Tech: Closing threads?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

OK, so now I know which volunteer closed the thread, and we've discussed the matter.
And as I've said earlier in this thread, it's an internal matter and has been resolved internally. That being said, I can't say anything more. Shambles has his honest answer, so I think it's time to close this thread.
-Joe Offer-

---

If you really see a need to join Shambles in discussing this subject further, see Opening Threads: a Debate, which is really about closing threads.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: JennyO
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 12:08 PM

Someone took a pen off my desk today and used it, then forgot to put it back. I lost a whole 30 seconds out of my life going into the next room to find it and bring it back. If I find out who the culprit is, they will be severely taken to task and outed. I may even sue them for loss of my valuable time!











Get a life mate! In the grand scheme of things, how important is it really - I mean REALLY?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 11:57 AM

I think FEMA would be the better group to handle this considering the magnitude of the problem.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 11:46 AM

The heaven falls down and noone listens to the voice of warning. Very soon, posters who do not follow the arbitrary rules of the volunteer fellow posters will be shot 'inadvertantly' or sent to concentration camps. Do not say then that you have not been warned. First they will come for Shambles and you may be silent for you may think, well, I'm not Shambles, but when they'll come for you who will raise the voice of protest?

Let us inform Amnesty International, the UN and the European Court of Human Rights so they can investigate independently how it came that someone hit the wrong button. We want a totally honest and complete explanation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 07:17 AM

I have been rather forced to make it - because the editing cock-ups just continue and continue to be minimised and justified - as they are again here.

The point is simply to demonstrate to our forum that all of the measures fairly recently introduced on our forum - are not only; over-the-top, counter-productive, needlesly divisive and not proportionate - but the spin that is given to attempt to defend and justify the myth that all this imposition and judgement is contolled, impartial and accountable - is just spin.

You may think this imposition and spin from fellow posters is now acceptable on our forum - I do not. It is only my opinion but the evidence is provided - and a good example is demonstrated in this thread.

What is the totally honest answer to the question of - who closed this thread and why and how can such things be avoided? Has our forum been given the totally honest explanation and answer it deserves? Or does the one given just reflect our forum's lowered expectations?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 07:04 AM

That was a most funny post, Shambles, thank you.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 06:53 AM

Relax Don.........I think that Max is probably enjoying this. Among other things, Max was a philosophy major and he loves watching the exchange go on, if he's even bothering to watch at all. Like the rest of us he can see all the fallacies in Roger's arguments and probably finds them more amusing then many of us do!

That's not to say that Shambles has contributed anything to the study of Philosophy or Psychology. As far as I am aware, the only science where he has been part of any contribution is in Animal Husbandry where he is the living proof that a Wart Hog once butt-fucked a Bassett Hound.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 05:21 AM

What is your purpose in all this hassle Roger?

Are you trying to get Max and Joe so p****d off that they will close this whole forum?

I for one can see no sense whatever in your constant nit picking. There must be better ways to get the attention you seem to crave, as your current activity seems to be alienating just about everybody on Mudcat.

I don't think anyone else shows concern over the way that the forum is run, so you would seem to be wasting a lot of energy for no discernible result.

Of course that's just my opinion.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 02:32 AM

This thread had established that the closure of threads gave no technical benefit to the running of the site.

Then it was closed – for no good reason and anonymously by one of the few fellow posters trusted with an edit button.

Then it was re-opened by The Chief of The Mudcat Editing Staff – who asks us to accept that – unknown to him - he may have even been responsible for its closure.

This is what is not only ludicrous – it is all totally out of proportion to the problem.

If the ability to impose closure upon threads is so easy for anyone with an edit button to not only do it by mistake – but also to be unaware that they have done it – perhaps the ability to close threads can be removed from those few fellow posters trusted with this edit button?

If we accept that it is – (perhaps too) easy to close a thread inadvertently – how likely is that the person responsible is not aware that they were responsible?

Has it in fact ever been established that this thread was closed unintentionally?

By a process of elimination - it should be easy to establish the truth. If all of those trusted with edit buttons deny responsiblity - then the one with overall responsibilty and who is supposed to be in control - must take the blame - and perhaps apologise to our forum?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,MP
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 08:06 PM

It is rather evident that Shambles goal, other than getting rid of all moderators, is to bully someone into providing a list of all volunteers and make them somehow sign any edits they make, so he can compare their named regular postings with their editing and raise his collection of quotations for pasting to new heights.

The charges and countercharges would go on forever. I rather wish none of the 5 or 6 known elves were known, but I am glad that the rest have been allowed to stay anonymous.

Perhaps, Shambles, everyone can edit except you!

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 07:40 PM

You know, Shambles, I treated you with respect and gave you a completely honest answer. But it doesn't do any good to be honest or respectful to you, does it?

And no, nobody but the responsible party can tell whether a change is intentional or inadvertant - logic should tell you that. There is a mechanism which can tell us which volunteer did what action - but that mechanism was damaged in the crash and hasn't been repaired yet. It's low on our priority list of repairs, since we really haven't had any serious problems with volunteers. If there is a problem with a volunteer, Jeff or I will talk with the volunteer about the problem, determine if it was intentional or inadvertant, and resolve it - it's not something that I would ever discuss publicly. I would also not discuss publicly which volunteer did what - that's an internal policy matter, and people outside the functional structure of Mudcat have no reason to have that information. There is nothing constructive they can do with internal information like that.

As for the seriousness of the offense of closing a thread, I think the regionwide power outage and accidental shooting are inappropriate analogies. A more appropriate analogy might be my misplacing my glasses, an offense I often commit several times day. Usually, I don't bother trying to blame my stepson, although sometimes I'd like to. Most of the time, I find the glasses, put them on, and then go about my business (until I lose them again). It's inconvenient and perhaps a bit embarrassing, but no harm was done.

So the thread got closed, and then it was reopened. I wish it hadn't happened, but it did, so I fixed it. End of story. It does seem totally ludicrous to make an issue out of a thread having been closed for a few hours. As soon as it was called to my attention, I reopened it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 07:07 PM

How likely is it that this thread's closure was really inadvertent?

Given the one click process Joe Offer described, I'd say it's very likely. I don't know the mechanism here but it is also possible that the "culprit" was unaware of what they did.

Is it really impossible to establish whether this thread closure was intentional?

