 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 07:15 AM Over the last few years I have seen a number of threads created to discuss the specific misbehaviours or misdeeds of individuals: either performers, or MCs/organisers of clubs, or just plain members of the folk community. Invariably such threads sooner or later descended to what I would call "mudslinging levels", with allegations piling on top of the existing ones, or with posters simply reiterating their disgust at whatever unseemly behaviour the individual has exhibited. Yet there is a place here for genuine complaints. Alerting the rest of the Mudcatters to someone's bad behaviour is one thing, quite legitimate in my view, as it warns others. But persistence in the accusations when such behaviour has been explained or excused, or when an apology (however weak) has been made, is starting to smell bad; and it leads to people being tried by cangaroo court on the internet. When the livelihood of individuals is threatened that way, or when people's artistic aspirations are being damaged by such mudslinging, where do we draw the line? What is legitimate and OK to state, and what is not? What is acceptable for us to discuss, and what is not? Please discuss, without specific references to individuals. Where despite my plea, specific references are made to incidents or people in this thread, I will request from the clones that such postings be deleted. Let's keep this a generic and civilised discussion. George |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 07:25 AM If an unprofessional drunk expects folk to pay money to go to a gig and watch him/her act like an arse, they are fair game for a no holds barred discussion. Just as his/her behavior was a no holds barred disgrace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 May 05 - 07:49 AM If an unprofessional drunk expects folk to pay money to go to a gig and watch him/her act like an arse Johny Vegas makes a good living out of it:-) And he's a professional unprofessional! Back to the subject in hand though. Unfortunate though it is most critisism will degenerate into argument and most argument will lapse very quickly into unaccepatable behaviour such as mudslinging or violence. Alerting others to someone elses bad behaviour is critisism of that someone else and they have the right to defend against it. In polite society or that goverened by rules, such as governmental debates, it is simply a case put forward; a reply and a decision based on those arguments. End of story usualy. In normal society and to an even greater extent on the impersonal pages of a discussion forum these polite rules often fail. The answer? Possibly moderation, possibly self government, possibly anarchy. Who knows? I'm certainly not going to visit that debate again! My personal view is that all points of view are valid and should be put forward for the rest of us to make our own minds up. When that degenerates into an 'I'm right and all others are wrong' food fight I go home! Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 07:52 AM If the performer acts like an arse during the performance, it is one thing. But if they act like an arse in their own time, then it's another. Then they are judged as an ordinary person, not as a performer, surely? Another differentiation could be made on the extent that the performer "acted like an arse". Were others involved? Was anybody hurt physically? Was there any other kind of abuse? Was there provocation? etc etc. To blanket-cover it all as "fair game" seems to me to be essentially unfair. The laws covering celebrity reporting make some provisions, based on "public interest". Surely, the protection available to celebrities should be also available to mere mortals? But even beyond legalities: Where does legitimate warning of others end, and voyeuristic mudslinging begin? There is immorality involved beyond a certain point; but what is that point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 May 05 - 07:52 AM Oh - Apart from when I am right and all the rest of you morons are wrong of course... :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 10 May 05 - 07:54 AM The paying public has a right to expect the paid perfomer to deliver the goods, over the years going back to the 60's when I first frequented folk clubs various perfomers have been noted for one or more of the following, failure to turn up for gigs, drunkeness on stage, abusive nature, rabid egotism etc etc Now in an era where such information can be freely exchanged via the net, is it wrong to share it, do the paying public have a right to know in advance that certain individuals may not turn up, or may be drunk or may be intensely self centred and thus have the opportunity to "vote with their feet" and avoid such situations. I believe they do, I for one would not attend a concert if there was a strong possibility that all I would witness was a drunked wretch on stage unable to play their instrument or remember the words of their songs, I have better things to do with my money |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 07:58 AM Hey dave, don't knock jonny vegas! That's fighting talk. Also a (as you know) poor comparison, as far as I know he doesn't head butt members of the audience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 08:19 AM GUEST, I don't know anyone who headbutted a member of the audience during a performance. I don't believe anyone ever has - not during a performance. But I do know someone who was vilified for having an affair. And I do know wifebeaters. And I do know drug addicts. And I do know alcoholics. All of them somehow involved in the folk scene, in fairly prominent positions. Nevertheless, I don't feel it would be fair to discuss that aspect of their private lives here. Do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 08:22 AM I would agree with Raggytash here. If I'm going to pay money to see someone perform I expect them to do the job and provide entertainment. After all, it's the audience who are paying their wages, be it a guest night at a folk club or a gala night at the Royal Albert Hall. The audience deserve the respect of the performer in general terms and if any performer is abusing the priviledge then I don't want to give them my cash - there are plenty of GOOD performers I would rather spend money on - or waste my time watching them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: freda underhill Date: 10 May 05 - 08:37 AM there's a line between a review and a personal attack. A review is fair enough, commenting on a person's performance. a personal attack drags everyone down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 08:38 AM el greko I didnt say it was during a performance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 08:39 AM Freda - that sums up my feelings about Mudcat posters as well. Most make me think but a few just make me want to throw up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 08:58 AM Agree, Jacqui. I wouldn't pay money to see someone who is likely to be drunk or abusive on stage. But what if that person has been reported as being abusive off-stage (Noel Gallagher for example)? What is "fair game then"? Would you go to see him (assuming you are a fan of his music)? And more important, would you try to persuade others not to go and see him? As freda says, it is a very fine line, and most of us overstep it from time to time in the heat of the moment. I just wish we could define that line. GUEST, no, you did not specify "during a performance", but you said "audience", which implies it. That is why I made the distinction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 May 05 - 09:04 AM I love Johny V - But he does headbut the audience, verbaly anyway. Left me with a headache many a time:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: freda underhill Date: 10 May 05 - 09:12 AM i have not seen a woody allen movie ever since he started a sexual relationship with his daughter. I just couldnt. but i havent discussed this before now, it was just a personal reaction. for me, if i have a negative encounter with a musician or artist, their product becomes tainted and not as enjoyable. i think it is easy sometimes to put great performers on a pedestal, and expect them to be fantastic people. sometimes, if you enjoy the music, its just better not to know. when someone with a particular political profile does or says something that seems to betray the previous persona, people can get outraged. but i think we like to package people as a commodity - someone who safely reinforces what we want to hear. people are flexible and change, and have different views over different issues. we don't own them. but we can choose whether to listen to or watch their product. