 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:08 AM Fools rush in! G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:44 AM A bunch of us got together and killed Max years ago so we could takeover the Mudcat and impose a sinister dress code. I swear Sham, does the word paranoia have any meaning to you? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:18 AM ....yeah, but we made a really big mistake when we chose Spaw to be our arbiter of fashion... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Paco Rabanne Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:28 AM Oh well held Dave the gnome. I spotted this thread at 98posts, but didn't bother trying for the 100th as I get deletd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavgeris Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:33 AM Fools - THIS will be post 100, after my mates in the inner circle delete 5 previous posts. Any posts will do, no justification needed. Spaw, can I join the posse with my donkey? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Alba Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:33 AM Spaw is and will remain our Fashion Guru Joe. His offbeat, dare I say quirky, talent with accessories is truly magical. I am looking forward to the launch of his Spring Collection...any day now Spaw am I right? Best Wishes Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:55 AM El G, feel free to ride your donkey. He'll feel right at home as there is no shortage of jackasses around here. As for the latest in fashion, I decided that it is true that we should be setting the example so I'm ordering a huge supply of ill-fitting plaid shirts which I know will be a big hit with everyone.(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:56 AM 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? It is you who has introduced the word 'conspiracy' - I make no such claim. If they were such a thing - you would probably be right in suggesting there would need to be some motive (other than just control for the sake of control). This fairly recent 'take-over' of our forum - is not a conspiracy - it is a cock-up - as I have clearly evidenced. Volunteers are still deleting the same things they shouldn't be doing and without Joe's knowledge - as they were in 1998. And exactly the same excuses for it are given (by Joe) - instead of ensuring that they are not repeated. But still the 'spin' than many still blindly accept - goes on. So does the abuse of anyone who tries to point and evidence the reality, holds a different view or suggests even the slightest change. It is a fact that the shaping of our forum by imposed closures, deletions and general tinkering with things that are no one's business but the original poster's - now goes on under the cover of censorship. I don't think or suggest that this cover is intentional but this censorship is supposed to protect us from abusive personal attacks but it clearly does not. Possibly because our volunteers are too busy eleswhere tinkering and nit-picking with 'small-beer' that are really none of their business - like deleting Flamenco Ted's 100th post clams (because some people are said to find these posts obnoxious). 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. Again, I did not suggest that there was anything sinister in this. But if the idea of all this censorship and secrecy is to prevent abusive personal attacks - it is counter-productive for known volunteers in responsible positions - like Mick to set the example of encouraging posters like John in Hull - to think that abusive personal attacks in posts like - 'Shambles why don't you F*** ***' - are in any way witty or entertaining. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread) From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK? -Joe Offer- Sadly it just keeps on happening and being excused. And will keep on happening until it is addressed.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavgeris Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:11 AM Fair answers, Roger. And I note that you answered both my questions (just a jokey reference to earlier claims to the contrary). You wtill use the word 'spin', of course, which indicates direction/purpose. But perhaps I am nitpicking now. So at the end of it all, the grievance is more about the behaviour of some members towards you (and others), is that it? If that's all there is to it, and the whole matter of censorship just a side-issue (why they delete some offensive remarks and not others), the air could be cleared with a smile and a communal singaround. It only takes goodwill and forgiveness. "Eye for an eye" just results in so much blindness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:35 AM I am quite prepared to put any past disputes behind me and not to dwell on them - but I am more concerned about the present and the future of our forum. The following is an example of what I mean when I refer to the shaping our forum. The volunteer in question - who has imposed their judgement upon my musical contribution - without my knowledge and against my wishes - has gone on to state their personal taste would be that all Song Challenges containing many fine original songs, contributed by many different posters - be confined to the B/S nom-music section of our forum. I suspect that it is just a matter of time before this and similar judgements based on one person's taste - are put into action....... Camilla and Charlie were lovers Should the personal tastes of one or two posters really be shaping the present and future direction of our forum to the extant that they do now? By imposed judgement closures, deltions and general tinkering with the contributions of their fellow posters rather than being shaped BY the invited contributions of ALL posters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,Jon Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:41 AM Shambles, as far as I understand it, it can not happen in the same way now as it did in that post you quoted. A clone may be a little "trigger happy" but Joe now is able to review deletions and reinstate posts. Something that was impossible back then - once a post was deleted, that was it. You still fail to explain to me why you keep on blaming Joe for a system Max is in charge of. If you can explain to me how you belive it is that Joe has power over Max or why Max allows Joe to run riot, you may make a little sense but while you persist in blaming the middle man for acting under guidelines set by Max you will make no sense whatsoever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavgeris Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:43 AM Well, Roger, the volunteer you mention expressed an opinion; no problem there, he/she is entitled to it. And even if they acted on it, surely it is of minimal impact? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavergis Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:46 AM Yes, EG, you were nitpicking. And is not your "eye for an eye" sentence a veiled attack on some people's religion? Aleksandr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: mandoleer Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:47 AM As a newcomer who hasn't seen any of this happening yet, but who has read this thread with interest and despair, may I quote the WW I cartoon caption "If you knows of a better 'ole, then go to it!" And add to that, "If you can't find a better 'ole, then dig one yourself". I would have thought that the Ideal Forum would only exist in the mind of the person who thought up the ideal, as once others started posting to it it would cease to be ideal as they would have different ideas. Although I suppose that in certain areas, such as possibly synchronised swimming, there would be not too much divergence of opinion or room for original thought. (OK, I can't see the point of synchronised swimming, just as I can't understand the rules of, or point of, bridge.) There's room for many opinions here. MudCat isn't North Korea or the Vatican where opinion comes down from the top. Be nice..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavergis Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM Such actions may be of minimal impact to you, EG, but not to others, who care about the continuing existence and well-being of this fine forum. Where does it end? Perhaps one day Song Competition threads will be "outlawed" alltogether. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:05 AM "If you can explain to me how you belive it is that Joe has power over Max or why Max allows Joe to run riot, you may make a little sense but while you persist in blaming the middle man for acting under guidelines set by Max you will make no sense whatsoever." THAT is the $64,000 question Jon. Hope you get an answer.....20 to 1 you don't. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:23 AM Well, Roger, the volunteer you mention expressed an opinion; no problem there, he/she is entitled to it. This is the problem. Does an opinion of personal taste expressed by a volunteer in the course of their editing action become official Mudcat Policy? This personal taste was expressed in brown writing and not automatically refreshing the thread - an option not open to the rest of us. What I would expect and have constantly requested - to prevent confusion - is that the personal opinions of our volunteers are only expressed as conventional posts which do always refresh the thread and any editing comments confine themselves only to the facts and do not refresh the thread. Not - I would have thought a too controversial request? You still fail to explain to me why you keep on blaming Joe for a system Max is in charge of. I post my comments, suggestion and questions openly and publicly because these concern all the contributors to the whole forum. But Joe Offer is the one who takes on the public responsibility of answering and defending the current set-up. I don't bully barmaids either.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,Jon Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:35 AM But Joe Offer has answered you time and time again and he isn't going to change. Why don't you take the matter higher? You have had 6 years to prove your method has not worked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:43 AM the forum that Max opened for the ALL public - is stolen from - them by a few (Shambles) Go and tell Max. Any rational deliberation should tell you that either Max knows about and approves of the way Joe etc. handle the daily activity or he doesn't know and would object if only he knew. If he approves your repetitions are pointless if he doesn't know you address the wrong audience. You still fail to explain to me why you keep on blaming Joe for a system Max is in charge of. (Jon) I don't bully barmaids either.... (Shambles in response to Jon) In which way are we supposed to understand that comparison? Who's the barmaid? Shouldn't you complain to the owner of the bar if your repeated complaints to the one in daily charge (head waiter, for instance) are not heard? And, if I may add to the picture of the bar, a customer always loudly complaining about the same things tends to get on the nerves of the other customers after a while. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:47 AM The Shambles said quite succinctly: "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." I'm in 100% agreement with this description. It's dead on. Then El Greko asks: "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?" Power, control, and higher status within the group's hierarchy. Those are the only things that matter to some people, but especially to those who seek positions of some authority where they can lord their power, control, and status over the group. Flaunting it. That is the problem with Mudcat. We have some dysfunctional egos seeking power, control, and higher status in this group. They have been placed in those positions by Max, who has turned the day to day running of the forum over to Joe and the clones because he can't (and obviously by the way this sucker keeps going down, won't) be bothered with it. It reminds me of "Lord of the Flies" actually. In every group of humans, there is an elite group of "rulers" who lord it over the others. Here at Mudcat, that group starts at the top with Max, includes pene azul (secret power behind Max's throne), Joe the administrator, and