My best guess is that in the absence of a trace mechanism (which incidentaly I do not have on the sites I am involved with) is that the server logs would contain an entry giving some clue. But even if that record existed a) I would doubt Joe Offer would have access to it and b) I can't reasonably see anyone searching through those records to attempt to find an answer to such (as a one off - one might be concerned if it was happening daily) trivia. I can assure you that at the Annexe which will have considerably smaller logs than here, there is no way I'd searching to attempt to resolve your complaint which IMO is blown up beyond any imaginable sense of proportion.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 06:35 PM

Non-mandatory, in this context, means that Mudcat is a bonus, not something to which you, or any of us, are entitled!

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Blowzabella
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 06:33 PM

Shambles, flower, you really need to get a life! You are either the luckiest person in the world, who has no greater problems than having some minor disputes with an internet net, or you are the most vindictive person I have ever come across.

Do you ever stop to think that the people who are trying to keep this site tidy have their own lives to lead? They are not 'employed', but are doing their best, in the face of whatever life may, or may not, happen to chuck at them (and which they may, or may not, care to share with this board). My own life has thrown the odd wideball at me and I have had to continue doing a very stressful and deadline led job, without, necessarily being able to share my homelife pressures (newspapers and magazines don't care about those things) - I have learned to remember, when dealing with people, that there might well be unseen reasons for things, which you just have to accept as that - you do NOT have the right to know everything - especially in a situation like this which is non-mandatory!

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 06:05 PM

Was the earlier anology of an inadvertent LA power cut any more appropriate?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 05:57 PM

I repeat my question -

"In what way is the discharging of a policemans gun and the tempory closing of a thread on a forum an appropriate anology ?"

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 05:48 PM

As for this victim being shot last night, all I can say is that as far as I can tell, the shooting was inadvertent.

Whatever the case, I consoled the victim as soon as I found out about the shooting. And the world did not end because of the relatively limited damage caused to the single victim, who probably deserved it anyway, so I guess it's all OK.

I don't know who did the shooting or why. It might have even been me as the triggers on our guns are set so as the slightest pressure will fire them and the person firing will not know when they have been fired (although the victim undoubtably will know).

There is no intention to take any steps to try and prevent any future possibly inadvertent discharge and I trust that this explanation will be satifactory.
The Shadow.

Logic?

No - I think the fantasy of the thread deciding to close itself has a more logic than the so-called logical explanation.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 05:17 PM

But I still don't know who closed this thread, and I was mad as hell at the person who did it, and if I found out who did it, I was gonna kick butt. But of course, it could have been Joe Offer that closed the thread inadvertantly, and kicking HIS butt could cause problems that even his wife the chiropractor couldn't fix.

Jeff had designed a mechanism to track editing actions, but it was damaged in the Big Crash - and we haven't had the time or opportunity to fix more essential functions. So, I guess the butt will remain unkicked. But yeah, I agree that sort of thing IS an embarrassment to Mudcat, and should serve as a reminder to our volunteers that they should use restraint. We close threads because they're causing a problem, not just because they're annoying.

Since it's so very easy to reopen a thread, we didn't bother putting a failsafe mechanism on the closing process - both are one-click processes, and I suppose we all click on the wrong spot every once in a while. So, it's quite possible that threads can be closed inadvertantly. If a thread is closed and you see a need for it to be reopened, contact me or Jeff by personal message and explain why you think the thread should be reopened. In our absence, Jeri has the authority to reopen a thread. And no, the regular Forum and the Help Forum are not appropriate places to request the reopening of threads. We have no desire to cater to those who wish to make issues out of our editorial actions. If you want to make an issue or an accusation out of what we do in good faith, you may find that your point of view won't have much credence.

And yes, we do the editing we do in good faith, in an attempt to make Mudcat a better place. Logic should tell you that we have no reason to do otherwise.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 05:11 PM

Only the Chief of The Mudcat Editing Staff knows....Or does not..

If we accept that the idea of this thread deciding to close itself is fantasy – there is only one explanation for this thread's closure.

Some still unknown fellow poster trusted with an edit button – of which there are only a limited (if unknown) number – was responsible - inadvertently or intentionally – of closing it.

So if the individual does not own-up - is it really impossible to establish which of this limited number of trusted fellow posters was responsible for this thread's closure?

Is it really impossible to establish whether this thread closure was intentional?

How likely is it that this thread's closure was really inadvertent?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 03:23 PM

hey, Roger....when you have a dozen or so 'inadvertant' thread closings, it might be significant and management might deal with zealous elves. I don't think one instance constitues much of a trend.

Face it...most of your concerns are about what 'might' happen...what has actually happened has made very little difference to anyone except you..

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 03:00 PM

In what way is the discharging of a policemans gun and the tempory closing of a thread on a forum an appropriate anology ?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 02:15 PM

If a policeman's gun discharges, even inadvertently – they may unintentionally cause a lot of physical damage. The individual concerned will first accept the responsibility for this damage is theirs.

Those who are above them will recognise their responsibility is to establish the reasons for this unintentional discharge in order to reassure the public and try to ensure similar damage is not repeated.
The usual first step would be to suspend the officer concerned or remove their firearm – until the reason for the discharge could be established.

Attempting to patch-up only the physical damage and minimising the extent it without an attempt to establish the reason for the discharge and making the assumption that it was inadvertent - without any attempt to reassure the public that it would not be repeated – would not be thought a sufficient and responsible response.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:53 PM

Only the Shadow knows......

Or is that - Only the Shambles knows....

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: MMario
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:46 PM

Was that before or after he breached the levees at NOLA?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:38 PM

Can we be sure that Joe Offer didn't cause the Los Angles blackout too ?

"The truth is out there"

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:32 PM

you'd better look up "inadvertant", Roger....it has a lot of subtle nuances. There was an "inadvertant" crossing of wires yetserday, which caused half of Los Angeles to lose power for 2 hours, but they fixed it, and I'm sure they will try to avoid it in the future. No one suggests that the workmen who did it were doing it for spite...but no one is demanding that their names be published, either.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:27 PM

If you could read and not only copy&paste, Shambles, you'd see that what you have claimed is not founded in anything of what you have copied.

That you are a liar is the most charitable assumption, the other being you live in a fantasy world.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: MMario
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:26 PM

Agree with you Wolfgang. Shambles interpretation goes against the facts as presented. Case in point, his own qoutes of Joe disprove shambles interpretation.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 01:14 PM

As for this thread being closed for several hours last night, all I can say is that as far as I can tell, the closure was inadvertant. Whatever the case, I reopened the thread as soon as I found out about the closure. And the world did not end because of the relatively brief closure of the thread, so I guess it's all OK. No doubt, Shambles will try to make a big issue out of this temporary thread closure, but I don't see how it can be construed as a big thing. If somebody had a novel and profound thread they were unable to express because of this thread closure, then I'm sorry. But generally, I think it's safe to say that this all has been said before.
Joe Offer

The truth is out there.

