Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:55 PM

Well, that is one solution to part of the problem, John, and thank you....but the question remains: What are YOU planning to do in the future? Will you 'temper' your thread titles or post them in all their startling glory? There will be people everyday who do not have that filter bookmarked. We need an agreement that will ease the conflict no matter where folks come in and no matter what their proclivities.

I am trying to preserve your ability to post uncensored lyrics for only those who wish to view them.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: JennyO
Date: 07 May 05 - 01:10 AM

...but the question remains: What are YOU planning to do in the future? Will you 'temper' your thread titles or post them in all their startling glory?

The question may remain for some people - not for me, and probably not for a lot of others. I think it is important to have the proper titles of songs there for the purpose of searching for and harvesting songs, and as far as I am concerned, John Mehlberg has gone out of his way to be helpful, and doesn't need to do any more.

Those whose sensibilities are offended by seeing rude words can use the new URL. For the sake of newcomers, I would suggest maybe putting a link to this URL on the Mudcat front page for all to see, and maybe on the forum page too for those who accidentally stumbled straight in and aren't familiar with the way the filter works, so that they will know next time. Maybe it can be in the FAQ too.

As for profanity filters, if they only pick up profanity on the forum page, the filtered forum link should take care of that, but if they search for profanity all through the site, I can only repeat what I said before on May 1 at 9.21pm: "To try to make ourselves so clean that there is no profanity at all on the site would be taking censorship to ridiculous extremes, not to mention impossible."

Nutty, in regards to your other question about the back door, I believe this works - it was simply a matter of putting the numbers in the URL instead of www.mudcat.org

http://207.103.108.99/threads.cfm?Title=pg13&Age=1&submit=Refresh&FilterOut=1

Jenny

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 04:00 AM

Thanks, John - I knew there was a fairly simple URL for doing it, but I couldn't remember the formula.
I have to say I'm still "iffy" on the idea of putting euphemized song titles in thread titles. Throughout the history of Mudcat, we've encouraged people to put the title of the song being discussed into the title of the thread. How can somebody use the Filter to find threads on a song, if the title is euphemized?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 May 05 - 05:07 AM

Yes Joe, I could have given you a link like that ages ago but I didn't think that was what you were asking for. I thought you were asking for a filter on multiple "bad words" themselves which the filter can not do. This approach does of course (as I said) demand that a filter term (pg13 now) is included/added to the thread title.

Although a part solution, I don't think it will be of much use to people accessing machines where content filtering is allowed unless they can bookmark that URL - which would be out for new visitors. If someone tries to enter the main forum without the pg13 filter and get blocked because of thread titles, they are not going to get into the forum to find out.

Also, the URL will revert back to just threads.cfm when a post is made.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: JennyO
Date: 07 May 05 - 05:34 AM

Also, the URL will revert back to just threads.cfm when a post is made.

Hmm. I didn't think of that - that's when you click on "forum home", which I don't because I usually use the back button, and just refresh once in a while. It's all right if you do it my way, but you'd have to know to do it.

I still strongly agree with Joe about the song titles - I'm hoping that the final solution won't involve euphemizing them in any way.

Jenny

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 05 - 05:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps people (even the same people) would also judge that these 'bawdy' songs and titles to be "obnoxious"......Are these also to be "fair game for the clones"? If not - why not?

Surely the point is that what is considered as "obnoxious" or not - is a matter of personal taste. No one is being forced to read anything - so no one is forcing their personal taste upon anyone by posting.

However the personal tastes of some - are being forced upon others when such censorship is imposed on our forum. Instead of asking posters to accept this double standard - perhaps this ROUTINE censorship - based on personal taste can now cease and posters be permitted and encouraged to use their own taste - and to always RESPECT the tastes of their fellow posters?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:20 AM

No one is being forced to read anything - so no one is forcing their personal taste upon anyone by posting.

If the reports are right, some people are being blocked access to the forum because of thread titles. They might not be being forced to read anything but apparently are being forced to read nothing.

and to always RESPECT the tastes of their fellow posters?