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 09:20 AM George - a difficult one. I do remember a work colleague who wouldn't even listen to a certain artist because the man was gay. It was my opinion that he lost out on a lot of good music as a result. I do like some of Oasis's music and the offstage behaviour wouldn't put me off going to a concert, much though I might dislike that behaviour. Nowadays, with the net and the media, performer's lives are much more open to scrutiny than has been the case in the past. Think of all the big stars in music and on the screen whose performances we have enjoyed in the past. At the time who knew that some of those people were vicious drunks, spouse beaters or drug addicts in their private lives? I know of one very well known comedian whose ex wife said that she could tell if she was in for another session of violence by the way his car came up the gravel drive - this is a man who is well loved by the general public. Much though we might regret it I do think that if we judged all performers by what they do in private as well as on stage there would be very few left who could make a living. Maybe their private behaviour is part of the price that is paid for their talent, maybe it is that private behaviour that makes them what they are on stage, who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: freda underhill Date: 10 May 05 - 09:29 AM its true that many people "pay a price" for talent as you put it, jacqui. I'm not saying every artist has to be unstable or has to have had a lousy life. but some great artists have so much rage and grief or humiliation inside them. some people just think differently, feel different, have mood swings. the mood swings can be part of the creative process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 10:08 AM el greko please don't assume what I implied. I implied nothing. Audience is a fairly simple word to understand. If I assumed the incident occurred whilst the gig was in full swing, I would have stated that. As I know it didn't, I didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: DebC Date: 10 May 05 - 10:10 AM As a professional musician, I know that the way I behave in public reflects upon me and also can reflect on the venue that employs me. I am also of the opinion that if I attend an event as a non-performer, my behaviour also reflects upon me. What I do within the privacy of my own home is my business. I also believe that it is appropriate to discuss negative behaviour that took place in public in a public forum. That is a consequence of a person choosing to behave the way they did IN PUBLIC. I also think that by discussing the behaviour in a public forum, and naming names, it gives the person a chance to respond to the discussion. This is the difference between a public forum and just passing gossip back and forth over the phone or in a discussion in the pub. What one does with the information is up to them. If someone decides that they will not support a performer's livelihood because of public behaviour, that is their decision and I have to respect that. As for "mudslinging", that is never appropriate, IMO. Deb Cowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 May 05 - 11:32 AM Sure it's a toughie, Jacqui. And I've already been accused both of being a shit-stirrer, and of being holier-than-though, just for starting this thread. That's both sides of the fence that don't feel comfortable with this subject, then. No surprise - neither do I, nor do I have any answers (though interestingly, I stopped enjoying Woody Allen from the same point as freda; we must share some taboo). By the way, GUEST, if you are a member, please do PM me; I seem to have somehow rubbed you up the wrong way with my assumption about "audience". If indeed you are the same GUEST that accused me of "self-importance" on the other thread, I would appreciate a chance to clear my name! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 11:37 AM No problem el greko. I just wanted to disagree with you telling me what I was implying. When quite clearly I wasn't implying anything. But I'm with you on the woody allen taboo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 10 May 05 - 11:44 AM I thought incest was OK as long as you kept it in the family |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 11:55 AM Never liked Woody Allen anyway, his films never hit the spot for me and I wasn't surprised by what happened. There are a number of performers that I respect for their body of work but have no time for as individuals - those that have no time or courtesy for their fans come to mind - and I must admit that does take the edge off of my enjoyment because you are aware that you are not seeing the true personna on stage. Kendall and I were lucky enough to have dinner with Tom Paxton the other day before his concert in Bath and a nicer man you couldn't hope to meet. I can think of a couple of other celebrities that I've come across at signing sessions who were clearly there just because they HAD to be, and were simply tolerating the fans who had come to meet them. Each time I've seen those performers since I still remember their attitude and that does change my view to some degree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: kendall Date: 10 May 05 - 11:56 AM Off stage Stan Rogers was a crashing boor but I sure wish he hadn't left us. I'd love to see and hear him again. Woody Allen? never liked him anyway.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 05 - 12:00 PM Posts and discussions about the worth of fellow posters (good or bad) should perhaps not be posted publicly? Posts addresed to fellow named fellow posters and of no general interest - perhaps also should not be posted publicly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 05 - 12:08 PM Hey, the concensus on this Woody Allen thing bothers me. Having multiple adopted children in my family - from my parents to two sisters to a niece, I am fully aware that those children ARE now by law my relatives. But surely a distinction can be made regarding 'incest'? If my brother falls in love with an adopted sister (which has NOT happened, by the way) SURELY it is not INCEST but a legal entanglement instead? My guess is that it is a problem that could be resolved legally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 10 May 05 - 12:19 PM The legality of the situation never crossed my mind. The morality of aming love to someone that he raised as a child did cross it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 12:20 PM But in this case it was effectively a father/daughter relationship, albeit adopted rather than biological and that does make a difference, particularly since the girl, if I remember rightly, was still in her late teens when the relationship began. Allen was her parent and, as such, had special responsibilities to his child and this new relationship left a nasty taste in the mouths of many people. From its nature it had a tinge of abuse at the time that concerned a lot of people. There is a lot of fuss when a teacher/pupil relationship is uncovered, even if the pupil is above the age of consent, how much more so when a parent/child relationship occurs, be they biologically linked or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 05 - 12:54 PM Who adults fall in love with is not always convienient. Or acceptable to others - but it is a fact that this love is usually too strong for others judgement and taste to have very much effect on. In these cases - it is probably a matter best left to the judgement and tastes of the adults concerned. A bit like threads here. Those threads started may not be to the tastes of some. In which case - these posters can ignore them and find or start another thread that may be to their taste. Asking for another poster's choice of thread to be closed or deleted - is not necessary - if we just mind our own business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 10 May 05 - 07:06 PM Don't think that is the case on this thread, is it Shambles? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 05 - 07:54 PM "Soon-Yi was 8 years old when adopted by Ms. Farrow and the conductor Andre Previn during a trip to Korea. "Ms. Farrow, who starred in many of Allen's films, was his companion for more than a decade, although, as Allen has pointed out, the couple never lived together, and spent their nights at separate homes. In 1992, the relationship between her adopted daughter and Allen came to light when she discovered nude pictures of Ms. Previn, who was then 21, in Allen's apartment." http://www.ishipress.com/soon-yi.htm Keep in mind that Allen did NOT adopt the young woman; she was the adopted daughter of Farrow and Andre Previn. I don't know how old she was when Allen and Farrow married but she was NOT a young child. I've never even seen a film of Woody Allen's. Neither am I holding a brief for him but fair is fair. |