Wolfgang perhaps you can establish for us - the reality of how and why this thread became to be closed - and who was responsible for this - inadvertantly or not?

Or perhaps you are prepared to accept the fantasy that this thread did decide to close itself? Or are you just happy for any excuse - to now to post only to call your fellow poster's names?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 07:16 AM

You're a liar, Shambles.

Joe has never said that he cannot establish the reason for this thread's closure and he has never said that the thread automatically decided to close itself.

You are the only one who has ever mentioned these interpretations. Don't confuse the products of your phantasy with the reality.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 04:29 AM

You mean like Joe Offer seriously expecting our forum to accept that he cannot establish the reason for this thread's closure or asking us to accept that the thread automatically decided to close itself?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Sep 05 - 04:48 AM

Same old same old.

DT

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 05 - 04:29 AM

I am pretty sure that no one has ever been forced to open any thread.

I am pretty sure that no one has ever been forced to post and refresh any thread.

I am also pretty sure that no thread has ever decided to close itself.

And I am sure that this thread was re-opened - for the person who re-opened this thread has posted to explain why they decided to re-open it.

I still do not know why this thread was closed - for some unknown reason - by some unknown person who is still trusted with an edit button and still able to anonymously impose their judgement upon the contributions of their fellow posters.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Sep 05 - 06:41 AM

"The answer must be to close everthing and for everyone to stop posting everything. That will sort it."

I can live with that Roger, if you lead by example, and stop posting yourself, PLEASE.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Sep 05 - 05:36 AM

This is the clearest evidence yet that I've seen of your duplicity, Roger. You LIE when you say your posts have been edited. ONLY a heading has been changed (added to). That is not censorship, or editing. That is CAPTIONING. And you know it.

Any change IMPOSED by any anonyomous volunteer fellow poster - without the originator's knowledge or permission IS censorship.

The attempt to minimise the reality of this needless imposition on our forum by the use of words like CAPTIONING - INDEXING - CONSOLIDATION - CLOSURE etc - will not alter the fact that when any of these actions are IMPOSED upon fellow posters - (even when in the case of this thread's imposed closure, no anonymous volunteer fellow poster is owning-up to it) - it remains CENSORSHIP - because it is IMPOSED.

Would you accuse a survivor who claimed to be a victim of attempted genoide of a LIE - by describing their experience as only surviving ETHNIC CLEANSING?


This was what I said in full.

As my recent efforts have all be subject to imposed editing from our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - for no good reason (including this one) - there would be little point in me trying to create any more threads on the subjects you suggest - at least until I can be sure these too will not be subject to imposed editing action in the same way.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Sep 05 - 08:34 PM

I'm going to remember this thread for the next time I get insomnia.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 04 Sep 05 - 07:08 PM

It is probably time to close this thread - the repetitions are getting over-repitious (IMHO).

How about someone opening a new one on the lines of:   "Who is more annoying: Bush or Shambles?"

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 05 - 06:54 PM

"As my recent efforts have all be subject to imposed editing from our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - for no good reason (including this one) " The Shambles

This is the clearest evidence yet that I've seen of your duplicity, Roger. You LIE when you say your posts have been edited. ONLY a heading has been changed (added to). That is not censorship, or editing. That is CAPTIONING. And you know it.

I will waste no more time or thought on you. And forget about PMing me anymore. I will not answer.

Elva Bontrager

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 04 Sep 05 - 05:35 PM

Didn't give 'em chance mate!!!

But yes, it would have been funny!

LTS

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Sep 05 - 03:00 PM

I would have found it amusing had Joe, or one of the clones, had closed this thread between Liz's 99th & 100th posts!

Nigel

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 Sep 05 - 07:20 PM

Oh, and


*%* 100 *%*

LTS

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 Sep 05 - 07:19 PM

We found a better way. Take one keyboard cable, add one kitten. Voila.... no more keyboard, no more postings!

LTS

Subject: RE: Tech: Terms of reference
From:
Date: 03 Sep 05 - 07:04 PM

mere quantity of verbiage.

I came up with a term designed for people with this particular computer disease.

Phalangheal Diarrhea

Happens quickly and is easily diagnosed. Unfortunately the only known cure is rather drastic. Requires one axe, and chop

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 05:27 PM

can a polemic license be revoked?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 05:15 PM

The following is an unlicensed activity.

What a strange position
Suffering from prohibition
For either this thread
Got knocked on the head
Or decided on self-imposition.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 02:29 PM

Roger, you may have missed this

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Rt Hon Sir jOhn from Hull - PM
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:19 PM

SHUT UP!!!

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,The Poetry Police
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 08:10 AM

Your poetic licence is hereby revoked. Please send it in to the proper authorities immediately.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 07:04 AM

In the UK............?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 06:42 AM

Poetic licence?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 06:33 AM

...I have now given-up making any distinction between volunteer posters who wish to be known and those who wish to be anonymous when they impose their personal judgement upon certain of their fellow posters...

...in our anonymous volunteer poster's ruthless (if somewhat selective) drive to impose...

hmmm?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Sep 05 - 06:26 AM

You may have missed this - because despite my wishes and my formal request - made in the following thread
In the UK -
that my posts are not subject to this - this editing comment was inserted to an existing post and did not refresh this thread.

For the record, the thread title was changed by Joe Offer, who publicly explained the thread title change when he did it.
-Joe Offer-

That may be so - but I have now given-up making any distinction between volunteer posters who wish to be known and those who wish to be anonymous when they impose their personal judgement upon certain of their fellow posters. As those volunteer fellow posters whose names are known - will always publicly support any imposition by those - whose wishes and request to remain anonyous are respected - making a distinction would not seem to matter a great deal.

But it was not explained why changes were only imposed on this thread title (and the two other thread titles that I originated) - in isolation. As the reasons given would have applied to many other threads titles. Which somehow have escaped this selective imposition - in our anonymous volunteer poster's ruthless (if somewhat selective) drive to impose 'clarity' in thread titles upon our forum's writers - for the supposed benefit of our forum's readers.....

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:19 PM

SHUT UP!!!

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:14 PM

See also the first post in this thread - and note the point in that thread when a change to its title was also imposed by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters...

In the UK

---

For the record, the thread title was changed by Joe Offer, who publicly explained the thread title change when he did it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:12 PM

and PS=Ive never known about any music tyhreads been censored, so just shut up.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:11 PM

"Or did you close this thread?"