And whose tastes would those be shambles? There isn't common ground here. My tastes would allow "bad words" at least in a song thread title and view the material JM has as coming under folk (even though those songs are not to my tastes). Nutty takes a different view, etc.

There are times I think the best policy is to try to cater for different tastes, and certainly to try to ensure site access is possible for all.

As far as I can make out, you seem to be advocating no "bad words" in thread titles as that would seem to be the only way that no one could possibly be offended. That to me smacks more of censorship (especially as you will never get 100% voluntary conformance here) than the alternative suggestions.

If that was adopted, what stance would you take when a thread with a "bad word" was started?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:33 AM

I'know I have said this before but what is the problem with putting dashes or asterix. in the title? Everyone knows what the thread title is, or if there is any ambiguity can open the thread to look. The full title in the thread would mean that it would still be picked up by the supersearch and and th.e whole forum would not be put out of reach for days at a time to everyone in my school.

This is quite different to using euphemism in my book, which I would oppose, because when I look at words with blanks ny brain tells me what the original was. Of course if the point is to shut out those lesser mortals like me who are often behind a profanity filter then that is another matter.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:55 PM

Hi, Robbie - If John puts the exact song title in the thread title, people can find threads on that song by using the Filter. If he puts a euphemism instead of the actual word, how are people going to know which euphemism he's using?

And then there's the question of which words should we euphemize. I'm still hoping somebody will post a list of the words that most commonly trip up a profanity filter. I have a feeling most filters sort out too much, and we'd end up going to ridiculous extremes in order to satisfy the filters. And there seems to be something offensive about kowtowing to a filter, even if it's something that has to be done to allow people access to Mudcat.

There are expressions that bother me, but I can think of only two words that make me cringe - f**k and c**t. Well, there are some racist terms for ethnic groups that make me cringe, too. I'd rather not see those words in thread titles - but if those words are in the actual title of a song, then I'd rather be consistent and see the actual song title in the thread title.

But that's my opinion. If it's the title of a legitimate (folk) song, I'm not likely to edit it out. It it's gratuitously posted just to provoke people, that's another matter.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 07 May 05 - 03:31 PM

Joe,
The term does not have to be in the title for search to find it. It will find the term within the thread, is this not so?

How do you tell when a post is gratuitous?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:35 PM

How can I tell when provocative words in a post are gratuitous? Well, I don't usually worry about a post - it's just the thread titles we're concerned about in this thread. It's a judgment call, and I have exceptionally good judgment.
Just ask Sh----es.

If somebody starts a thread and titles it "Motherfucker," I'll usually open it to see what's inside. If the first message is blank or filled with a chain of vulgarities, that's usually a pretty good indication that it's gratuitious vulgarity. And yes, if that's the case, I feel justified in deleting the thread.

If somebody starts a thread asking for information about a rugby song called "Motherfucker," there are good arguments for and against deletion. The usual Mudcat policy is to give preference to very conservative (i.e., limited) editing, so I would not delete or euphemise such a title.

And if I were looking for information on a song with the word "Motherfucker" in the title, I would put motherfu in the Filter and expect to find something. I would not use the term in a Forum Search because it would pull up too many Martin Gibson threads.

Generally, we do editorial actions on what I call "no-brainer" situations, and let the rest of the stuff go by. If everybody is calling everybody names and a thread is obviously an all-out brawl, I feel justified in closing or deleting it. If it's a little irritability here and there, or even a veiled insult, I'm not going to bother.


See what excellent judgment I have?
Just ask Sh----es.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: JennyO
Date: 08 May 05 - 02:45 AM

Just ask Sh----es.

I wouldn't dream of it. He just might answer!

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 05:02 AM

As far as I can make out, you seem to be advocating no "bad words" in thread titles as that would seem to be the only way that no one could possibly be offended. That to me smacks more of censorship (especially as you will never get 100% voluntary conformance here) than the alternative suggestions.