|
Subject: Damien Barber alleged assaul From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 May 05 - 08:22 PM Now wait a minute! Two threads closed? We should delete details of a possibly criminal assault because it embarrasses someone - even a (maybe) star)? Get a *** grip! DB may be a person with self-confessed alcohol problem - but this was a public assault (if the facts are rightly reported) and he is not entitled to edit history. No more should Joeclones be.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Damien Barber alleged assaul From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 10 May 05 - 08:44 PM The threads were closed partly because they were rapidly filling up with self-righteous pontifications (some clearly malicious) from people who weren't there and didn't know what they were talking about. Perhaps the opportunity to make anonymous attacks was too much for the poor wee souls to resist. I hadn't thought of you as a troublemaker until now, but I really do think that this new thread is ill-judged and stupid, if not actually malicious. The matter has been discussed and dealt with. It is time to let it drop. |
|
Subject: RE: Damien Barber alleged assaul From: GUEST,Jon Freeman Date: 10 May 05 - 08:47 PM There has been no editing of history, just an attempt not to prolong the thread. I had sent this as a PM to Joe Offer after reading the threads which but I suppose I will go public now. ---------------- I don't really know Damien but I did meet him a few times maybe 10 years ago as he used to be a regular visitor to the bi-annual Bangor (North Wales) Festival (a weekened of pub sessions and party after pub closed). What I read in that thread is nothing like the Damien I've met. Sure he had and has drink problems but there was never any "oh my god Damien's here take care or he'll nut you" - in fact he was well liked. One festival after a party, we both ended up stopping at the same house and he asked me if I fancied some of his home made wine which he had in the boot of his car, I wound up drinking and exchanging songs with him until maybe 6am. It remains one of my favorite "folk memories". This brings me onto the "they are all crap" comment. I didn't even know that Damien was an up and coming "folk star" until a year later. He wasn't the sort to push himself - clearly an outstanding musician but just another session player as far as I was concerned. I know the reported behavior was completely unacceptable but going by the little I know about him, he was acting completely out of character on that occasion and I'd hate to see him "condemned for life" for what I assume was a one off - particularly (although I've never been involved in public displays of violence) as I know the problems of wrestling with alcohol only too well. ------------- Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 10 May 05 - 09:09 PM I should, I suppose, mention that Richard Bridge's post, and my reply to it, have been moved to this thread from yet another new thread on the subject started by Richard. I'm glad to see that it's been terminated, but a note to the effect that the messages have been transferred from another context might avoid misunderstandings later on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 May 05 - 09:11 PM (for the record, my post was also to the new thread Malcolm mentioned) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:07 AM Brilliant! Now because some anonymous volunteer has closed yet another thread and moved these two posts here - this thread (or Jon's posted re-posted PM with it persoanal references) will have to be deleted. As the originator of this thread is now going to demand (yet more) imposed censorship action from our volunteers. Perhaps our anonymous volunteer could have actually read the original post in this thread first? Please discuss, without specific references to individuals. Where despite my plea, specific references are made to incidents or people in this thread, I will request from the clones that such postings be deleted. Let's keep this a generic and civilised discussion. George Can we just leave matters of personal taste to each poster to decide? No one is being forced to read or respond to any thread. Choosing to open the thread or not - to read the posts or not - to respond or not - is enough judgement already. Can we and our volunteers just mind our own business and concentrate on what we post - rather than judge and be encouraged to pass judgement - on what everyone else posts. If Jon's post is not to be removed and George's wishes are to be ignored by our volunteers - perhaps The apology posted by the individual now named in Jon's post - can be placed here also? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:13 AM If our volunnteers can ignore the thread originator's wishes - perhaps we all can follow this example? Subject: RE: The REAL Demon Barber Roadshow!! From: GUEST,Damien Barber - PM Date: 04 May 05 - 10:55 AM Hi All I've just been put onto this thread by a friend. Whether this thread is a suitable topic for this forum is debateable but as I am a professional musician in the public eye it could be argued that it's fair game to bring such situations to the attention of others. The argument is now irrelevant as it is already in the public arena. Probably the best way I can talk about what happened on Saturday is to explain a bit about myself. One of the reasons I became involved in folk music and remained involved was the tolerant and relatively placid nature of the people who make up the folk scene, this makes what happened on Sat night all the more contradictory. Ironically though, I've been in a fair number of situations at folk festivals where I've had to calm situations down and stop fights that have occurred through excessive drinking, quite often at late night unofficial parties. I've had a turbulent relationship with alcohol since I was young and its close proximity to the music industry (especially folk) has always been a concern. Some years ago I moved to Ireland and all but gave up being a professional musician. In those days I couldn't see a way forward without drink and continued on a downward spiral, eventually working up to around 5 bottles of whiskey a week when I was binging. It took me another three years to eventually realise that just to stay alive I would have to stop. Since returning to England I made the decision not to drink when performing and gave up general social drinking, limiting myself to the odd piss up after festival shows and when rapper dancing. Admittedly these have become more frequent. My memory of Saturday night is obviously blurred as I think it is undeniable that I was in a complete state. Saying that, the guy I hit was also in a bad way. I used to have a brother who was as frightening a man as you could want to meet when drunk although never physically violent to anyone but me. The guy in the shower reminded me of him to the extent that it brought up very emotive memories, at the time all I could see was my brother. My brother was the only person I've had a serious fight with since leaving school and these fights with my brother were not light scuffles but very violent. When (In my opinion) the guy in the shower went for me I reacted in a way that was familiar. I don't believe the reason for using my head had anything to do with protecting my hands (those of you who know me will know that I'm pretty useless at looking after them anyway and it certainly wouldn't occur to me to protect them when drunk) but is because (and this isn't a macho statement) I know how much damage a punch can do. Some of you may have a difference of opinion on this but I speak from my experience mentioned. I also don't believe that I hit him particularly hard as I'm sure there would have been more serious consequences if I had. In saying this I am not condoning what happened but hopefully offering an explanation of how my actions most likely came about. As for apologies, that goes without saying, I apologise to the guy I hit and everyone I've offended. I've witnessed a lot of violence over the years, by and to some of the people I used to associate with, and although I am reasonably numb to it I can understand how upsetting it must be to those who aren't. We all make mistakes and we all do it in different ways, mine have usually involved alcohol. Some of us do it more extremely and frequently than others and I've unfortunately done it more times than I care to remember, although this ironically puts me in a position of being able to forgive people for a lot of stuff, especially when it involves drink. Those of you who understand any of this will hopefully continue to support my music, those of you who don't, probably won't. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about what happened last weekend other than to apologise, continue making music and to keep off spirits. I hope that next time I write to Mudcat it will be on a happier note. Cheers Damien |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:59 AM This in (brown) editing writing when closing the 'Apology To Damian Barber' thread. The topic is certainly appropriate for discussion. What's inappropriate is to name names, especially in thread titles. I'm closing this thread because a number of people have convinced me that it is personally and unnecessarily embarrassing to an individual. Shambles, if you have any concern for the person concerned, I suggest that you accept the fact that this thread has been closed for his benefit. -Joe Offer- All of this imposed censorship (involving the imposed closure now of 3 threads)- like always - has only brought attention to something that most posters would have been unaware of and not interested in. The minute folk see all this fuss on our forum - they tend to want to know what all the fuss is about. There certainly is little point now in our volunteers closing the thread where the individual concerned has posted his explanation and apology. This only stops posters from seeing this important contribution. Joe if you and your volunteers don't know what to do for the best. The very best thing you can do - is to mind your own business and do nothing. Then at least you cannot be accused of making matters worse by meddling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:11 AM The first closed thread The REAL Demon Barber roadshow The second closed thread An Apology to Damian Barber |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:25 AM And oh yes - and the third thread Damian Barber alleged asault A click on that link - will now bring you back to this current thread. So is that thread now closed or is it deleted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:28 AM Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 10 May 05 - 04:46 AM Hi, Dewey - we don't ban any of the things on your list. We do take action on racism, Spam, personal attacks, and a few other things that are generally understood as abuses. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 11 May 05 - 04:33 AM Well shambles, as I said before, I don't always expect to agree with Joe's decisions (although I have the oppertunity I didn't take late last night to discuss the matter with him) and this is one of the few I think he got wrong. I do however disagree with you. I do believe the closure of the first two threads was correct. An apology had been made, the thread was degenerating as Macolm described and I no possibility of anything other than damage to a professional musican coming with the thread continuing. A personal attack if you like. The trouble IMO was caused by Richard Bridge in posting a third thread rather than respecting the reasonable actions taken by Joe and an oppertunity presented by El Greko to discuss the matter and related matters in a non personal way. It was that, not thread closures that prompted my response. Where I agree with you is the placement of my post is inapproppriate - in fact I'd rather deleted than here. Anyway, if we are to discuss this further, can we take it to a Censorhip thread. I've posted this here to follow your comments but I really don't think starting all this off here is showing El Greko any respect either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Joe Offer Date: 11 May 05 - 05:40 AM Well, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. There's no way any one decision could satisfy everyone. Some people wanted everything deleted, but I couldn't justify that. After receiving a number of requests, I closed the first thread in this four-thread series after the discussion died down, and I hoped that was the end of it. Nope - then somebody had to start another thread to apologize for the first thread, which reopened the wound. So, I closed that second one after this one was opened. When a fourth thread was started, I figured the best thing to do was to move those three messages here - knowing full well that wouldn't be satisfactory to a number of people. Ya just can't win sometimes. Gee, and it gave Sh----es a chance to post 6 messages in a row, all in the same thread. Isn't he clever? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 May 05 - 05:52 AM Yet another thread hijacked from the poster's intent, to become a Shambles(I hate censorship) fest. I'm gone! DT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 May 05 - 06:02 AM Well this is the first time that I have felt that the Mudcat proprietors (if that is the right term) have acted in a wholly inappropriate and unacceptable way. DB nutted someone. Why does he deserve protection by the concealment of that fact? It's a fact. He did it, he should live with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 11 May 05 - 06:15 AM DB nutted someone. Why does he deserve protection by the concealment of that fact? It's a fact. He did it, he should live with it. There is no concealment of the fact - the threads were closed, not deleted. They will remain on Mudcat for years and he has to live with it... He has even apologised. What do you want? Blood? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 May 05 - 06:21 AM Just the facts - unconcealed. Closing the threads means the offender is protected from the discussion of his wrongdoing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 11 May 05 - 06:45 AM Richard, Whilst I agree that the thread to which you refer should not have been closed so soon and an individual has escaped with little censure of his actions, this thread is supposed to debates the merits of complaints versus Mudslinging. Before Joe closes this one it may be an idea to stick to the original premise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: manitas_at_work Date: 11 May 05 - 08:15 AM "an individual has escaped with little censure " Quick! Raise the hue and cry! Are we judge and jury here, now? Besides, the individual HAS been censured and has apologised and explained ( not "justified" as someone claimed). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: catspaw49 Date: 11 May 05 - 08:51 AM LOL.....Kinda' hard to miss the irony here isn't it? We have to keep a thread open to censure someone because closing it is censorship.............................right then....... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 11 May 05 - 08:58 AM I hope you are reminded of this should any of your friends or relatives be subject to violent assault, not that I would wish such on anyone. The original thread was closed after two days, in the great scheme of things not time for a full debate of the issues it created |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 May 05 - 09:08 AM Which brings us back to this thread. The issues raised can be discussed here, I just asked that the discussion should generic. And indeed one of the issues is: How much specific debate would be considered sufficient and "full"? Is it a matter of days, or number of opinions given, or what? What determines that a debate is full? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Paco Rabanne Date: 11 May 05 - 09:13 AM I will say the same thing here that I said on a delted thread. What news of the chap that Damien Barber assaulted? How magnamimous does he fell? Has he contacted the Police? If I nut someone in a folk club will you all turn a blind eye bacause I play guitar well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 11 May 05 - 09:30 AM We might .......... if you did ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 May 05 - 09:44 AM Ted, don't take the lack of news on that as an indication of apathy. I think there has been silence on the victim's view of the assault because he is not known by this community - otherwise someone would have said something, is my guess. Presumably he feels aggrieved, but I can't speculate as to his specific feelings or actions he may have taken or is going to take. I know what I would do in his place, but not what he will. I like to think that most of us would not stand by if a performer nutted a member of the audience. But that is too obvious. Here's a real, more borderline situation without names - tell me what you would do: A duo is performing. A member of the audience in the front row, while listening, is glancing at the local folk magazine which he purchased in the interval. One of the performers singles him out and abuses him verbally making a point about everyone being attentive when HE plays, then pointedly comes off stage, grabs the magazine from the member of the audience and takes it onto the stage, out of reach. Would you just mutter into your beer? Would you tell the performer that he has overstepped the mark? Would you tell the member of the audience that it serves him right? How much abuse is punishable - and does it have to be physical? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Paco Rabanne Date: 11 May 05 - 09:47 AM Easy, I'd nut him!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Bill the Collie Date: 11 May 05 - 10:19 AM Enough children, any more of this behaviour and I shall put you on the naughty step. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 11 May 05 - 11:02 AM You wouldn't nut him Ted you may loose some of your good looks and/or your teeth!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,rat Date: 11 May 05 - 12:57 PM Give as good as ya get. Guarenteed someone in our audience objects to something we sing (usually a non-muscian) in a very unquiet way, then its feeding time for my very literate partner in crime and they lose. Then they turn to violence and threats, then they wait outside after the gig, then I beat the living lands end out of em then they buy one of our cds at a very special price. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 11 May 05 - 12:58 PM How much? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 01:23 PM Well, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. There's no way any one decision could satisfy everyone. That is the bottom line. The only way to be sure of not doing the wrong thing and be blamed - is for you to do nothing. That and respecting the wishes of the originator and fellow posters - is all I am asking you to do. Let everyone decide for themselves - which is what our discussion forum is supposed to be for - can you and your volunteers please leave us alone to discuss it? This time - you impose closure on one thread and there are 3 created in its place. Perhaps you will finally accept that you have no control over what posters choose to post and stop trying to exert this control and making matters worse as a ressult? The only control there is - is over what you choose to post yourself. Perhaps you can tell that to those who contact you to - ask you close or delete threads - and ask you to impose their judgement upon the contributions of fellow posters. There is big difference in moderating a discussion forum and encouraging the idea that you have the right to RULE over every aspect of what others contribute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 02:52 PM We have to keep a thread open to censure someone because closing it is censorship.............................right then....... If the object of the imposed censorship was out of concern for the person being criticised - the direct result of this censorship was - (as on most occasions like this) - that far more people were made aware of an issue that that they probably would have missed - without all the fuss and justification of the imposed closure of two threads and the imposed deletion of another. When a fourth thread was started, I figured the best thing to do was to move those three messages here - knowing full well that wouldn't be satisfactory to a number of people. The most important person who wouldn't be satisfied with this move - was the thread originator. They specifically reqested in the first post that no names be brought into this thread. He even stated that if anyone did this - he would request that our volunteers to remove it. I am sure that he did not expect for one minute that it would be our volunteers who ignored his request. Especially as this imposition was admittedly made in the full knowledge that it "wouldn't be thought satisfactory". Perhaps folk will finally accept this as evidence - that our volunteers will now just meddle as they wish - with our contributions? Have you ever had your contributions meddled with - Missus? *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 May 05 - 03:09 PM The originator of the thread approved. Do you have anything pertinent to the thread to discuss? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Wolfgang Date: 11 May 05 - 04:09 PM They came for the communists, and I was not a communist, so I did nothing. (Shambles 2001, looking for a source to a quote he liked) The only way to be sure of not doing the wrong thing and be blamed - is for you to do nothing. (Shambles' recommendation 2005) Your 2005 recommendation is complete BS, Shambles, as you should realise if you think about it. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 May 05 - 04:20 PM Wolfgang, don't you get it? It can be easily rationalised (as I am sure it will). The logic we will be presented with is as follows: a) Monster Joe can't do anything right, so the less he does, the less chance of damage. b) Don Shambote however does good; he has clones to incapacitate, threads to clog up, The Greater Good Of Mudcat to protect...So the more HE does, the better. Nothing hypocritical about this logic. Not much.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 11 May 05 - 04:23 PM And before Roger whines back "you told me to get back to the point of the thread, why do you then talk about other things?": The thread is buggered thanks to Shambles anyway, and to those responding to the troll's bait... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 May 05 - 07:02 PM The only reason I'm on this thread was that my objection to a thread deletion (not any mudslinging) was moved here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 12 May 05 - 03:22 AM I am not sure that it is but - if this thread is 'buggered' It was as a direct result of clumsy (if well-intentioned) imposed censorship. A direct result of our volunteers ignoring the wishes of the thread originator and rushing to place a posts here - including one containing a name here without the poster's knowledge or consent. It is a sad fact that thread would now seem to be the only place to discuss the original incident and the general issues arising - that is safe from imposed censorship. So far. We do appear to have 'official' permission to do it - if no thread to now do it in. I am a little surprised at this apparent concern for mudslinging - considering all the mud that has recently been thrown at me - and that continues to be thrown at me here and the direction that much of this mud is comming from. But what is the concern? That a performer's name appears in a thread title? If that is the case - then 50% of all threads should also be subject to imposed closure or deletion. If the thread title was 'Joe Bloggs is a wonderful performer, and great person who does a lot for charity' - I am sure that Joe Bloggs nor anyone else would be contacting our volunteers and asking for a fellow poster's contribution to be closed or deleted. However, this is a rather long thread title that us ordinary posters would not be able to fit in the box provided - but that is another story. Perhaps public figures will just have to get used to being 'gossiped' about and accept the good against the bad. Posters here are probably different and creating thread titles with a poster's name in it - is probably not a good thing to do. It is not a good idea to encourage this nor to impose censorship on - if such a thread is created. I don't think the purpose of our forum is for us to be encouraged to sit in judgement upon each other's worth to post. Perhaps we should just concentrate on posting - reading the posts of others - responding to what they say or choosing not to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 12 May 05 - 03:31 AM The only way to be sure of not doing the wrong thing and be blamed - is for you to do nothing. That and respecting the wishes of the originator and fellow posters - is all I am asking you to do. The above is the 2005 recomendation in full and in context - for I have been told that context is important Your 2005 recommendation is complete BS, Shambles, as you should realise if you think about it. Wolfgang If it is 'complete BS - then it is in good company and in the right section of our forum. Let us leave our forum to judge..