No I didn;t, I;m not able to close threads, if i was, i would close all your stupid moany threads!

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:06 PM

Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM

Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix?

This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first?

Thank you.

Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu.
The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads.
If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section.
You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:55 PM

"I will be only to glad to feel safe to be able to return to different issues."


Then go back on your meds. If you don't feel safe to post about music around here, why keep coming back? Why go anywhere or do anything? Your life must be pretty rough.

And stop using the words "anonymous volunteer fellow posters" over and over. You sound like a prat.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 12:43 PM

Shambles-you are a mad person, you never talk about music, or musical stuff, gigs, sessions festivals etc.

As my recent efforts have all be subject to imposed editing from our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - for no good reason (including this one) - there would be little point in me trying to create any more threads on the subjects you suggest - at least until I can be sure these too will not be subject to imposed editing action in the same way.

I will be only to glad to feel safe to be able to return to different issues. Any positive help you can provide to ensure that I can do this - without being subject to the special and unwelcome treatment my contributions now seem to receive from our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - will be much appreciated.

Or did you close this thread?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 11:36 AM

Shambles-you are a mad person, you never talk about music, or musical stuff, gigs, sessions festivals etc.
you just moan, moan, and moan.
shut up and go away.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 08:06 AM

As it seems to have mysteriously closed this thread on its own - perhaps it it was the forum itself that decided to spontaneously 'flood' itself with refreshed older threads?

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME OF CHESS DAVE?

DAISY DAIsy - g-i-v-e m-----eeeeee    yooou----rrr      an-swer.................Doooooooooo

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 04:41 PM

Could not slowing everyone down for no better reason than pumping rubbish out concern you? Would you pay for a bigger pipe to cater for stuff you might prefer to be without?

If the pipe was designed for the sole reason of pumping rubbish - rubbish is rubbish.

Jon - our forum is specifically designed for posters to post to and if it can't deal with the volume required - to my mind this is a technical problem and requires a technical solution - or perhaps recognition that there are not the funds available for such a solution.

However - what is considered to be rubbish or not on our forum - is a matter of personal taste - and is not a technical problem and will never have a technical solution - even with unlimited funds available.

But I have no idea whether having similar information in different threads - is in fact presenting any real technical bandwidth concern to the running of our forum or not. Perhaps you would be a better judge of this than I am - and could inform us?

I can however understand that those of us who need to be in control and like to see things to their taste may find this and many other things that their fellow posters do - to be irritating and not to their personal taste.

But perhaps the answer is for these people to finally accept that no one does have any control over the taste or postings of others on our forum?

And apparently no contol over the still anonymous volunteer fellow poster who wrongly closed this thread or no control over the ability of our forum to apparently decide to automatically close this thread - all on its own.*Smiles*

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:05 PM

This thread makes it clear even for newbies that Rog The Sham is not interested in getting answers to your questions, but instead poses them simply to spread doubt and poison.

In the process he also demonstrated lack of humour (14th repeat of the restaurant joke to some obscure purpose); and bloodymindedness (gets answer and repeats question).

So as a single showcase for Rog, this thread is useful and should remain open and refreshed regularly so that it stay sat the top of BS.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Cluin
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:27 PM

"fishing"?

"taking the bait"?

on "Mudcat"?





Oh I get it.... very good. Verrrrrry good.

It's like a feeding frenzy, like dropping a bare hook into a school of rock bass off the end of the dock in the middle of the afternoon and hauling them up again and again, even the same individual fish (don't they ever learn?). It's easy to do and fills up the time when you're bored. It might be more productive to plan a trip to deeper waters and get up earlier and use some real bait and tactics, but who wants to be productive when you're bored?

There. Think I've stretched the fishing analogy about as far as this 8 lb. test will take.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:35 AM

Why do you all keep coming back for more?
Why do you keep the thread going by adding to it all the time? just like I am doing now
Why do you all have to get so personal?
Why dont you leave it to Joe Offer he actually answered the question in the first post

He is not causing any harm, just ignore him if you dont like his views and go to threads that please you, he is doing a very good job of fishing and you are all taking the bait

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:30 AM

That's insulting to pricks everywhere 'Spaw... sinking them to Shams level...

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:22 AM

Actuzlly CH, piss off is kind of mild. I mean, better pissed off than pissed on.......And better pissed on then pissed through because that makes you a prick! So let's all have Ol' Sham piss through as is the natural thing for just such a prick!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:56 AM

Ya know what... even if you DO like it, piss off anway...

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:47 AM

what steps will be taken to ensure that it does not happen again.

This guy may couch all his terms in apparently polite language, but when it all comes down to it, he is nothing more than a passive-aggressive bully. His relentlessness, and his assumption that he is entitled to the explanations and answers HE wants to hear, all confirm this.

Shambles, you are NOT entitled to any of those things. Max will run his site as he sees fit, and part of that is his appointment of people to help moderate the forum. He trusts their judgement. If you don't like it, piss off.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 09:47 AM

"as it makes our forum look foolish"
You are the only one who looks foolish here...

"what steps will be taken to ensure that it does not happen again."
Who says there will be, or even NEED to be such steps taken?

as my mom is fond of saying, "Give your stupid head a shake"

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:25 AM

As for this thread being closed for several hours last night, all I can say is that as far as I can tell, the closure was inadvertant. Whatever the case, I reopened the thread as soon as I found out about the closure. And the world did not end because of the relatively brief closure of the thread, so I guess it's all OK. No doubt, Shambles will try to make a big issue out of this temporary thread closure, but I don't see how it can be construed as a big thing. If somebody had a novel and profound thread they were unable to express because of this thread closure, then I'm sorry. But generally, I think it's safe to say that this all has been said before.

I am sorry Joe - but the relegation of this thread by some anonymous imposed judgement for a questionable reason - followed closly by its closure for no reason - and its re-opening - IS A BIG DEAL as it makes our forum look foolish. Especially given the thread's title - at least a thread title change - is the only piece of imposed editing action that this hread has (up to now) managed to escape.