What I am suggesting is that when posting, reading or responding - that all posters should respect their all fellow posters and any practical problems they may have. If this mutial respect is encouraged - there will be no need or excuse for any censorship to be imposed (via filters or by the personal tastes of our many anonymous volunteers).

That you may never obtain 100% conformance - is not a reason why the attempt to do this should not be made - or that the attempt that most posters already make - should not be respected and encouraged.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 05:16 AM

And then there's the question of which words should we euphemize.

I am right to suspect that 'we' used here - refers to 'us' volunteers and not the rest of 'us' ordinary posters?

There is a question of what words posters may choose to euphemize with the thead titles they choose to create.

But euphemisims' like 'indexing' 'consolidation' etc - meaning routine imposed censorship of thread titles - by anonymous volunteers upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without the originator's knowledge or consent - do not currently seem to present our volunteers any problems. Is this another Mudcat double standard?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 05:21 AM

Gratuitously = in an uncalled for manner.

Perhaps all posts will be now considered as gratuitous - and deleted by our anonymous volunteers - as a matter of course?

That will solve a number of problems....*Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:34 PM

Generally, we do editorial actions on what I call "no-brainer" situations, and let the rest of the stuff go by. If everybody is calling everybody names and a thread is obviously an all-out brawl, I feel justified in closing or deleting it. If it's a little irritability here and there, or even a veiled insult, I'm not going to bother.

Yes 'I' may not. But do 'we' bother? How we know and how to you do you ensure - that your volunteers are using the same personal judgement?


Let me see if I can follow this. The word F****** in a song is safe but - when not in a song - the same word will be considered by Joe Offer's judgement (if not other anonymous volunteers) - to be "gratuitious vulgarity" - and deleted.

So if I post a song called (for example) Ouit F****** With The Aardvark - this will be safe.

But if I post 'quit F****** With The Aardvark' - not in a song - this will be considered by Joe Offer's judgement as "gratuitious vulgarity" and deleted.

If some loyal Mudcat 'posse'member posts 'quit f****** with the Ardvark - as a clear abusive personal attack on a fellow member (as recently happened) - this "gratuitious vulgarity" in a posting remains perfectly safe?

Clear as mud. No wonder Mudcat posters are confused.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: GUEST,f****** f*** for f***'s sake, give it a rest
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:39 PM

Fell so much better now.

Hey, anyone wanna buy some asbestos?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:54 PM

"No wonder Mudcat posters are confused" says he...
Like, man, WHO? You're the only one who is confused, permanently.
The rest of us are very clear, thank you. You do not represent us, so f*** off.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 May 05 - 11:41 AM

F** C*****'* s***, g** * l***!

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 05 - 12:00 PM

It seems the SuperSearch won't look for asterisks....too bad....and why not? (I have had several legitmate occasions when it would have been useful)

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 May 05 - 12:54 PM

It's unfair asteriskism. I bet Joe Offer can search for asterisks, but denies us the right.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Kim C
Date: 09 May 05 - 01:14 PM

Like I said in another thread about another subject, I can't believe you all are wasting so much time on this.

Bawdy songs with bawdy lyrics are a huge part of folk tradition, just like gory songs where people get killed in many nasty ways. Deal with it.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 05 - 01:58 PM

Kim...you are, of course, right...but whether bawdy songs are part of folk tradition is not the point at issue. Almost no one here would deny that OR censor the songs. Some are just requesting some toning down of titles when the titles are extreme. **ANYONE** who wants to search for songs containing 'those' words can easily do so, and it is perfectly easy to title a thread to indicate that **bawdy** lyrics are within.
As far as I understand, censoring filters at libraries, workplaces, etc...do not usually search INSIDE threads, but merely approve or dis-approve the language that is visible when the page is loaded.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 10 May 05 - 09:52 AM

Bawdy songs may have always been with us but they are not sung everywhere regardless of whether other people in the room have a problem with them. It's easy to be rude on the net, what is the problem with showing the same courtesy that you would in a public place to a room full of strangers?

