BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

It is the way it is.

1) Some posts get deleted. Live with it.

2) The place is a cast-iron sonuvabitch to access at various times because something is wrong and no one knows what.

3) I really wish I could give a shit anymore, but I don't. The fucking silence is deafening.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:29 PM

Brucie,

1) I am living with it, thank you
2) Agreed
3) Yes, 52-messages-in-a-day's worth of silence...

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:49 PM

"I did say that these rules are not for Mudcat"
You did, and I missed that... sorry...

"for an ideal forum run ideally"
Then it's never even to BE real, so discussion is pointless...

Like all other forms of omphaloskepsis

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:51 PM

I guess I'm bothered by the whole idea of establishing a set of rules for the administration of Mudcat. It's the same legalistic philosophy that is pervasive in most the posts from Shambles. In general, we believe that the intelligence and good will of our participants will keep things pleasant and peaceful here. When things get out of hand, Max and Jeff and I use a variety of tactics to bring things under control, including the occasional use of volunteers Max has chosen because he thinks they are people with good judgment. We operate under the rules of common sense.

Some people don't believe in conmmon sense, and they believe that every act will go astray unless it is governed exactly and specifically by law. They believe that law is always superior to intellect and judgment. We've never operated that way here. I know it makes the legalists very uncomfortable, but that's the way we do things.

So, Mudcat is an experiment in operating things under the flexible principles of judgment, intelligence, trust, and good will. I suppose it would be nice to have an experiment in legalism, operating all things under the impartiality of law. But you really can't have both at the same site.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:51 PM

Xander,

My ststement was general and not at all addressed to you. And the messages per day are my business, not yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:53 PM

"the intelligence and good will of our participants will keep things pleasant and peaceful"

HA!hahahahahahaha

That's funny Joe...

" rules of common sense"
It's been my experience, not just here, but all over, that such a thing is neither very common, nor does it have much sense...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:01 PM

If one thinks twice before posting, there is no need to apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:03 PM

I'd be happy to think twice, if I saw much evidence that anyone was thinking ONCE!

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:08 PM

Of course, Clinton. You always know best.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:10 PM

Like I said above Joe, Max has always wanted a light touch. And it's for that reason that I am constantly amazed that these discussions go on around here. Thatset of rules I posted above is very common around the net and they work. But here we are with a light touch approach and we have folks griping and complaining.

I think some folks would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:12 PM

Glad yer starting to grok that Joe!

:-P

Heh

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:19 PM

"..So, Mudcat is an experiment in operating things under the flexible principles of judgment, intelligence, trust, and good will."

and like all experiments, the controls must constantly be re-evaluated....total freedom is a fine idea until it gets abused, and then ....well, you put locks on your doors, and hire cops, and have a juducial system of some sort....and then you worry about honest locksmiths, complain about the police force, and debate the rules for appointing judges.

What this place is, is not a 'democracy', but a sort of experiment in "benevolent dictatorship"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:21 PM

48rt5 697 q43 pw0qwZ

translation of above is a simple substitution code based on the keyboard

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM

Thought the banner ad at the bottom of the page currently might be of interest Here it is


Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:46 PM

Nice one Stu!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:57 PM

Hi Xander

I don't mean to be combatative, but are you a 9 year old little girl?

anyone know what's for dinner tonight?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:06 PM

Actually, by and large the light touch has worked incredibly well over 98% of my experience here. The other 2 % is the extremist cases. By far the majority of transactions have been very much self-regulating as Joe describes it. I only know of three or four out of thousands, really, who were so obstreperous and cantankerous and antagonistic that they ruined the atmosphere for others to the point the admins had to step in.

People are for the most part interested in continuing to communicate and will manage themselves accordingly. That's in general. Everyone has a few exceptional moments, and every group has a couple of chronic exceptions. For the rest the occasional bumps are easily gotten through.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

What Spaw said in his last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:10 PM

Think Joe has his running shoes on?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM

Martin,
no, I am not a 9 year old little girl (or big girl for that matter). Should I be?

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:27 PM

No, MG, I don't think Joe needs running shoes, but, perhaps, you might. I think you don't even have the brains of a nine year old girl. She would get the point. And you should know by now, your balls are for dinner tonight, even though some of us are trying to save them, against our better judgement. Could you be any more arrogant?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:29 PM

Just asking?

What do you think is an "overtly racist remark."

Are Jews a race?

Are Moslems?

How about homosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:56 PM

As for Mr. Shambles, you will note that we allow him to say exactly what he wants to say - over and over again, ad nauseam. That doesn't mean that we have to bow down and thank him every time he heaps abuse on us.

