authority needed to keep things moving smoothly, and the right to exercise his judgement for the common good. It should be obvious that he believes he is pursuing the common good. I for one see no occasion to disagree. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Sorcha Date: 19 Dec 03 - 09:42 PM Oh, stop it, both of you. You both know better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Dec 03 - 09:40 PM Actually, I think Shambles enjoys the verbal gymnastics, too. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Onlooker Date: 19 Dec 03 - 09:38 PM Sharp intake of breath.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Dec 03 - 09:29 PM Actually, Shambles knows very little about folk music... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 Dec 03 - 09:26 PM Surely Shambles is not a relative of "Elsie, The Folk Police Woman"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 19 Dec 03 - 09:21 PM Mr Shambles, why the hell would you want your duplicate postings to remain here???? My post WAS uninteligable, [it was a music thread, but it was a drunken ramble, and did not make sense! BTW my drunken ramble was not deleted by JOe, so don't blame him for that!, it was someone else, I was sent a copy of the deleted post via PM, invited to tidy it up, when i sobered up, and submit it again. No problem. PS. I was also PM'D a list of similar threads to the drunken thread that I started, which were already on the forum, but I was too drunk to find! I don't see this as cencorship, just tidying up, ie sweeping litter away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 19 Dec 03 - 08:38 PM Joe I don't want to see you over barrel - it is where you keep placing yourself with these attempted justifications. I would like to see you back contributing to our forum, where we could argue or agree on equal terms once again. I truly never doubt your good intentions. But........ Where do the deletions of my duplicate postings appear in your reasons 1 and 2? Where does John's so-called unintelligible thread appear in your reasons 1 and 2? They are not covered by these examples are they? What 'trouble' can these two non-abusive examples really bring to this community that you must delete, edit, move or make personal value judgements on our contributions to decide their suitability to appear on our forum? Is this kind of heavy-handed action taken against honest contributions and being justified by references to protecting us from things like racist attacks - not creating even worse trouble and showing little respect for the whole concept of our forum? Is it really honest to attempt to make these claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 19 Dec 03 - 08:05 PM I was not going to say more, but since it is my post you are answering, I will say only: we must agree to disagree, it seems. You have made your point, but, as I read the comments, the general sentiment leaves you a vocal minority. I am aware that you feel strongly about this, much as you did with the PELS issue...but strong opinions do not mean it should be constantly argued. (I have some opinions on 'definitions of "folk" for relevance in posting here, but the management chooses not to interfere with what I think is 'off topic', so I confine myself to low-key philosophical debate occasionally.) I would hope, that with both management and general opinion disagreeing with you, you might ease off on the complaints...and especially on the use of labels like "WitchFinder"! That sort of thing serves more to fan flames rather than change minds. If complaints are limited to specific items, rather than sweeping condemnations of policy, they will likely be treated with more concern. I really can't think of any more to say...*shrug*...you have to decide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Dec 03 - 07:11 PM So, Shambles, I guess you have me over a barrel. For me to defend my actions, I'd have to post the very messages I deleted. I'm not going to do that. We delete messages for two reasons:
You question why our posting guidelines have increased over the years, and I guess I'd say we didn't anticipate the problems we'd have, and we didn't want to post a list of suggestions for the troublemakers. Generally, I think our guidelines and our editing work pretty well. I don't think we're too strong in our editing, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Whatever the case, I certainly don't think our editing fits the dramatic descriptions you've given. From the picture you paint, one would think we were the Holy Inquisition, or something. I think the environment at Mudcat is what I'd call "controlled anarchy." We leave most things alone, but have to help things along here and there. If you find that's too restrictive, feel free to go to rec.music.folk. We certainly wouldn't want you to waste your time here if you feel uncomfortable. We don't want you to be unhappy. -Joe Offer, Witchfinder General?-
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:00 PM -there is always a need for SOME oversight when there are abusive postings and repetitive incoherent postings. Do you really disagree with this basic idea? Yes………Because this is our forum…. Should our forum not give a true reflection of what we contribute to it? Is it of any real value, if our forum does not give a true reflection of what we contribute to it, both the highs and the lows? Is it really too difficult for us to encourage each other to post respectfully by example and to just ignore all posts that do not show this respect? We might not always like what we see when we look into a mirror but is it really wise to attempt to deny that evidence? If you see in the mirror that your zipper is undone, you can then adjust your appearance and practically, this may have prevented you going out and being arrested. Just asking someone to clean (or dirty) the mirror for you is never going to enable this protection or ever reflect back an image of Tom Cruise. "Awash" is not the issue.....any abusive postings are too many. Would you TRULY want to see EVERY post, no matter how abusive or hateful, remain here? I would always want the world (and our forum) to reflect the very best of all of us but I am not deluding myself into believing that because I don't actually see the worst of us all – that the worst does not exist. Today it is generally thought sensible - if not a very pleasant task - to warn your children of the dangers that some adults and some situations can present to them. I can't say that I would WANT to see every abusive posting but it does not necessarily follow that I (or anyone else) would see every abusive posting even if they were all to remain on the forum. Unless of course we went out of our way to look for them amongst the BS, just in order to inform The Witchfinder General on the Help forum. It would appear that currently a few people do spend their time doing just this and they are not discouraged by being asked if they can't find something better to do with their time, or asked to mind their own business. But everything has its price. If the price of The Witchfinder General removing "any abusive postings" is the arbitrary removal from our forum of ANY CONTRIBUTION - if and when they see fit – for me it is far too high a price. For if "awash" is not the issue then "minimal" censorship is not the issue either. Even one non-abusive post deleted by The Witchfinder General or edited without the poster's permission is one too many – especially if that one and only posting happens to be yours. But whatever our wishes may be – is it not a proven and demonstrable fact that the current approach simply has not prevented - and cannot prevent abusive postings? However, the witch-hunt to seek them out will divide us, shape and deprive our forum of contributions that are not abusive – if and when The Witchfinder General decides. But shouldn't our forum be about encouraging all our contributions? Should it (even in part) be about getting other people's contributions deleted or edited, or of making or asking for value judgements to be made upon other people's contributions? Ewan MaColl There's no Ogres, Wicked Witches Only greedy sons of bitches…… |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: s&r Date: 19 Dec 03 - 05:06 AM Guest postings to me are one of the strengths of mudcat. The guest Marcus (above) who had his question delightfully and promptly answered is a case in point. I started as a guest, and found the Forum and the Database invaluable: some of the threads from members and guests were of less value, but I ignored them; you don't have to respond. Some of the threads are full of 'in' jokes from subsets of the community. That's OK, I have my own groups too. Abuse and vituperation are not only found from guests, nor even from UK mudcatters. Too much of a response to this by way of deletion of posts or rejection of guests could lead to throwing the baby out with the bath water leaving a much less vibrant and interesting forum. My friends know me; I am reluctant to post too many personal details on the web, just as my phone # is ex-directory since my work is involved with offenders and we are advised to be 'discreet'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM GUEST: free speech portal, It's one helluva leap from anything I wrote above to eugenics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: artbrooks Date: 18 Dec 03 - 06:22 PM Judging by the level of incoherency and the unjustified namecalling, perhaps Mr. Shambles is running for President on the Republican ticket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Somebody else Date: 18 Dec 03 - 06:02 PM "We think it's the only way to keep this a growing, vibrant community instead of an inbred group of people drowning in their own smalltalk and inside jokes and bickering." Priceless, Joe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Dec 03 - 05:39 PM Jeri, BillD, GUEST, Alright who did it? Have you hidden Shambles' Qualude again? Tut, tut, tut! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 03 - 03:35 PM Bill I think the 'staw man' argument is the basis of all of this. A vision of a forum under siege is created or prolonged to enable the only possible means of combating and uniting us all against these outside evils. In truth this only makes the problem permanent and insoluable and the Witchfinder General's position indispensible. For the truth or nature of this terrible threat is never defined, quantified or established and anyone who questions either the size or true nature of the threat and the only proposed solution must - of course be part of this terrible outside threat. All I am asking is that the problem is quantified, the suitability of the only suggested solution be evaluated and possible alternatives are seriously examined. To enable all the talents, imagination, skills, invention and humour of all of our contributors to be free from the need to conform to one individual's personal concept of what our forum should be. This is not an attack - personal or otherwise. I am not against anything - I am very much for something very special which is in danger of becoming even less than ordinary........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 18 Dec 03 - 12:04 PM well,Jeri & I crossed postings, and she made several of my points while I was typing...'nuff said... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:48 AM "On the one hand we are told that the level is such that Max alone cannot deal with it. On the other hand we have Joe claiming that this action and censorship is minimal. Both of these cannot be so." you quoted me, and then proceeded to mis-read or misinterpret what you quoted. I did not say the 'level' of abuse had increased; I said the "forum grew" beyond what one person could easily deal with. Abuse is only PART (and relatively, a smallish part) of the tasks of the editorial team, who spend much more time correcting errors and combining threads and just answering questions and being helpful. " the need for an omnipotent Witchfinder General – if ever there was such a need – is gone. "...apart from the cutesy title, there is always a need for SOME oversight when there are abusive postings and repetitive incoherent postings. Do you really disagree with this basic idea? "...painting a picture of a forum awash with abusive postings.." and THIS is an example of a "straw man" argument, in which you attack, exaggerate or ridicule something which was never claimed. "Awash" is not the issue.....any abusive postings are too many. Would you TRULY want to see EVERY post, no matter how abusive or hateful, remain here? In your last paragraph, Shambles, you make a VERY good point about respecting each other's posts, but then weaken it by claiming that we are "encouraged to complain"...