What the f_ck is the problem? If you genuinely want me to look at a thread called help with the motherf-ck-rs ball then I need to be able to open the forum front page and know it is there.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 May 05 - 04:53 PM

A little information on the program used by the Calgary (Canada) Public Schools to block indecent material.
The program is carried out with an "iPrism" internet filter. The masters have set parameters to suit their needs. There are daily updates.
It is designed to block websites, words or categories on which filtering is desired. Teachers are not a party to the parameters, which are only given out in general form.
Teachers working on research (e. g. breast cancer, etc.), can get exemption by applying for it.

The ENTIRE website is evaluated, not just the home or title page. My informant says the filter cuts in if any word, dialogue or prohibited website is encountered, and is in effect for the entire website. The masters can program to block any website they deem inappropriate.

In other words, Mudcat can do nothing to stop the filtering of its website.

The Calgary Catholic School System (also public here) has filtering, but I have no information. (Calgary has a metropolitan population of over one million).

"IPrism" hardware is US$2195, plus subscription fee for software upgrades and daily database updates.


Some state offices and businesses use these systems to prevent non-business use.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 May 05 - 09:33 PM

The link above is to iPrism: http://internet-filters.stbernard.com

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:33 AM

In other words, Mudcat can do nothing to stop the filtering of its website.

Perhaps not - but Mudcatters themselves can try and ensure that they do not post anything that would cause this site to be blocked.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: JennyO
Date: 11 May 05 - 08:18 AM

Shambles, there is a little expression known as "pushing shit uphill" that you may or may not be familiar with.

For a start, before you start asking people to censor themselves, there is the little matter of what is already here on Mudcat. The site contains songs and postings going back many years, no doubt containing words such as "breast", "shit" (see above), "arsehole", and many others. SURELY you are not suggesting that someone go through all those contributions and (shock, horror) CENSOR them, without the posters' permission, in order to make this site squeaky clean?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 05 - 10:14 AM

I have said this several times now; just modifying the thread titles would allow many more people, my school included, into the forum. We use RM Safety Net which is I think the most widely used system in UK and I have always been able to get in until recently despite the content of many old threads. Other people may have a deeper filter than we do but I really cant see the problem in modifying the thread titles. They wont be censorred because you and I can still read them, only the   stupid machines cant.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:24 PM

Guest, the parameters for the machines are set by the administrator in charge. If Mudcat.org is put on the list of forbidden sites, it is closed for those on the network.

Here is the UK website for RM Safety Net: RM Filter

"RM Safety Net Plus works on a 'list' basis whereby the administrator can build up organized lists of permitted or denied websites."
"It is possible to operate the site as a "walled garden" if preferred. This would allow a school to prevent access to ALL internetr websites as standard and then permit access to just those sites the school considered to be appropriate."

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:30 PM

"ensure that they do not post anything that would cause this site to be blocked"

Oh boy! Do I ever wish I could post something that would block YOUR access!

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:54 PM

Clinton - There ARE ways to block an individuals name using filters so you don't see their posts. Just a big blank spot. However if you were to block an individual from posting that would amount to censorship. We don't need another discussion on that topic do we ?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 May 05 - 02:09 PM

It's not censorship (and what's wrong with censorship anyway?)

It's 'moderating'...

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 05 - 02:13 PM

Q...it is clear that certain administrators can set parameters to block any site they wish to. If someone at a company reads a naughty thread and decides to block Mudcat, there is little we can control.

The issue, once again, is if & how a site like Mudcat gets blocked by ordinary filtering programs, where the page, as loaded, gets scanned for forbidden words or topics. On many sites....for example, porno sites, there are words and phrases that hit you in the face as soon as the page is loaded. This is done ON PURPOSE to allow search engines to find them so that those seeking porn can find them. Some even hide long lists of explicit words & phrases in white-on-white small script to maximize the number of hits! These places are TRYING to sell porn, and work hard to BE found.