It is less that I am trying to make a big deal out of it but that you are trying to minimise it. As these things are supposed to be under your control - can you please establish and tell our forum exactly why this thread was subject to closure and what steps will be taken to ensure that it does not happen again. Or are you seriously expecting our forum to accept that you cannot establish the reason for this thread's closure or that the thread automatically decided to close itself?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:10 AM

When I used to drive regularly in London's traffic - you could always tell the days when a policeman was manually controlling the traffic flow at certain hot spots. For unlike the days when they were not attempting to control the traffic - the traffic usually stopped flowing at all. The Shambles

Exactly, Roger. Joe Offer and the clones are directing the traffic.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Cluin
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:03 AM

Sure. Cross-reference William Shatner, Songcatcher and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 12:46 AM

Not to mention the load of storage that many take as a natural boon; the volume ofdata stored on the cat and indexed and available for search is probably a hundred times what it was two years ago. Or more. Wild-ass guess.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 10:29 PM

Jaysus keeerist. If I find yer church, Joe, I'll let you know....But you could always come to 'church' at the Broncho Bar, Friday Eve. 6PM, my town.....

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: kendall
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:20 PM

Yawn...SSDD

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:55 PM

it's sorta like if everyone flushed the toilets at once...water pressure would drop. And if everyone flushed continuously all day, it would strain resources and get very expensive.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:52 PM

Shambles, bandwith is real enough. It can mean one of two things, both of which can be of concern. I've no idea over MC volumes and resources (and Joe has said it's not really much of a current issue) but:

a) The ammount of data you can transmit/recieve in a given time (think of a pipe - the width of the pipe would affect how much water could be pumped through it).

Could not slowing everyone down for no better reason than pumping rubbish out concern you? Would you pay for a bigger pipe to cater for stuff you might prefer to be without?

b) The ammount of data you transmit/receive over a given time.

Say (as I do at the Annexe) you have a fixed monthly limit on how much data you can transfer, might you not want have some concern over what it is being used for? If say you found you needed to pay more just to cater for old threads refreshed to troll, can you honestely tell me you would put your hand in your pocket to pay for that?

Also, even if not current concerns, might you not be aware that they are potentially future concerns.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:41 PM

making it relevant:

"This land is my land!
Hell, it sure ain't yours!

MEAN TALKING BLUES
(Woody Guthrie Max)

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:30 PM

This land is my land!
Hell, it sure ain't yours!

MEAN TALKING BLUES
(Woody Guthrie)

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:16 PM

"Why, oh why, oh why, oh why"
Why, oh why, oh why?
Because, because, because, because...
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye""

Woodie Guthrie

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:07 PM

Roger, you have your answer.

That's the policy. I've given you a lot of information about thread closing, and yet you keep asking the same question.

Don't beat it to death.
Next question?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:36 PM

i.e. stop wasting it.

I am still not sure if this 'bandwidth' issue is really a technical one for our forum and not just something to say - that sounds impressive and enables more persoanl judgements to be made on matters of taste.

And if it were a real technical issue - I can't help thinking that if it cannot be increased to deal with the demand - taking it to its logical conclusion - the answer must be to close everthing and for for everyone to stop posting everything. That will sort it.


Why do we automatically close old BS messages?
Well, Roger - we've had a frequent problem with a very few people who seem to think it's cute to refresh large quantities of old BS threads, simply to flood the Forum with old threads. Many of these refreshes are irrational messages or Spam coming from people who have never posted before. I've deleted hundreds that seem to be posted automatically. So, we close all old BS threads after a time, and let people ask us to reopen them. We also close music threads if they end in directing the originator to another thread or to the DT. There are very few reopen requests, so it seems the demand for refreshing old threads is limited. And our Spam visitors have to work a bit to find threads to post to.
Next question?
-Joe Offer-

Rather like the 'war on terror' where anything or anyone can be a target for terrorism anywhere- measures to combat this risk – tend to daily affect the lives of the many non-terrorists far more than they ever seem to affect the daily lives of a few terrorists.

Despite current practice - plenty of older threads are still available for anyone so inclined to refresh them and be judged by you to think themselves 'cute' - for this supposed 'flooding' of our forum.

Joe - is the practice of automatically closing threads now – really a proportionate response to the problem you perceive?

Is it really such a problem for our forum - from time to time - to show perfectly legitimate (if older) threads? After all - That is its purpose and if the refreshed threads are redundant – this will be proved and judged by our forum - if or when they naturally fall off the bottom.   

For as a result of these automatic thread closures - legitimate posters now have to ask your permission to post to a closed older thread or risk displeasure by starting a fresh thread on the same subject – is this not giving a mixed message? And creating more immediate and unnecessary problems for legitimate posters?

There may well be a few vandals – but perhaps measure to deal with them should be proportionate – if these measures are not to have more impact on legitimate posters?

When I used to drive regularly in London's traffic - you could always tell the days when a policeman was manually controlling the traffic flow at certain hot spots. For unlike the days when they were not attempting to control the traffic - the traffic usually stopped flowing at all.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:18 PM

Another point - some people seem to think that if there are six threads on a given subject, they need to make sure their opinion is heard by posting the same message in each of the six threads.

I can think of one person who does this all the time.

But no, there really aren't significant technical reasons for closing threads. Bandwidth isn't really a consideration in this issue. It's mostly just an aid in dealing with confusion and profusion and illusion and any other "usions" you can come up with that apply - and mostly a method of dealing with obnoxious and purposeless refreshing of old threads.

And yeah, I realize it might be a minor inconvenience to ask me to reopen a thread, if that's what you want to do. You can also start a new thread and link to the old one, like Donuel did with no complaint whatsoever.

Max and Jeff and I discussed it long ago, and we decided that closing old threads outweighs the disadvantages of leaving them open. When you have a barrage of threads refreshed by online casino ads, it's a bear to clean it all up.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:50 PM

Whether a thread is open or closed will, and can not directly affect bandwidth. Reading threads, and posting new messages in threads does. Closing some threads obviously stops new posts in that thread, which may be just pointless repetition, and the resultant lack of new pointless posts will affect bandwidth in a postive way, i.e. stop wasting it.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:50 PM

Shambles, keeping a thread open does not in itself use bandwith.

If there are for example idiots determined to refresh every Bush thread thats ever been, perhaps bandwidth could come into it, especially if others started reading and replying (knowing MC, most likely to complain to the idiot doing the refreshing). Overall, I would still think it would be admin/moderation but I don't know if it could reach points where bandwidth and other resource issues started to hit. I wouldn't expect an admin to wait around for say 200 old threads to gain posts like "f*** off guest" to find out or to want that degree of "clutter".

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:37 PM

The REAL purpose is to provide balance, a modicum of order, a small pinch of housekeeping to the mad multiplication of bandwidth eaten up around here.

This eating up of 'bandwidth' caused by keeping threads open - sounds technical to me. When this thread was relegated to the BSI was told that this thread was not an issue for TECH thread. Which is it please?