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 12 May 05 - 05:50 AM Told you, Wolfie - trolls hear but they don't listen. They speak but they make no sense. They read but they don't understand. You tell them they talk bollocks, and they think you just agreed with them. You tell them they diverted your thread, and they blame others. They are tyrants of their own reality. But they are patient, and they have plenty of time on their hands. The more they hear people crossing the bridge, the more opportunity for them to extract their toll. They are pretty much indestructible. But you shouldn't take them seriously either. After all, they are just fairytale figures. Laugh at them a little, cringe at their convolutions a little, tease them a little...Just don't try to reason with the troll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 12 May 05 - 08:06 AM Shame. This was an interesting thread before it got hijacked. Is there a filter that would stop one seeing a particular member's posts? I do try just to ignore, but whenthey take over completely with the same old same old every time it becomes very tedious and I give up on a thread that I've been interested in. I do try to be tolerant but there are certain posters who just piss me off with their whining or crudity. Then I start thinking that a swift kick in the ghoolies would concentrate their minds on the fact that they are BORING. Rant over - I have reread this post and will send it - I'm fed up with idiots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 12 May 05 - 09:31 AM Is there a difference between mudslinging and name-calling? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 12 May 05 - 09:42 AM Run ins with established performers Another thread for the 'chop'? Just a point for the pedantic among us. The original thread that started all this fuss (about very little) did not in fact have the performer's name in the title. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 12 May 05 - 10:01 AM Just a point for the pedantic among us. The original thread that started all this fuss (about very little) did not in fact have the performer's name in the title. (Shambles today) Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 05 - 03:11 AM The first closed thread The REAL Demon Barber roadshow (Shambles earlier in this thread) Shambles, what do you want to tell us here? That the thread titled The REAL Demon Barber Roadshow!! was not the first thread about the incident in correction of your former contribution? Or that misspelling the first name of a performer makes him unrecognisable? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 12 May 05 - 10:22 AM Wolfgang - This was only for the pedantic among us - not for the super-pedantic.....*Smiles* But while we are on the subject. The thread title was not mis - spelled. It refers to the title of the band/review that Damian Barber is currently touring with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 12 May 05 - 11:15 AM http://www.thedemonbarbers.com/Default.aspx?tabid=87 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 12 May 05 - 11:44 PM Wlfgang, it chokes me to say this...But Shambles is r*&^%£....he is rig&^%$£....Shambles is right (there, I said it) about the thread title being the name of Damien Barber's review. Oh God, what have I done! I have agreed with Shambles... Joe, quick, delete me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Paco Rabanne Date: 13 May 05 - 05:13 AM The Shambles makes a lot of sense to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: JennyO Date: 13 May 05 - 08:25 AM The slippery slope - the true path! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 14 May 05 - 06:10 AM They came for the communists, and I was not a communist, so I did nothing. (Shambles 2001, looking for a source to a quote he liked) The only way to be sure of not doing the wrong thing and be blamed - is for you to do nothing. (Shambles' recommendation 2005) There are times when doing nothing will be judged the best thing to do and there are times when it will be judged not to be. Anyone who thinks that life easy is in for a shock. So is anyone who thinks that imposing censorship is easy. If your only worry as self-appointed volunteer censor is the fear of being blamed for your actions - there are two clear choices. I. You restrict your imposed censorship actions to as near zero as you can. 2. You un-volunteer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 14 May 05 - 06:29 AM If your only worry as self-appointed volunteer... As this site only has Max-appointed volunteers, no one need worry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 14 May 05 - 06:38 AM In order for Max to appoint a volunteer - they first have to volunteer. Otherwise there would not be any volunteers for Max to appoint. Jon you will not I hope - argue with the fact that any of our self-appointed volunteers could un-volunteer at any time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 14 May 05 - 07:03 AM In order for Max to appoint a volunteer - they first have to volunteer. Otherwise there would not be any volunteers for Max to appoint. Not true shambles. I know I "parted company" later but the first I knew of becoming a volunteer here was a PM from Max asking me if I would volunteer. The same has happened with other volunteers. In any case, volunteering does not mean a person is appointed. Even if they PMed Max offering help, the appointment would be made by Max and not by the "volunteer". Jon you will not I hope - argue with the fact that any of our self-appointed volunteers could un-volunteer at any time? There is no point arguing anything about self-appointed volunteers as they don't exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 14 May 05 - 08:59 AM There is no point arguing anything about self-appointed volunteers as they don't exist. How about volunteers who are no longer Max appointed or self-appointed volunteers? Jon did you un-volunteer or were you dis -appointed? The point simply being that no one here is being forced to volunteer - so if they do not wish to between a rock and a hard place - they do not have be - do they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 14 May 05 - 09:19 AM Shambles, I resigned. It is true that no Max appointed volunteer has to continue or (at least in the case of those of us who were invited) accept in the first place. The point that there are no self appointed volunteers remains. Max asks for volunteers because he feels he needs them. If he was low on "staff" he would look for more volunteers. This is where much of your argument fails as you can not accept the fact that the volunteers exist because Max wants them to. Whether you like it or not, your dislike of anonymous volunteers or your creation of "self appointed volunteers" are in fact criticisms of Max. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Spaw Date: 14 May 05 - 10:35 AM Of the clones I know, NONE of them have volunteered first. The initial contact was made by Max or Jeff or Joe on Max's behalf. Jon you are completely correct in noting that Shambles refusal to accept this fact (and it is a fact) is a real problem for him and his argument. So let's abandon the word volunteer and use clone or moderator instead for accuracy. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 14 May 05 - 01:59 PM Whether you like it or not, your dislike of anonymous volunteers or your creation of "self appointed volunteers" are in fact criticisms of Max. How do you work out that I dislike any anonymous volunteers? Is it even possible to dislike those whose identity is withheld and who remain unknown to you? This is really the problem. My critisms are of the wisdom of creating any uneeded divisions on our forum - not expressions of any personal dislike of those volunteering or being appointed for these positions. The defence of having anonymous volunteers comes largely from these volunteers and their supporters (who know they will never be censored). And on the basis that they are nice well-intentioned folk (and anyone who critises them are not nice folk). Not that the concept of judgement being imposed by anonymous fellow posters - is one that is likely to be generally popular or one that will unite posters. My view is that we are all pretty nice folk - but that all this imposed judgement upon fellow posters by anonymous volunteers - is NOT a very nice thing. As for this being a critism of Max. My view is that if Max thinks that the forum is accepting this concept and generally think that it is a good idea - he will think this OK too. Now as anonymous posting here will never be thought acceptable - I really can't see how all this anonymous imposed judgement as a matter now of routine - will ever be thought to be generally acceptable. For whatever your view - if it continues unchanged - the only thing that Mudcatters will have to 'learn to live with' is continuing and constant battles - resulting directly from this needless division and the double standards that are defended. