BS: Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:39 PM

The time and money saved from avoiding bitter litigation allows the censorship here to pay for itself.

Not to mention forgoing years in prison for the spiteful undesirables such as XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXX XXXXXX who post links to child porn .

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:06 PM

OK, I am glad.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:59 PM

Be glad I'm not one of the mods here, or there'd be a HELL of a lot MORE 'censorship'

But ya... if ya don't like it, lump it!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: SINSULL
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:47 PM

jOhn from Hull is experiencing technical difficulties and has not been blocked. See Joe Offer's post on the JfromH thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:08 AM

Yes Shambles, whatever you say Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:17 AM

Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others.

But that would not be the Mudcat, would it?

No and it would not be the real world either. Many of us would probably agree with your aims but it is a knee-jerk' - 'wish list' if an understandable one.

Achieving any of it - is not done by a easily stated wish for MORE censorship. As in practical terms this means placing your trust in someone elses judgement to remove just the things YOU don't want and leave the things YOU do.

That is what I mean by censorship just creating and adding to the problems.

Unless you give-up and go elsewhere - there is no easy short-cut to you making the choices on the forum. To you deciding what to open. To you deciding what to ignore or what to respond to. Inviting censorship to do this for you - just means that you are denied more and more of these choices. And there WILL be more censorship you will find you may not agree with - as it is like flood-water - you can say when the level is plenty high enough for your liking - but the water tends to keep-on rising anyway.

The answer to all this is simple and many posters simply get on and do it. Perhaps more posters (and our volunteers) can be encouraged to follow the fine example that these posters are currently setting.

You ignore what is not to your taste. You don't ever respond (especially in kind) to obvious provocation and you do not ever encourage others to do this. There is nothing funny in doing this - the idea that there is any humour in this - probably causes of most of the forum's problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:36 AM

and where is JOhn from Hull? silence for some time now as he has been blocked. JOhn we miss you.

---

No, he hasn't been blocked.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:07 AM

Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others.

But that would not be the Mudcat, would it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:40 AM

Let us look in detail at the recent and favoured methods of censorship we are currently expected support and examine who these measures actually affect the most.

The imposed deleting of entire threads throws out all the positive contributions made in the thread, along with the bathwater and prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed closure of entire threads prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed deletion of the offending posts only - is slightly less counter-productive but for some reason, seems to be less favoured.

It is accepted that these methods are reactive and none of them - actually prevents the offending posts from first appearing.

Members who are thought to have offended - can be contacted by personal messages and threatened with having all of their future posts blocked. Any subsequently blocking will prevent any future posts thought to be offending from this member - but will also prevent any positive ones from them.

Such action against 'guests' - may be possibly but more difficult.   

Who is entrusted to impose this censorship?

Well we are told Max has entrusted Joe and Jeff and the number and identity of the rest of our volunteer censors are intentionally witheld.

Do any of these counter-productive measure prevent anything? Or could it be that in practice they acually make things worse?

None of us may like seeing the offending posts here - but that does not mean that we have to support the only answer proposed - especially as this cannot prevent the ofending posts from appearing.

Are there alternatives to this censorship?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Billy Suggers
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:42 AM

Well I think this place is just GREAT - and Joe & co do a hero's job. There are things that don't fit in a folk - oriented place like this & are better fulminated about elsewhere - and they are rare indeed.

What the admins do here is not so much censorship as an appplication of common sense & common decency. And THATS what makes a community a community. Try to regulate it (or totally de-regulate it, which is the same thing if you think about it) and the whole damn thing fails. Leave it to taste & common sense and it works. I'm all for benign dictatorship!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:20 AM

100!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:19 AM

99...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:12 AM

Perhaps it is a case of not liking people as much as liking to censor them?

Actually being in favour of any form of censorship is a rather strange concept. The generaly feeling (outside of this forum) is that imposed censorship action may sometimes be thought necessary - but not ever thought welcome.

For people generally supporting what they think is an acceptable level of censorship mainly the censoring of everybody else and not them) do not seem to recognise the fact that once imposed - the level of censorship only ever increases.

When the greatest supporters of censorship - are those who are priviliged to impose it - you may question if they have any real will to actually solve the problem. For if the problem is solved - there will be no need to have anyone to censor and they will not be in a 'job' that they obviously like.

I don't see imposed censorship as a solution - but as creating another problem - is not the same as not being concerned about the actual problem. Although that is the 'spin' that supporters of censorship here will use - to try and ensure that they can carrying on doing just as they wish.

It is not whether you like censorship - like others to be censored -like to be censored yourself - or if you like censoring others - but if these measures actually work?

Are there less counter-productive measures that may work better?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:42 AM

Yeah, the trouble is, I like most of the people I censor...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:29 AM

If there was any serious censorship here, do you think this thread would continue to exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:32 AM

Well, we have played cat-and-mouse at times, haven't we, Garg?
But thanks for the compliment, Mike. We try to keep a balance and do our best not to be heavy-handed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:04 PM

The MC,,,, is free enterprize,,,, at its best.

IF... you believe you.... can do Max - one better - go to it and best wishes with the project.

For myself - this is the most libertarian playfield imagainable - all of my censorings have fallen outside the MC's and the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of acceptable community morals.

Go off and make your own playground - I like the sand in my diapers here - just fine.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:44 PM

Do you know? I think I have but I stand by my beliefs and suggest that the censorship on the "Cat" is about what it should be....and I don't care what anyone says to the contrary...You are doing a great job lads....and I don't see myself as a thread creep or anything like.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:32 PM

tsk, georgiansilver...now you've set him off again...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77678&messages=39

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77622&messages=34

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM

ROFLOL...what on earth was my intention John?
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:30 PM

Oh Mike that's like a red rag to a bull for some of our well balanced contributors. You can tell they're well balanced, they have a chip on both shoulders. :~)
Giok

Subject: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:27 PM

PLEASE leave the censorship on the "Cat" to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....Some of you are here just to cause trouble of one sort or another...O.K but leave the censors to do what they do best....and they do it better than you would O.K??????? Best wishes, Mike.