I also thought that I had been told here that closing these threads or keeping these threads open for any future contributions - did not affect the technical running of the forum?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:46 PM

Why do we automatically close old BS messages?

Well, Roger - we've had a frequent problem with a very few people who seem to think it's cute to refresh large quantities of old BS threads, simply to flood the Forum with old threads. Many of these refreshes are irrational messages or Spam coming from people who have never posted before. I've deleted hundreds that seem to be posted automatically. So, we close all old BS threads after a time, and let people ask us to reopen them. We also close music threads if they end in directing the originator to another thread or to the DT. There are very few reopen requests, so it seems the demand for refreshing old threads is limited. And our Spam visitors have to work a bit to find threads to post to.
Next question?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:44 PM

is there any real purpose in asking interminable questions which seem to have no purpose except to take time & space and harass?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:43 PM

YEs, Roger, yes, a thousand times yes.

The REAL purpose is to provide balance, a modicum of order, a small pinch of housekeeping to the mad multiplication of bandwidth eaten up around here.

It is helpful and brings just enough order to make it a little easier to find your way around.

Obviously, you don't see it. But I assure you it is real.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:35 PM

Closed thead from 9-22-2001

This one was automatically closed (and re-opened when specifically requested). Is there any real purpose in threads being automatically closed? Other than it is possible to do it?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:34 PM

MMario's right, Roger. You get so bogged down in convoluted language and repetition that I really can't figure out clearly WHAT you want. And then when I give you an answer that displeases you and suggest that you need to go to Max if you want to appeal a decision, you completely ignore my answer and ask the same question again. There's no forward progress with you - it's all circular. You've asked about titles of threads, and I've given you answers. You've asked about closing threads, and I've given you answers. You've asked about naming volunteers, and I've answered that I won't answer - although you know full well who most of the volunteers are. And please note that none of these "issues" are matters of right vs. wrong - they're just decisions that displease you. And on top of all that, you throw in all this "I/We" and "volunteerfellowposter" gobbledygook and all the three-year-old quotations, and you make a big stink about where I post my answers, and nobody knows nothing about what you're saying.

That's why you and Rodney Dangerfield don't get no respect.

I guess I bother to answer you because I believe you're a good, sincere person. But I have to say you annoy the hell out of me with this constant circular repetition.

So, why don't you try telling us what you want - clearly and succinctly? Drop all the extra garbage and the accusations and innuendos and posturing, and stick to the issues. I'm getting dizzy from going around in circles with you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:04 PM

"If a man were to signify, which he were not- if he had the power, which being denied him, he were to endeavor anyhow, merely because he don't- would you?"

example given to illustrate the flavor, in English, of writings by Kierkegaard

You never did Danish theology in another life, did you, Roger? Perhaps?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:44 PM

Shambles... you seem to think your opinion is worth something...   why is that?

I even agree with you - that your opinion too - is worth something.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:38 PM

Roger? What is your point above? HOnestly I tried to figure out what you were saying - but the conclusions I am able to draw from what you have posted are so diametrically oppossed that I don't understand what you are asking.

MMario - If you are specific about what exactly you do not understand - I will do my best - in as few words as possible - to explain it to you.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:34 PM

Shambles... you seem to think your opinion is worth something...   why is that?

What makes you think this is any kind of democracy?

Joe, Max et.al. will runn this place how THEY want to, and have to answer to NO ONE for ANYTHING they do... what is so thick about your head, you can't grasp that? It's not rocket science man... yer not gonna get your way... and all you do by continuing to post the same tired old topic over and over and over again is lower peoples already shabby opinion of you...

If you had ANY cradibility, I'm sure it's done it's burning spit-fire impression a LONG time ago...

"peace could well break out."
Remember this well: there will be no peace as long as Kirk lives!

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: MMario
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:21 PM

Roger? What is your point above? HOnestly I tried to figure out what you were saying - but the conclusions I am able to draw from what you have posted are so diametrically oppossed that I don't understand what you are asking.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:06 PM

Well as poor Susan's thread http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=84039&messages=2   was closed - by an anonymous volunteer fellow poster it is at least equal treatment for Joe Offer to impose closure upon the other one. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=84160&messages=21

This editing action is also equally problematic. However it may be dressed-up - the fear of these threads becoming popular on our forum – is the reason why our known and our anonymous volunteer fellow posters imposed closure upon them. Which does seem a rather strange concept now - as the whole point of our forum is to encourage posted discussion. And a thread's or indeed a forum's success is usually measured by the number of contributions it receives.

In my view - there is never any need for editing action to be imposed on our forum - like in these cases - on matters of only of taste or fear of threads becoming popular. As what threads to open and what posts to respond to - are still matters of our forum's member's personal tastes – should these really now be subject to the tastes of any other individual fellow posters – especially anonymous ones.

And as there is no technical advantage to the smooth running of the site – by leaving all threads open for any further contributions – perhaps they can all be left open - from now on and editing action only imposed in cases of abusive and racist posts etc?

Under these circumstances – is it not really a bit over-the-top – for posters to have to request permission from a fellow poster in PRIVATE – to enable a thread to be re-opened – for an additional PUBLIC contribution to be made on our forum? The only thing that has caused this - is the closing of the thread in the first place. Is the tail now wagging the dog?

If all posters were now to be encouraged - by example - to try to resist the temptation to post publicly - only to pass their personal judgement upon any fellow poster. And were encouraged - by example - not to post and request that any imposition to be imposed upon the contributions of others – and our our volunteer fellow posters did not insist on firing the first shots at our forum - there is real danger that peace could well break out.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 01:51 PM

"sorry, Spaw, your thread is closed and will be allowed to die a quiet death"

Will ya do the same with this one please....

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 12:42 PM

There are meds for obsessive compulsive disorders in this day and age.

check it out


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/myn.JPG

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM

This thread started by Spaw was essentially the same discussion as the thread we're in now. When we let the discussion get spread out over four threads, Shambles feels driven to copy all of the discussion into each of the threads. That confuses us lesser intellects, and gives an unfair advantage to those who copy-paste things instead of actually discussing them.
So, sorry, Spaw, your thread is closed and will be allowed to die a quiet death.

In general, I think it is a good thing to discuss Mudcat policy with the community - but when the discussion gets spread over countless threads, it becomes a morass of misinformation and partial information. With some coaxing, Shambles kept his discussion of thread title changes mostly in this thread (673 messages as of now). Since thread closure is a different topic, I suppose it's appropriate for it to be in a separate thread - although I think most of the answers to Shambles' questions have been given many times before.