Now the question is, can or does a security program which uses a word list and related features, look *INSIDE* Mudcat threads to make its decisions? If "fuck" were in only on one Mudcat thread in 9 years, would the program read a couple of hundred thousand threads and cause the automatic censor feature to kick in? I doubt it! But if FUCK is in one of the thread titles at the moment someone loads Mudcat, of course it will!
Then, I suppose, there may be a feature that places an offending site on a "do not allow" list, just as I can put spam IP addresses in my email filters. In this way, a site like Mudcat could be perfectly safe IF a user did not open threads that indicate there might be naughty words.

   The whole point is, MOST censoring filters and programs deal only with what they see, and 99.9% of Mudcat is NOT visable at any one time. But as I have said, anyone who is interested in bawdy (I wonder if THAT word is censored?) lyrics can easily find them INSIDE the threads, and John Mehlberg can easily phrase a title to indicate that bawdiness is contained within. Interest in bawdy lyrics being what it is, those who care about such things..(INCLUDING ME!) can open the thread, and it is not likely John will miss many likely contributors to his research.

I do NOT see why it is so difficult for some folks to separate the issues of whether explicit material should be 'available', and whether very explicit language should appear in thread TITLES.

Let me end with a joke:

A woman was touring a town in Israel when she spotted a small store with dozens of interesting watches and clocks in the window.
She stepped inside and said to the proprietor, "You have such an interesting display in your window. Do you sell timepieces?"

"No, I don't," said the storkeeper.

"Well, then you must repair them," exclaimed the woman.

"No, I don't repair them either," said the man.

"Well, what do you do?" asked the woman.

"I perform circumcisions!" said the man.

"But you have watches and clocks in your window!" exclaimed the woman.

The man replied, "So what should I put in the window?"

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 05 - 02:23 PM

(I suppose, to be totally relevant, the joke should include a line about the shopkeeper pointing to a small sign in the corner of the window that said "Mohel", which denotes someone who performs ritual circumcisions)

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:07 PM

SURELY you are not suggesting that someone go through all those contributions and (shock, horror) CENSOR them, without the posters' permission, in order to make this site squeaky clean?

No

However, It would give all our volunteers something useful to do and keep them out of the way. Especially if they had to obtain the original poster's permission first. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:17 PM

Why do you think any of the admin/mods here would NEED the 'original posters' permission to do ANYTHING to their posts?!?!?!

I donno what you think this place is Shambles, but I don't think it has anything to do with reality...

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:20 PM

Should then people be requesting the thread originator's permission to continue posting messages irrelevant to the thread, and diverting attention from the subject that the originator wanted discussed?

Troll...

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:43 PM

All very well, Bill D., but the filtering at the public schools here is set to reject 'breast' and similar words.

Here, it all depends on the administrator(s) of the filtering system and their boss, the Calgary Public School Board. The administrators are professionals, technically trained in computer science, and are hired to run the filtering system by the School Board; they are not teachers themselves. The teachers have nothing to do with the set up, and little input as a result.

My older daughter, who has quit teaching, calls it censorship, and I agree.

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:48 PM

And what's wrong with censorship?

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:52 PM

Awww, CH, don't go "shambly" now.... That's for t'other thread...:-)

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 May 05 - 04:11 PM

It's for whatever thread it gets posted to...

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 05 - 04:15 PM

"...It would give all our volunteers something useful to do and keep them out of the way".......uh, right, Shambles. You do make your goal quite clear. Now if we could only find a task that worked that well for you! (You haven't totally solved all that PELS stuff, have you? Aren't there MPs who need emails? Go get 'em!)

Subject: RE: Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 11 May 05 - 10:46 PM

"And what's wrong with censorship? "

Well, censorship might, initially, stop me from saying 'fuck'...which wouldn't be too much of a tragedy. But, censorship might concievably start taking liberties, and might stop me from saying, for example 'the government sucks'. Which would be a tragedy. Although, i'm talking about censorship generally....how a privately owned forum censors itself is pretty much up to itself, as far as i can see...