(little remarks about " 'snitchers' corner" as a reference to the 'help forum' sure don't seem to ME to be conducive to friendly, peaceful coexistence) You keep referring to Max, and how HE should deal with all this. Maybe...but delegation of responsibilities IS how he has chosen to deal with it, for the most part. If I could locate them, I remember several occasions on which Max has explained his decisions and noted his confidence in Joe, Jeff and the other editors. He also said not TOO long ago, that he would try to answer direct PMs...have you tried getting a final, definitive, personal answer from Max about your ongoing concerns? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jeri Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:46 AM "We have conflicting positions given about who is appointed to do what and when but more importantly about what the actual level of abusive posting and censorship really is. On the one hand we are told that the level is such that Max alone cannot deal with it." No. Bill said "when the forum grew past what Max could deal with personally" and you ASSUMED that meant the trolling/flaming, etc. Consider that most of what we do is fix stuff and answer questions. I don't get generally involved in these discussions because it seems obvious you're trying to be seen as leader in a crusade against an 'enemy' you seem to be working too hard to create. I also believe that most people here are smart enough to notice you twisting words and attempting to make Joe look like the Evil Overlord. Yeesh! You also said (way up there) "Amos you still have not come up with any ideas or alternatives..." For crying out loud, YOU'RE the one who's only complaining - YOU come up with the 'ideas or alternatives'. If you weren't so doggedly going after Joe at every opportunity, you might have the time to think of something constructive instead of simply trolling him and demanding others jump through your hoops. In a pissing contest, the most important thing is ego, and that's what this feels like to me. It's obviously not outside your personal moral code to fabricate excuses to troll Joe. Shambles, you've pushed past the ridiculous, and the more you actively try to drum up a constituency by twisting things, making things up and taking enormous leaps of illogic, the fewer people will listen to ANYthing you have to say. As to Joe, I may disagree with him at times, but he sticks to his own sense of right and wrong, is consistant, and does his damndest to be fair. I certainly can't think of anyone else who I might trust to do a better job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 03 - 10:14 AM When the forum grew past what Max could deal with personally, he decided to trust several others with varying degrees of responsibility. We have conflicting positions given about who is appointed to do what and when but more importantly about what the actual level of abusive posting and censorship really is. On the one hand we are told that the level is such that Max alone cannot deal with it. On the other hand we have Joe claiming that this action and censorship is minimal. Both of these cannot be so. It is either a large problem or it is a small problem. If it is not you who has their posts deleted or are wrongly accused – you may always consider it to be a small problem. If you are the unfortunate one – it can be a rather a larger problem. We have the common if misguided belief expressed by John that. The rule here, and as far as I know, it is the only rule, is that you can say anything you like, about anything you like, but you should not personally attack or insult another member, I can't see ny problem with that rule. I say misguided as John recently had his posts deleted not because they were abusive but that Joe considered them to be incoherent. Now if the above was the ONLY hard and fast rule set and enforced by Joe (who thinks it OK to call me an idiot in this thread) – it would still require someone to make value judgements as to when or if the 'rule' was transgressed. On these rare occasions it should not really present Max, as the owner of the site, with too much of a task. But a scan of Joe's FAQ will show that it is far from the only hard and fast 'rule'. A look at past postings on the Help forum will also demonstrate that posts and entire threads are moved, deleted and justified for many reasons other than personal attacks. The list of our postings that Joe will delete from our forum if and when he sees fit is already long and shows all the signs of becoming even longer. For example, where was the personal abuse or danger presented by my duplicate postings that required Joe to delete them? There are many such examples if you care to look in the help forum (or 'snitchers' corner). The BS split As a response to years of whinging about what other people should or should not be allowed to place on our forum - from a vocal few - the BS division was produced. In reality, this has done away with the need all this whinging and for censorship, deletions and for so many value judgements to be made, resulting from this whinging. The very few value judgements that may still remain to be taken can easily and non-controversially can be taken by our creator – Max who is the site owner and deserves all the credit for the creation of the forum. Although one can see why he would not wish to be involved in such tittle-tattle. If the thread is not music related it will appear in the BS section or can later be moved there if is really thought to be worth the effort. So anyone looking through BS threads should reasonably expect to be confronted with BS. Should anyone then choose to open these and are then offended by what they read there – surely the fault is largely if not entirely down to them? If we accept the above and are prepared to be a little tolerant of each other – the need for an omnipotent Witchfinder General – if ever there was such a need – is gone. If there is no one telling you what is not allowed - for you to struggle against – perhaps for some of our guests, it will not be as much fun to try and peace will eventually be allowed to settle at last upon the Mudcat forum……………...? But if you liked being Witchfinder General (or like Bill D you liked to lick their boots) - you may have a vested interest in painting a picture of a forum awash with abusive postings that we needed protection from and peace would not really be a desirable objective? As the present system cannot produce a satisfactory solution for all of us, an alternative where we are encouraged to respect each other's postings rather than currently where we are being encouraged to complain about, censor and judge them, must at least be worth a try? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 03 - 09:13 AM Ah well, some people get it and some people don't. So what else is new. "I find it's hard It's hard to find Oh well, whatever, Nevermind." -Kurt Cobain (Jeri - nice to know the thoughts that rattle around in my head sometimes ring true in someone else's brain as well- Thanks!!) Now back to our program - which is already in progress.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Prince Date: 18 Dec 03 - 08:37 AM I like guest posts coz i can't spell my squiggle and i can use my old name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Peterr Date: 18 Dec 03 - 07:49 AM Children children...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Catherine Jayne Date: 18 Dec 03 - 03:33 AM I wish I had never started this thread and just handled it through PM. Joe is a good guy and does a Grand job here on the 'cat. Without him and Max and Pene and the other clones there wouldn't be a Mudcat. Shambles I am very disppointed in you, you are only one step better than the guests we complain about. You are attacking Joe which I feel is out of order even though you post as yourself. Joe has been to stay at my house on his trip to the UK and I know the PM he sent me was not personal. I have dropped the subject so please why don't you and just get over it. Lets get back to Music! Khatt |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:20 AM Shambles uses the phrase 'our forum' a lot and I suspect that he deliberately chooses those words. However, and I am not a particularly regular poster, I was under the impression that this wasn't a co-operatively owned forum, but a sort of gift - not a complete gift, but something one had to look after, show that one knew how to look after or the owner would step in and take over - seems reasonable to me...(waffling now, but I know what I mean...) The forum is (or was) a very fine gift. Max expressed the attitude of creating a garden for us to go play in. To me he always seemed honestly baffled that we couldn't just go and do that. He expected contributors to the forum to sort out the problems for themselves but was always being requested to step in and stop this or that terrible thing from happening or to prevent this or that poster from posting. All of the things that have been undertaken to protect us have and are being done by fine people and for the very best of reasons. I am simply asking folk to take an objective view of where the forum is now and question if it really has to be this way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:42 PM No GUEST posts? It would mean the end of Twillingsgate as we know it! We are blessed with many excellent writers on this forum and some of the most creative writing has been done anonymously by members who have created alter egos for themselves. I would hate to see the "GUEST problem" reach a point where Penelope Rutledge, freds or The Galactic Overlord can no longer share their wisdom with those of us deranged enough to listen to it. Bruce (Who has posted anonymously numerous times for creative reasons, but never for any other. If I wanna be nasty I sign my name to it. And my real name and email address are on my profile page.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: artbrooks Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:41 PM Well said, JOhn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:38 PM I was going to stay out of this one, but.. Quote [The Shambles} "It is pretty obvious that Joe Offer does not have anything better to do than eagerly respond to them" That;s bullshit! I have personally requested that Joe delete certain offensive postings against members here, and make no apology for that! I won't ssay who, or waht the postings was about, as that would defete the object of Joe deleting them, but lets say [for example ] that some idiot posted that The shambles is a thief, or a rapist etc, or some other made up shit, would you object if Joe deleted it? The rule here, and as far as I know, it is the only rule, is that you can say anything you like, about anything you like, but you should not personally attack or insult another member, I can't see ny problem with that rule. Joe has stated here, and it says somewere in the FAQ, if you see anything offensive here, PM JOe Offer, and he will try to sort it out. I have met Joe a few times, I have no need to stick up for him, he can do that himself! But, The Shambles-I think you are been unfair to Joe I have spoken to him , both in person, and via internet mesages, and I reckon, if i got the same amount of hassle and moans, that are directed at him, I would just give up, and think how much of a mess this place would be without him! we should all bear in mind, that this is a free site, and all the work Joe does here is voluntry. As far s the original mesage of this thread goes, I can quite understand Catsphiddle been annoyed, I was acused a while ago of posting as somebody else [I honestly can't remember who, but i think it was dorrie] I said it was not me, [I have never posted as anything over than John from Hull], the reply was "sorry, your ISP numbers are similar" i said, "no worries, we're in the same city, using the same ISP, confusion understood, end of story" Lets all get back to normal, if we keep arguing, Max might say bollox to the lot of you, and switch it off! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:09 PM aww, shucks.... (maybe I'll quit boot licking and just kiss Joe's ***...no..that won't do, he has limits!..maybe just fawn attentively when he sings a camp song!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: curmudgeon Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:01 PM Huzzah !!! for Bill D -- Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:00 PM Hey, Bill, I haven't polished my boots since I left the Army in 1973. I live out in farming country, so I'll let you imagine what might be on those boots. Keep licking.... -Joe- |