As for this thread being closed for several hours last night, all I can say is that as far as I can tell, the closure was inadvertant. Whatever the case, I reopened the thread as soon as I found out about the closure. And the world did not end because of the relatively brief closure of the thread, so I guess it's all OK. No doubt, Shambles will try to make a big issue out of this temporary thread closure, but I don't see how it can be construed as a big thing. If somebody had a novel and profound thread they were unable to express because of this thread closure, then I'm sorry. But generally, I think it's safe to say that this all has been said before.

Shambles, we would all be so much happier if you could strive for novelty and profundity - instead of striving for mere quantity of verbiage. Repetition is teejus.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 12:09 PM

Well Sham......Where are you? WE have been subjected to another arbitrary thread closing by a volunteer fellow poster and the originator was not contacted!!! This poor soul has been wounded and may never post again. Perhaps he could be recruited to join your legions of those trampled by the run amok antics of volunteer fellow posters!!!

Go for it!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 11:01 AM

Joe:

May I suggest you start attending the Temple of the Golden Globes? You could rapidly become one of ourbest instryuctors in sensitivity training, I am sure. Our services are forward looking and much more upfront than those of more mainstream groups.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 08:41 AM

Manager
It gets me here. I can't give you any excuses for it - there are no excuses. I've been meaning to spend more time in the restaurant recently, but I haven't been too well... (emotionally) things aren't going very well back there. The poor cook's son has been put away again, and poor old Mrs Dalrymple who does the washing up can hardly move her poor fingers, and then there's Gilberto's war wound - but they're good people, and they're kind people, and together we were beginning to get over this dark patch ... there was light at the end of the tunnel . .. now this . .. now this...

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:39 AM

I see, there is no honest response that does not make you look silly.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:34 AM

And to use Joe Offer's words.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:28 AM

Now, please, could you answer my question?

No need.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:24 AM

What is the need for any answer to be buried under and out-numbered by - postings of personal judgements of the original poster - who simply asked the question? (Shambles)

Need? There is no need for that, but this way (the brown one) it is not buried under other posts. I personally find it much quicker and more sure the way it is done.

Now, please, could you answer my question?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:21 AM

My head hurts even more than ever - must take a sabbatical.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 07:19 AM

The Hamsters are still hurting-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:52 AM

What is the need for this question, Shambles?

What is the need for any answer to be buried under and out-numbered by - postings of personal judgements of the original poster - who simply asked the question?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:44 AM

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM

Dunno, Cluin... it could get closed...

Robin - Did you know something that we didn't? Or have you a crystal ball? Or did you close it? *Smiles*

Jon says -
Not at all shambles, even if all the modding was done by Joe or even Max, there is no reason to suppose that they are any less capable of "pilot error" than a volunteer.

Probably not Jon - but it is NOT yet a fact that the closure of this thread WAS an accident...........

The editing comment reads so it may have been closed inadvertantly. Whatever the case, I don't think it should have been closed. I reopened the thread.
-Joe Offer-

As most posters here seem to be agreement with me and Joe Offer that there were no grounds for this thread to receive the imposed editing action - has it been finally established that the closure of this thread was an accident?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:42 AM

Hull stun Leeds in Challenge Cup final.   

Paul Cooke's late converted try handed Hull a shock 25-24 win over Super League champions Leeds in the Challenge Cup final in Cardiff.

Woooooops sorry wrong thread

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:41 AM

No technical reason at all (Joe Offer)
We don't close for technical reasons am I right in thinking that the technical answer to the technical question (buried here) is that - there is in fact - no technical problem in leaving every thread open for additional contributions? (Shambles)

What is the need for this question, Shambles?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 06:32 AM

The cook comes in; he is very big and carries a meat cleaver.

Cook (shouting) You bastards! You vicious, heartless bastards! Look what you've done to him! He's worked his fingers to the bone to make this place what it is, and you come in with your petty feeble quibbling and you grind him into the dirt, this fine, honourable man, whose boots you are not worthy to kiss. Oh... it makes me mad... mad! (slams cleaver into the table)

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

Despite all the rather needles personal judgements encourged by example here - am I right in thinking that the technical answer to the technical question (buried here) is that - there is in fact - no technical problem in leaving every thread open for additional contributions?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Deckman
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:40 AM

Joe ... Just in case you don't know it, I think you are a very funny person. If you could deliver that monolog in front of a mike (about the absence of miniskirts and cleavage), you could have a whole new career as a stand up comic. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:21 AM

Maybe someone could design a 'Shambles Friendly' link, just to the right of 'Translate'

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 05:14 AM

Perhaps if the whole ability of anonymous volunteer fellow posters to impose closure upon entire threads - were now removed - such 'accidents' could be avoided in future?

Not at all shambles, even if all the modding was done by Joe or even Max, there is no reason to suppose that they are any less capable of "pilot error" than a volunteer.

If there is a problem that needs addressing, it is the location or operation of the link (I don't know where it is now but delete [there was no close then] used to be with the post-top-forum home etc, links and a click would delete a post with no confirmation - I did it ONCE - and built the Annexe to take such links to open a new page rather than work instantly for that reason) but personaly I don't think it's any big deal (not even with deletes now from what I understand) as matters can be corrected simply.

I really can't imagine too many people getting their knickers in a twist if a thread gets closed accidentally once in a while and gets re-opened when the mistake is realised.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:36 AM

How about we just remove Shambles....

"perhaps this course would be better one?"
Then go start your own Message Baord and do whatever the fuck you want there... oh... that's right... no one but you would post there...

good....

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:24 AM

... well as it's not rocket science any more, why bother?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:23 AM

The following editing comment - inserted in another thread - does explain better why this thread was closed and then re-opened. Or does it?

I can't see any reason why it should have been closed. The "close thread" link is in a location where a volunteer could click it accidentally and not notice, so it may have been closed inadvertantly. Whatever the case, I don't think it should have been closed. I reopened the thread.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps if the whole ability of anonymous volunteer fellow posters to impose closure upon entire threads - were now removed - such 'accidents' could be avoided in future? And as it would appear that there is no adverse affect on the technical running of our forum by keeping all threads open - perhaps this course would be better one?

Now that this thread has been re-opened - I don't suppose there is any chance that this thread with a TECH prefix it can also be removed from the BS?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:17 AM

Oh... that I grok... and when you do, I might even follow you there!

But shouldn't it be its own thread?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:12 AM

No, Clinton. It's really important for me to find a church that really does have cleavage and short skirts.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:10 AM

Please close it again....