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 14 May 05 - 02:31 PM "How do you work out that I dislike any anonymous volunteers? Is it even possible to dislike those whose identity is withheld and who remain unknown to you?" Blimey shambles... I mean your dislike of the existance of/system which allows anonymous volunteers. This is really the problem. My critisms are of the wisdom of creating any uneeded divisions on our forum And you have been told yet again that Max created the system that you complain causes unneeded divisions... My view is that we are all pretty nice folk - but that all this imposed judgement upon fellow posters by anonymous volunteers - is NOT a very nice thing. As for this being a critism of Max. My view is that if Max thinks that the forum is accepting this concept and generally think that it is a good idea - he will think this OK too. I'm sorry but I don't understand you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 15 May 05 - 06:56 AM I'm sorry but I don't understand you. Your idea appears to be that our volunteers are not responsible for the free choice they made to sit in and impose their personal judgement upon fellow posters. That it is Max that who deserves all criticism that may result from our volunteers getting it wrong and the resulting division from all of this. A more sensible view would be that all parties should be responsible and prepared for any citicism of their actions. Perhaps you would agree that there is nothing simple about imposing censorship? And that anyone who chose and felt qualified to sit in judgement - would be unrealistic to expect not to be themselves the subject of judgement? In fact most of the abusive personal attacks made upon me and incitement for other posters to follow this example - by (named and anoymous) volunteers - were because these volunteers considered any judgement at all of their actions - to be unfair and uncalled-for! One can perhaps understand a volunteer who would like to think that the person who appointed them was responsible and answerable for any mistaken judgements they may make - but the world is not like that. Is it possible Jon that all this resulting division among our ranks is intentional? That keeping this pot constantly stirring by introducing measures that further divide us and are most unlikely to result in peace and harmony ever breaking out on our forum - is cynically designed just going to keeping folks posting? In all truth - it is difficult to see how you could come up with a worse set-up - if peace and harmony on our forum - were really the object.....Perhaps this is not the object? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 15 May 05 - 09:43 AM The only way to find out is shambles is on the right path, is for all moderation to stop for perhaps a month/2 months, and see the result. This also won't happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST Date: 15 May 05 - 10:17 AM Your idea appears to be that our volunteers are not responsible for the free choice they made to sit in and impose their personal judgement upon fellow posters. That it is Max that who deserves all criticism that may result from our volunteers getting it wrong and the resulting division from all of this. Shambles, it is you not me, with the criticism of the volunteer system. It is not opinion but fact that Max carries the ultimate responsiblity for all aspects of Mudcat. My view is that if you have a complaint with a system and you fail at a lower level (as you have for around 6 years), you either give up or take the matter higher. To put it bluntly, I believe you should either put up or shut up. I imposed my personal judgement upon your italics. --JoeClone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 15 May 05 - 11:51 AM Shambles - you are doing nothing to help toward peace and harmony. All you are doing is driving people away from what were interesting threads by your constant repetition of the same argument. Unfortunately there are some very unpleasant individuals on this site. I know of one lady who was called a very unpleasant name and another poster hoped that my husband would get cancer (he already had) and that our house would burn down. IMO these are the sort of personal attacks that need moderators to deal with and, again IMO, the clones do a good job. I know of very few people who have had posts deleted and have been in agreement with the clones when they close unpleasant threads. If anyone is in the minority on this question, with posts being deleted then maybe those people need to look inward for the reasons why. Most of us manage to comport ourselves in a reasonable manner that does not attract censure. In common with any relatively democratic entity majority opinion should carry the day. As far as the net is concerned, you are free to come and go as you please. Just don't expect everybody else to conform to your ideas of right and wrong just because you want to play. As GUEST 10.17am said - put up or shut up - you get very BORING. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Bill D Date: 15 May 05 - 06:12 PM "The defence of having anonymous volunteers comes largely from these volunteers and their supporters...." sounds right to me. In fact, it sounds tautological! ............. I wouldn't expect the defence to come from those very few who object! Last time I counted, it was about 99% in favor. But since you enjoy being a voice in the wilderness, Shambles, I'm sure we will hear why the fact that most of those who have shown an opinion disagree with you is irrelevant. (gee- that sentence is worthy of YOU!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 15 May 05 - 07:35 PM Shambles - you are doing nothing to help toward peace and harmony. All you are doing is driving people away from what were interesting threads by your constant repetition of the same argument. I do not appear to be driving you away from judging me in this thread– even though you claim to be bored. Unfortunately there are some very unpleasant individuals on this site. I know of one lady who was called a very unpleasant name and another poster hoped that my husband would get cancer (he already had) and that our house would burn down. IMO these are the sort of personal attacks that need moderators to deal with and, again IMO, the clones do a good job. Sadly – since our volunteers have adopted the bad habits of those you would judge as "unpleasant individuals" – it is difficult now to tell them, from the threats, and actions of (some of) our volunteers. Fighting fire with fire – is liable to result in your entire house burning down. The fact is that the "unpleasant" comments you refer to – were posted. So whatever harm caused to you by these words – was already done. Our volunteers cannot protect you from this – they can only impose their judgement AFTER the damage has been done. Would it not be better for all efforts to be concentrated on trying to prevent all this unpleasantness from first being posted – by the setting of a better example? I know of very few people who have had posts deleted and have been in agreement with the clones when they close unpleasant threads. If anyone is in the minority on this question, with posts being deleted then maybe those people need to look inward for the reasons why. Most of us manage to comport ourselves in a reasonable manner that does not attract censure. In common with any relatively democratic entity majority opinion should carry the day. As far as the net is concerned, you are free to come and go as you please. Just don't expect everybody else to conform to your ideas of right and wrong just because you want to play. I sometimes think the only ones qualified to comment with any authority on censorship – are those who have suffered from it. Those who feel safe from it and support it being imposed upon others and those who feel themselves qualified to deny basic freedoms to others – freedoms that they themselves take as a right – should perhaps not have too much of a voice in this debate. The saying – 'I'm alright Jack' comes to mind. Agree or disagree with me but the fact remains that all of this unpleasantness and division will just get worse – if all of this censorship and public judgement of each other's worth to post - continues to be encouraged by the poor example now being set and sadly followed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: GUEST,Jon Date: 15 May 05 - 07:40 PM I sometimes think the only ones qualified to comment with any authority on censorship – are those who have suffered from it. Have you ever been censored here Shambles? I have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 15 May 05 - 07:48 PM Bill D hasn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 16 May 05 - 01:54 AM On reflection - everyone here has been censored - perhaps not directly - but certainly indirectly. Is this not the case - every time an entire thread is moved, deleted or closed on the imposition of our volunteer's personal taste? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 16 May 05 - 02:18 AM Will posts claiming the 100th be safe now from our anonymous volunteers and not now be deleted by them as a matter of routine? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Paco Rabanne Date: 16 May 05 - 03:15 AM 100. Good morning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Davetnova Date: 16 May 05 - 03:28 AM 100 you missed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 16 May 05 - 03:54 AM Even as we write these posts we are censored, simply by having Times Roman as the default font and having to go into HTML - like learning the secret language of the Powers That Be - if we want to post in a font that truly expresses our personal feelings. The oppression is stifling. Thankfully there are people out there who are willing to spend grey matter and time for the common good, and who will champion our cause. But one thing at a time. Let's save the 100th posts first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 16 May 05 - 04:36 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- Are they still - officially "fair game" for our anonymous volunteers? Or has something changed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: George Papavgeris Date: 16 May 05 - 06:04 AM I believe "100thpost-ism" has been largely eradicated thanks to the incessant lobbing (or is it lobbying?) of the Protectors Of Our Freedom (POOF for short) and now Ted and others can enjoy the numerical race unmolested. Folk music, Mudcat and the Internet has been saved from the scourge of the "100thpost-ist" anonymous self-appointed clones. All together now : Let's hear it for our eponymous self-appointed drones! The air is somehow fresher this morning... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Jeri Date: 16 May 05 - 10:34 AM Regarding those in the Count Catula Club, first Joe said the posts were fair game, then he said the one referred to above should not have been deleted. Pick the opinion which is most appropriate to your need. Brought to you by A.D.D.[1]: Anybody remember those children's things you could buy with the shiny black cardboard and the flat plastic images that would stick to the board and each other? Did they have them in the UK? I had 101 Dalmations. There were oodles of plastic puppies, and Cruella DeVille and other characters, and their clothes (not the puppies, which were nude (except for spots)). Do they still make these things? I used to like the way the plastic bits smelled. Regarding the original subject which has been largely forsaken in favor of following where Shambles leads, I think people have a right to know about incidents that may affect them directly.[2] I do NOT think Mudcat has an obligation to provide a place to do that. I definitely don't think it's the place for people to engage in malicious and potentially career wrecking gossip or trial by public opinion. If folks need to talk about how much they hate a person or how big of an asshole/idiot/witchfinder general he/she is, they should at LEAST do so using the same sort of polite language Shambles uses when discussing Joe. [1]Be the first to figure out what made me think of this and win a prize. [2]Personally, a drunk guy popping an obnoxious guy in a club somewhere far away from me doesn't seem like it's going to be something I really need to know about or talk about. I enjoy a tabloid as much as the next person, but the people gossiped about in them have money for lawyers and lawsuits. I don't think it's fair to folk musicians who can't afford to sue and wouldn't get any blood from this stone anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: JennyO Date: 16 May 05 - 10:50 AM I don't know if this was what you were thinking of Jeri, but what came to my mind was The Count in Sesame Street ("They call me The Count because I looove to count things") - especially when you mentioned the little plastic images. My kids had the Sesame Street characters, but they were probably not exactly what you were describing - these were fridge magnets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 16 May 05 - 11:00 AM Has anything else changed (for the better) - as result of recent mistakes on our forum by our volunteers? Mistakes that were thought necessary to be corrected? The future of the 100th post itself - was never in danger. All that was in question is/was - who decided the content of it. If this content is/was not judged by our anonymous volunteers to be to their personal taste - the volunteer now referred to now as our Chief Administrator - considered that although such judgement was not important enough for them - it was "fair game" for their underlings to impose their judgement upon the contributions of their fellow posters as a matter of routine in these cases - without the originator's knowledge or permission. This was before our Chief Administrator later thought it important enough to reverse such an imposition by an anonymous volunteer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: The Shambles Date: 16 May 05 - 11:41 AM I do NOT think Mudcat has an obligation to provide a place to do that. I definitely don't think it's the place for people to engage in malicious and potentially career wrecking gossip or trial by public opinion. In my opinion - I may judge the above to be a perfectly valid opinion or not. However, my judgement in this does not matter - as I have always understood all opinions on our forum are equally valid. So the only interest is whether I wish to respond or not - to what is said. But before I do - there must remain some confusion in other areas now - in that does the above become official Mudcat policy when strongly expressed like this - by a (known) volunteer - or have any more weight than an opinion expressed by an ordinary poster? Perhaps not but folk may follow any example set by a known volunteer - thinking this is acceptable posting. Perhaps all of us and our volunteers especially should always try to ensure that their posting is setting an acceptable example? All folk like to gossip (even those like me who are not very good at it). But few of us like the idea of being gossiped about publicly. A bad habit has developed on our forum of posting publicly to address another poster and to make comments and personal judgements in these posts about other named posters. This practice can only lead to more problems and the strength of opinion and the language used - have directly led to the idea that it is also OK to do exacly the same with well-known public figures and performers. This mudslinging is problematic. There is the option of PMs and email where IF the convention is followed - of not making these exchanges public - it is possible to be as defamatory and as bitchy as you wish and about whoever you wish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: jacqui.c Date: 16 May 05 - 11:48 AM I can't remember the plastic stuff but do remember the felt pieces - I think they are still available today. I hope whoever thought up those simple ideas made their money out of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Complaints versus Mudslinging From: Jeri Date: 16 May 05 - 12:42 PM JennyO, no, but it makes sense. Actually the link is so obvious that most people probably would think "Uh...yeah. So what?" I think the things were called ColorForms or something like it. Hang on a minute... Hot Diggity Dalmation!. I can't find the dalmations, but it seems Colorforms have been resurrected since there's a Squarebob Spongepants version out. Maybe the next fundraiser could be something similar with Mudcat as the theme. Mudcat action figures might be fun but once you rip the heads off, that's it. Little sticky plastic things would be better. Also, in addition to clothes one could change, there could be bodies - maybe the Star Wars™ characters and Mudcatter faces you could stick on them. Imagine who would be whom. It could be fun, and every time one got frustrated at threads like this, one could stick somebody's face on Jabba-the-Hut, add a pink tutu and Carmen Miranda fruit hat, and suddenly you're not so mad anymore. |