The idea of Joe or 'we' stating what 'they' will allow - on part of the site set aside by Max for invited contributions - is new to this long-term poster. Had that ever been the case when I started - I and many others would have never contributed in the first place.

Perhaps Joe you can provide us with some of the evidence of this "abuse" I heap on you? The moral of our volunteers should be 'never let the truth spoil a good character assassination'. If this current 'system' was anyway near what its practitioners and their supporters claimed for it – would there really be any need for them to use such tactics to defend it and oppose even the slightest suggested change?

The abusive personal attacks that 'you' indulge in from your privileged position and incite others to make upon me and the example set by this - can easily be evidenced. It can be easily evidenced that my 'crime' is simply to hold and express an opinion on a public discussion forum.

Perhaps rather than being subject to libel like this - I should be given some credit for NEVER responding in kind to stuff like this (there is more).

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM
I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen.
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation.
Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
-Joe Offer-

The facts are ALL on the forum and can easily be refreshed. This will show posters if any trust is misplaced?

Censorship on Mudcat

As For Catspaw's posted Rules.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws.

A look at the thread I linked to will show that nearly all of Catspaw's post there will break these rules..........So bring it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:59 PM

Gawd, none of you will ever know how much I wish I still did drugs. Shambles, if yer taking drugs, stop. If you aren't, start. PLEEZE.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:00 PM

I spoke too soon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:05 PM

Shambles, I will fuckin' marry you and bear your children if you will STOP.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:05 PM

I tried to open that thread. It does not exist. Where can I link in? Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: number 6
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:09 PM

* yawn* ... I should really get back to the real world and do something with my life.

Maybe go to the Mall and participate in a marketing poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:18 PM

Shambles, that's a serious proposal. Really. You need a life away from censorship. Let me be the one to take you away from all this.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:22 PM

Gnu - Do you mean this one?

Pesonal attack thread please delete?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:24 PM

Hell hath no fury like a man scorned.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:48 PM

Thanks Shambles. I scanned a few posts briefly. I tried to add it to my Tracers but couldn't. I copied the link and will read it when I get a chance.

I must say that I haven't had the time to review all of these threads dealing with this topic. Actually, nor have I had the inclination... I have a few other things that take up my time, so to speak. Having said that, I have given my opinion about the fact that it is a forum provided by a private individual whose focus for this site is the preservation and promotion of blues and folk.

I simply mirror what others have more eloquently said when I say, "Play nice. Mind your manners (but, be yourself - that's what makes it fun). And, don't take shit from anyone." My little, old, gray haired mother taught me that last one.

My proposal would reflect what I believe Max's is... what the Café is really all about, in the end... self-censorship.

Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM

Heh! Boy, I can hardly wait for Spaw's next offensive post. With any luck it will be abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, AND sexually-oriented...all at the same time! He is soooo awful. He oughta be put under some sort of restraining order, I think. 20 years solitary at the NYCFTTS would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:25 PM

Bring on your Shatner wannabes Hawkster. Plenty of room for them at the NYCFTTS....and a place there as well for a broke-dick mamalucca like yourself!!!

Actually....and this for Shambles as well......I've been hanging out over at the Speed Boards for about a year and a half with just shy of 4000 posts and I've only been zapped about 12 or 15 times and almost all of those were as a part of some thread that got zapped because some others went too "far afield."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:37 PM

Well, all broke-dick mamaluccas eventually need a safe port in a storm, right? It's comforting to know that the NYCFTTS is out there, serving as a final refuge for us anal-retentive types who can't keep our mouths shut or our fingers off the keyboard....we who simply MUST share our every thought with hundreds of people we'll probably never meet. By golly, I'm about ready to bust into tears here, just thinking about how a room has been reserved for ME at the NYCFTTS for when I finally lapse into total, absolute, driveling inanity and chuckle-headed uselessness. Yesirree. Any time now...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:50 PM

My proposal would reflect what I believe Max's is... what the Café is really all about, in the end... self-censorship.

I agree. But you will see many posts that will not agree. For some of the worst culprits maintain this self-censorship is just too difficult for them to manage - even when so many are already doing this and by doing so - providing the space for them to indulge. themselves.

But if this example is not first set, practiced and encouraged by those few here who would feel qualified to judge the rest of us - it is not going to happen is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:51 PM

You'll love Man.......Great view and a corner room to boot!!! The rooms on either side are Shatner to the east and Neil himself to the north. Drool cups are in the hallway........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:54 PM

Wow. Even better than I had dreamed! I hope I get to see Neil playing his electric guitar now and then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:03 PM

Did you catch Neil playing with the Pretenders on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction broadcast ? He LOOKED like he was awake.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:59 PM

Keep it up Shambles.