the cops--catspaw, katlaughing, Jeri, Big Mick, and god only knows who else at this point. Some of us figured this out quite some time ago (and more than a few have left the forum because of it), and sometimes remark upon it. Many of us have ended up in direct conflict with one of the above elite group at some time or another, over petty things like Shambles mentions. Always this has been done under the guise of saving members from the embarrassment of personal attacks (which to many of us, is idiotic, pointless, and needlessly censorial). Years ago all this tinkering began because of a handful of crybaby members here who didn't want to be embarrassed by "personal attacks" (which have never been adequately defined here, not to mention is a "rule" which is applied VERY selectively--and most often applied to those who have dared to criticize the running of the forum or it's authoritarian owner, administrator, and moderators with the too cutesy name "Joe Clone"). I accurately predicted then it would be a slippery slope down the hill to the insidious censorship we now see. Just like the "guest" log-in was an idiotic, paranoid response to people having their Mudcat names used by other posters for the purpose of embarrassing them, so too has this insidious censorship been an idiotic, paranoid response to members being personally attacked by peope outside the elite group of people who run the forum. And make no mistake people, the changes to the log-in and the censorship of posts under the guise of "personal attack" were purely defensive actions taken by a ruling elite here who thinks they should have iron clad online identity "names" protection, and not be able to be criticized, mocked, or otherwise made a joke of in this forum. Both responses were abuses of power, and have only led to more dissatisfaction among the rank and file. Anyone who doubts my description of this forum might have a glance at the excellent Flame Warrior website of a seasoned discussion forum veteran. It is the absolute best netizen guide to discussion forum politics online, bar none. WARNING: The Mudcat Royals here do NOT find this site amusing. Which makes it even funnier. I long ago accepted Flame Warriors as the only Mudcat relief I would ever get from the downright obnoxiousness that is part and parcel of this place. The link was given to me by a fellow Mudcat guest who left this place long ago, as a means of explaining the forum's dysfunctional dynamics to me. Like I said earlier, or elsewhere, or whatever, there is no chance of this group being reformed. No chance whatsoever. People here love the dysfunctionality of this place--and it is SO obvious that the worst offenders are here because they thrive in dysfunctional settings like this. So you can take Mudcat or leave it. Or stay here, and keep tormenting the tormentors to the best of your ability. And please--keep working hard at tormenting the Mudcat Royals and their bootlicking minions at every opportunity. We all need the entertainment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:50 AM Well Roger I think you could have chosen a better example than the one provided by your last link. In that instance your response was both petty, and peurile, not to mention groundless. Do you look through other people's windows, then knock on their door and criticise the way they arrange their furniture? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: dwditty Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:51 AM Poop, I say |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:52 AM Why don't you take the matter higher? What makes you think that I have not done this? Jon - Max may well be a problem for you - if so you contact him. I will continue to post publicly and if Max wishes to respond - I am sure that he will do so. Max is NOT the problem. All of US are the problem and it is up to US to sort out the problems that WE cause. This by the use of self-censorship, tolerance and the acceptance of the reality of a site that is open to the public. You have had 6 years to prove your method has not worked. William Wilberforce bored everyone by writing pretty much the same the same things to the same people - for 18 years - before slavery was finally abolished here - largely as a result of his efforts..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: jacqui.c Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:55 AM Too true Wolfgang. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,Jon Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:01 AM Shambles I repeat, I have no issues with the censorship/ editorial policy here. All of US are the problem and it is up to US to sort out the problems that WE cause And how exactly do WE do that? Self censorhip is a good idea but there is no way WE can enforce that on anyone else. I would imagine that while Max (Iand I think you would find Joe) may well prefer it that way, the reality is that it alone just does not work here. Are you suggesting to me that Max empowers people to make editorial judgements once in a while because he belives they are not needed? Another of your gripes has been anonymous volunteers. How are We going to over-ride Mudcat policy to change that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:09 AM Ah, another day in paradise with the Mudcat Royals and their loyal minions! Everyone is visiting this thread. Now if we could just stir up the hive a bit, things might liven up around here. And now that I think of it, Martin Gibson is truly a wimp. Not only has he not managed to get himself banned here, he hasn't even been able to stir up the hive! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:39 AM GUEST, I bookmarked the Flame Warrior website some time ago. I refer to it often, when I think Mudcat mirrors some of the characterizations portrayed there. The dynamics of a forum like this, as seen through the Flame Warrior lens, are fascinating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,Jon Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM Oh and Shambles: What makes you think that I have not done this? Well you would be even weirder than I already think you are if you have done that. You might know for example that Max does approve of Joe Offer's actions in which case your stance and position you seem to put Joe in would be even more bizzare. You might know for example that Max didn't know what was going on in which case one would have to question why you persist now Max does know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Amos Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:58 AM Nameless. I love those Flame Warrior caricatures, and I think your ponitfications are a bit stretched. Here's one, for example: "Rebel Without a Clue's deep seated and infantile hostility to authority motivates his random and seemingly gratuitous attacks on list owners, Admins, Nannies or anyone else who attempts to maintain order and civility in discussion forums. Differing markedly from Rebel Leader, he is unattached to any cause other than petulance for its own sake, and will therefore seldom inspire general insurrection. In his frequent and ineffectual attacks on the established order he will often cite the Bible, or the US Constitution to support incoherent arguments. Rebel Without a Clue NEVER reads forum FAQs , and loudly decries as fascism any enforcement whatsoever of forum rules." The great thing about those caricatures is somehow the guy knows everyone on the Cat!! Choose one that fits and laugh at yourself. It's a lot easier than whinging about others!! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: kendall Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM Guest, I know of many members who have left because of the juvenile behavior of certain foul mouth malcontents. I know of no members who have left because of censorship. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can say anything they wish in stating an opinion BUT, personal attacks should be deleted. They have no place among civilized people. If you must resort to gutter language to put your point across, go back to school and learn some English. Now, argue with me if you wish, that's acceptable, but name calling is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Big Mick Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,MMario Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:09 AM Guest 7:47 congratulations! I believe in a single post you have managed to cram more BS then the entire MOAB thread - which is over 7000 posts and DEDICATED to BS. If you are not currently employed as a spin doctor by some politician - you should look into employment in the field - you obviously have the qualifications. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Bill D Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM " I suspect that it is just a matter of time before this and similar judgements based on one person's taste - are put into action......." wowee! Not only are you disagreeing with what HAS been done, you are complaining in advance about the future! I have to give you 2 extra points for finding problems before they happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:34 AM The public discussion forum is ours. Max's stated role in this is only to "facilitate". Which is not the same thing as total control. From: Max - PM Date: 10 Mar 00 - 12:54 AM OK, gargoyle, you got it. I tried to give your membership back months ago, but you apparently never got my message. Your tactics are crude, you are often inappropriate and rude, and I obviously cannot ever agree with you for the simple fear that anyone would think that your type of efforts could or should be effective, but you are undoubtedly a knowledgeable member of our community. My motive for your membership? People want to be able to talk to you… and as ambiguous as I may seem here, my sole function is to facilitate that… because that is what The Mudcat is all about. May as well wheel this quote out (yet) again. With apologies to those who may have it read before. Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Bill D Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:59 AM that's what you get for making a friendly remark at 12:40 AM 5½ years ago...ammunition for nitpicking. The part I see is "you get to HELP us make the rules..." Since then it has been discovered that there do need to be a few rules, and I guess Max has the right to re-think his offhand remark. I'll tell you this: If there were literally NO rules, this place would be full of not only trolling, hate messages, personal attacks and MUCH bigger flame wars, but spam also. If there were NO rules, you'd see all too quickly, Shambles, how the bad would drive out the good.....then you'd have your totally free, uncensored, open......and useless forum, because most of the good folks would give up--including yourself, probably. I speak only for myself, but I don't want to take the chance. You have seen many posts from those who cite their experiences with other forums, and they ALL say this is the least 'controlled' place they know....minimal, but necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Stilly River Sage Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:28 AM Shhhhhh! Mario! We like our BS at MOAB to be unadulterated by the horse's ass variety. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:34 AM "If there were literally NO rules, this place would be full of not only trolling, hate messages, personal attacks and MUCH bigger flame wars, but spam also." Remove "but spam also" and you have a very accurate description of this forum, ever since I've been here. Passive aggressives, sycophants, and bullies rule the roost here. What else would anyone expect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:34 AM The part I see is "you get to HELP us make the rules..." Even with these 'blinkers' on - you manage do see that we get to HELP make these rules. Much help - in the way of perfectly sensible suggestions has been offered here - and not just by me. As usual - all of it has been just been ignored or dismissed. Such as the following. What I would expect and have constantly requested - to prevent confusion - is that the personal opinions of our volunteers are only expressed as conventional posts which do always refresh the thread and any editing comments confine themselves only to the facts and do not refresh the thread. Not - I would have thought a too controversial request? Either this suggestion is too controversial to be even addressed - or more likely that it is considered by most posters - as far too much common sense to even attempt to argue with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: jeffp Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:39 AM Or perhaps it's too inane to be deemed worthy of discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:44 AM In most other forums, when a mod makes a deletion or a change, if ANYTHING at all is stated, it is within the post or what's left of it. Standard thing to do Shambles and there is no point in starting a thread or even making another post about it. And BTW, please DO rethink your meaning of facillitate. It means to make things happen with as much ease as possible. It doesn't mean to stand aside and say to hell with it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:46 AM LOL at jeffy........Thanks ..... I needed the laugh! They say truth hurts but in this case I gotta' tell ya' they're wrong!!! Thanks again. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:00 AM Or perhaps it's too inane to be deemed worthy of discussion. History will tell us that nothing on this forum is ever judged too inane to be worthy of discussion. In most other forums, when a mod makes a deletion or a change, if ANYTHING at all is stated, it is within the post or what's left of it. Standard thing to do Shambles and there is no point in starting a thread or even making another post about it. Not too sure where starting another thread comes into this - that was not my suggestion? Volunteers wish to make the point that their special position does not stop them from expressing an opinion on our forum. Many would accept this. My point is that this individual's volunteer's personal opinion and taste should not be expressed in or in connection with an editing action - which (if anything is needed to be said) should be confined only to the facts. Posts containing a volunteer's personal tastes and opinion can be made in the same way as everyone else. This will prevent any possible confusion about a volunteer's personal view being seen as Official Mudcat Policy.... Is this really so radical a suggestion?
Sometimes, when my editorial remarks are posted to respond to a particularly exasperating challenge from you, my response may reflect a tone of exasperation. This, too, is human. Most people are able to distinguish exasperation from "Official Mudcat Policy." And whether it's policy or not, it would seem to be appropriate to post an editorial remark (even an exasperated one) in response to a challenge to an editorial action. And this (click) did seem to be a perfect response to your challenge to my attempt to control the stream of personal attacks from a certain individual, since I certainly didn't need you to interfere at the time. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM Shambles you are truly and unredeemably paranoid. The only rules applied here would appear to be rules of common decency, such as those that are applied in everyday social intercourse. If somebody said to my face some of the things that have been written here, I would rip their arm out from the socket and beat them to death with the soggy end. It's all about good manners, if you remember them! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavgeris Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:20 AM (re-posting with italics corrected) Typical Shambolic evasiveness: In response to: "In most other forums, when a mod makes a deletion or a change, if ANYTHING at all is stated, it is within the post or what's left of it. Standard thing to do Shambles and there is no point in starting a thread or even making another post about it., Roger replies "Not too sure where starting another thread comes into this - that was not my suggestion?". That is what annoys people more than anything, Roger - your eel-like slithering out of the way of some questions and answering instead with another (irrelevant to the topic) question. And as for "My point is that this individual's volunteer's personal opinion and taste should not be expressed in or in connection with an editing action - which (if anything is needed to be said) should be confined only to the facts.": Joe Offer posted a responso to this less than a month ago - I saw it. Yet you make this point again (twice today on this thread alone). Please don't repeat it any more. Nobody came out to agree with you. I, for one, am happy with Joe's logical explanation. And anyway, Jeffp is right - the point is inane. So, Roger, on the strength of this post alone, you seem to be repeating inane points, while at the same time evading questions. I allow my luggage to relax (rest my case). Would that you would relax some of your baggage too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:22 AM Police too are entitled to express their opinion. Howver, there certain things people like this will not be expected to do - whilst dressed in their uniform and undertaking their duties. So as to keep their personal opinions from being confused with those of their service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Peace Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:36 PM I'm gettin' pretty fuckin' insulted here, Shambles. Is there gonna be a wedding or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:41 PM Typical Shambolic evasiveness: - Playing hard to get. Joe Offer posted a responso to this less than a month ago - I saw it. Is this the one? Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:21 AM Shambles, Click here sincerely, -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavgeris Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:57 PM Roger, For the first point you make - you said it. For the second: you know very well which response by Joe Offer I meant, so either you are having a little joke (fair enough), or something else is happening; I don't know which. Should I be offended? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: jacqui.c Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:59 PM And I was so looking forward to being a bridesmaid Brucie. |