Mudcat was better off with it closed....

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 04:06 AM

This thread was closed for a while, perhaps inadvertantly. I reopened it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 08:39 PM

Well, Joe, I hate to admit it (I'm a woman) but I did notice that Shambles this morning was wearing a mini skirt and cleavage down to here. Of course, he will probably lie about it.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 07:55 PM

A man in church sent me an e-mail, condemning all the people who show disrespect to the Lord by going to Communion in low-cut tops, miniskirts, and shorts. I wrote back that he needs to focus his attention on the Lord, and not on how other people dressed or behaved.

He wrote back and now says I'm in league with all those disrespectful people and that I'm just as bad as they are and the Lord doesn't like me, either; so I suggested that maybe he should take a clipboard to church and tally all the plunging necklines and indecently exposed legs. And even if those people dress like that, the Lord probably doesn't care.

So when I went to church this morning, I looked hard to see all the legs and cleavage I've been missing.

Dang. I didn't see any.

---

I think there's a connection between my church disappointment and the little act that Shambles puts on for our entertainment. This church guy and many others like him go on and on about disrespectful people in miniskirts - to the point that people begin to think all of us in our church are either miniskirted floozies or the self-righteous prigs who condemn them. And please take note that the condemnations are far out of proportion to the imagined offenses. It makes the rest of us normal people feel out of place. And our parish has built itself a bad reputation, built on the misinformation spread by the nasty dozen who are out to condemn their fellow parishioners - and also built on the unpleasant atmosphere that all that poison condemnation creates.

Well, in Shambles, we have one of those self-righteous people who imagines that all sorts of evil things are taking place in the Hallowed Halls of Mudcat. So, he's spent four years posting thousands of those poison condemnation messages. People fight back and refute the misinformation that Shambles posts, but the poison still lingers - and every one of his poison messages leaves a little bit of doubt, a little bit of feeling that maybe this IS the horribly repressive place that Shambles contends it to be.

Maybe somebody should just come out and say that Shambles is a liar. Of course, I wouldn't do such a thing, because I'd never hear the end of it. I suppose it's entertaining to see how we can help Shambles make a fool of himself, but there's a bit of poison in that, too. I guess maybe I should just say that Shambles sure is a pain in the ass, and leave it at that. But then I'd never hear the end of that, either - so I'll just keep mum...

But I was really disappointed that I didn't see all the leg and cleavage in church this morning.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM

Dunno, Cluin... it could get closed...

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 06:58 PM

Oh boy! It was moved to BS (where it belongs).

We'll never hear the end of this one now.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 06:33 PM

Yeah, Shambles, we close threads because we know that it personally annoys you - and annoying you causes us great delight. Besides, it serves to confirm your theory that a cadre of jackbooted censors in black helicopters has taken over control of Mudcat. You wouldn't want your conspiracy to go unconfirmed, would you?

But actually, there are a lot of editorial things we do here that we cannot explain fully - partly because some idiot is likely to take an innocuous action, pull it out of context, and blow it into a huge issue in a 600-post thread. Now, it wouldn't be proper for me to mention names...

We close threads for a number of reasons - mostly to help control those few among us who have tendencies toward obnoxiousness. Sometimes we close threads because they're nasty and we see a need to disperse the combatants and break up the fight. Sometimes, we close old threads because some people among us seem to think it's cute to refresh all forty threads that have been posted on a given subject in the past nine years. We close some music threads to direct the discussion toward a single thread, to that people looking later can find all the information in one place.

If there's a good reason to reopen a thread, we're generally glad to reopen it. Just send me a personal message. If you want a contentious thread reopened, don't bother asking. Your request is denied.

-Joe Offer-

Donuel started a thread titled BS: Closed thread from 9-22-2001. We routinely close BS threads after they're about a year old, but we reopen them for any good reason. I reopened the 2001 thread, but Donuel said he didn't care whether it was opened or closed - he just wanted to refer to the previous thread. I told him I was sure Shambles would start a thread about close threads. Sure enough, here it is.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 06:33 PM

The answers only need to be seen by yourself, Roger. Since it is your question.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 06:19 PM

The answers (if given) may not be seen by many posters there and not very many will now see them now.

For this thread with a TECH prefix - has been relgated by some anonymous volunteer fellow poster - to the BS section.

I was careful to ask a purely technical question - and not a political one. Perhaps whoever relegated this perfectly legitimate question to the BS - can put it back?

---

Request denied, Shambles. We don't close for technical reasons, so this is not a technical thread. That's why I moved it to the "BS" section.  I  moved it - the mover is not anonymous.
-Joe Offer, who is responsible for ALL thread moves-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:37 PM

Tech questions about Mudcat itself are usually answered very quickly-- in the HELP FORUM.

~S~

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:37 PM

And if you say it often enough maybe even YOU'LL believe it....

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:35 PM

As a certain TV waiter from Barcelona would say - 'I know nothing'.

I certainly know very little about these sort of things - that is why I asked a technical question. In the hope of being given a technical answer.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM

No tech advantage here that I can think of but it could be used in a sort of tech way, eg. threads marked as closed could quite easily be "transferred" as a batch to some sort of archive or deleted at a future date.

Of course, as I suspect shambles knows full well, it is primarily an administrative tool.

---

Yes, I do occasionally do temporary closures of threads so I can work on them.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 04:40 PM

Oh ya... this is a tech thread... I almost believe that...

*rolls eyes*

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From:
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 04:21 PM

I rhink part of the reason must be that the topic of a closed thread duplicated an already existing threat. Or that the same information is in a larger thread which includes more information so rather that keep both threads going, the Mudcat operators decide to funnel all the information in a single thread to concentrate the info.

A person new to the Mudcat would certainly be daunted by the sheer numbers of threads on some of the songs. It's hard to find the information in so many. I realize you can learn lots more that way, but I've seen lots of new threads that start with "too many threads to read or too many messages to wade through so..." and then ask a question which is found in another thread.

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 04:16 PM

Perhaps less strain by fewer silly threads making complaints disguised as tech questions would help

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 04:07 PM

Could we get someone over here to close this one and we'll find out?

Spaw

Subject: Tech: Closing threads?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 03:59 PM

Is there some technical advantage given to the general effective running of our forum - by the closing of threads?

Does it make the site less technically effective in any way or make it run slower - if all threads are left open for new contributions?

---

No technical reason at all, Shambles. We do it for valid but non-technical reasons that I've explained below. That's why I moved this thread to the "BS" section.
Next question?
-Joe Offer-