Censorship here is at an all time high.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:29 PM

Amos, have a look at the members' names. You'll see LOTS of people who used to post really great MUSIC threads and some BS who are no longer seen around here. Sure, they may still read, but they do not share anymore and it is Mudcat's loss, bigtime. Whether it is a small percentage you've seen cause problems or not, it's been enough to run off a great many of the best of what Mudcat was and still could be.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:44 PM

and from a post earlier in this particluar thread:

Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

When you post to a privately owned website (which the MudCat Cafe is)

"You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit" (edited)

Just as when you are on private property the owner has the right to ask you to leave - and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

makes sense to me..

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:35 AM

So, the wedding's off, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:39 AM

Xander writes:
> Everyone OK with this?
> I repeat, this is in no way intended as a set of rules for Max
> or anyone to follow; if they happen to follow it, it is just
> coincidence and common sense. It's just a "paper exercise" for us > to agree how an ideal forum might be moderated - ideally.

No, I'm not ok with this. It's Max's site and he gets to say what goes on and I'm ok with that. I don't see why it's any more common sense than what already happens, and yes, I have read the previous posts, threads and arguments about this so there's no need to repeat them for my benefit. Don't forget, your ideal is not everybody's ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:17 AM

So - one person's dream is another one's nightmare. Our ideals do not match. Not surprising really, and I suppose in that diversity lies part of the beauty of this world. Just as long as we allow each other the right to have our different dreams and different ideals. A little bit of tolerance goes a long way.

Yet time and again, I tried to focus this thread on a conversation about ways for a forum to govern itself, only for the thread to degenerate into a mix of mild abuse, not-invented-here kind of mistrust, peppered with liberal doses of posses and horse manure. Obviously, something around this subject gets people's goats. What is it? In the end, all I was trying to do is reconcile some members of this forum whose ideas on the subject were closer (I thought) than they themselves appeared to believe.

I wonder - I really do wonder: Would the same vehemence and effort have been expended if I had started a thread on, say, the merits of playing "Jimmy crack corn" in the key of F-horrible or B-awful? Something tells me that they wouldn't; talking about censorship is "sexier", it seems.

As for my dream, as this is a music site (as I am reminded)I''l just quote a refrain I once heard (as close as I can remember it):
"I will not give up on my dream
And if I fail I'll keep on trying
My head I will not bend in crying
Against the current I will swim
I will not give up on my dream."


Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:21 AM

...and before someone says "If it aint broke, don't fix it": Martin Gibson and Shambles, to name but two, claim different.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:47 AM

Just as when you are on private property the owner has the right to ask you to leave - and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves. makes sense to me..

Not sure if many would argue that. However, if the owner issues an open invitation to the public - with no dress codes - do fellow guests have the right (half-way through the evening) to introduce a dress code of their own and judge who comes and goes?

Max did not impose rules or decide on matters of his personal taste and that is why so many good, strange and creative people came to the party and shaped the forum the fine place it just about remains - by their contributions.

Reserving the right of the owner to ask you to leave is not the same as fellow posters NOW imposing their personal taste as a matter of routine and shaping our forum by what is closed, deleted or imposed without a poster's knowledge or permission.

This shaping is done under the cover of protecting us all from abusive personal attacks - whilst our volunteers set the example of indulging themselves in abusive personal attacks - responding in kind to them and inciting others to do this whilst finding it funny. All this has no effect on preventing abusive personal attacks from being posted.

It could be argued that defending such obvious hypocrisy - actually encourages such things. While the forum that Max opened for the ALL public - is stolen from - them by a few who refuse to consider even the smallest change suggested by the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:54 AM

Max's forum was here before some of these insulting posters and will probably still be here when they grow tired and leave.

It still remains Max's forum and as far as I am concerned, what he says, goes. He and his helpers have tried their best to keep this a pleasant place for all, as it evolves in its own way, but there appear to be some who entered freely of their own will, who want to force it into their image. Mudcat is not your forum. If you want a forum where anti social behaviour is quashed, censorship is not allowed and all are free to speak their minds, then go start it... but I think you'll find you're looking for an oxymoron.

All things evolve, but they don't always have to evolve downwards.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:57 AM

Roger,

assuming for a moment that you are right about the "shaping of the forum" by some members, what would the motive be for such an action? Because without a motive, the rest of the conspiracy theory falls apart. So - who benefits?

As for the amusement of some members: I think it's down to the fact that they believe such an exercise to be both unnecessary and nit-picking (in the context of there being so many more important thread subjects in this forum). That's all, nothing more sinister than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:07 AM

100! Beat you, Ted.

Unless I'm censored...

:D