BS: Non posting of judgements week.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:47 AM

Ancient western philospher - now living in the West Country.

If you set the example of publicly posting your opinion of another poster or tell them what they can post and speculate on their possible motives - it becomes everyone's business and encourages the idea that such things are acceptable.

Ancient western philospher - now living in the West Country.

You can't choose your family so it rather follows that on our forum you cannot choose your fellow posters.

They have just the same rights to post as you do. And you have no control over what others choose to post.

When you have finally accepted this reality - all you can do is to try and tolerate your fellow posters and what they post - ignore it - or post somewhere else. It is that simple.

For this is a discussion forum. If any poster wishes to cover any subject - they have the right to do this - no matter how any other poster may judge them. For it only matters what is being said - not who may be saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 05:51 PM

There is a wonderful piece of eastern philosophy, "Your opinion of me is none of my business."

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 04:08 PM

OK!

It DID happen, it was a lot less that 7 years ago and it wasn't only to Shambles.

NOW!!!! it is going to stop, it's all over. Even though I didn't do it I will offer an apology. Things could have been handled better, they weren't I'm sorry. NOW ALL OF US - and I mean ALL.

It's water under the bridge, it's over, Kalas, finished, done, tamam, kaput.

Get over it all of you. I don't want anyone stepping in and trying to get the last word. You're right, you've been right all along, all of you.

Kiss and make up, we've got better things to worry about.

If you feel you've been or are being treated unfairly then send ME a PM and I'll investigate and I'll reply to you. If I find something that everyone needs to know I'll start a new thread about it.

But the time for these online qsquabbles is OVER so stop it.

Don't make me come down there.

Lighted up everyone, we're all friends here.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

In case anyone didn't notice, the week's up.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:16 PM

Impunity? for what? posting a notice?
hypocrite? How so? Did I attack someone?

Did I resort to name calling as you did, mystified?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 12:08 PM

Non judging of postmen week

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:51 AM

Spaw, I'm brain dead...LOL (this of course as no surprise to those who have come to know me..*grin*)

I won't return to this Thread now as I know that I will never REALLy know...why?????
..and I have to ask myself why do I want to know why?
Jude: "why do you want to know why?". Jude: " I don't know, in fact. I don't really want to know anymore". Jude: " Good now go away" Jude: "ok"


Farewell all.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:31 AM

Roger do you have one ounce of charity in your soul?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:30 AM

SOS

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 11:02 AM

Or you can choose to simply ignore this and similar threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 10:29 AM

Roger, you have made your point. Now drop it. If Max wishes to make a change he has all the possible arguments from you there may be for his own consideration. He has all the info he needs at his disposal and anything else from you is not needed. Continuing to "discuss" this is nuts because it will never be a discussion.....it is your opinion, my opinion, and the opinions of anyone else who posts here and has an asshole. (that's a small joke there Sham)

Now try and do what Bert has suggested and just drop it. Anyone who doesn't understand what your points are (whether they agree or not) is truly brain dead. They may not agree or even understand why you are so wound up after all this time, but unless they are completely non-functional, they should be able to understand. I'm sure Max does and if you have PM'ed him on this as I and others have suggested, then I absolutely guarantee he understands your points. Again, what he decides to do or not do is up to him but any further postings on it from you are really not needed......but go right ahead if you think they will help.

But why not just drop it as Bert, who has staunchly supported you along the way, suggests?   If and when Max makes a move I am sure he will talk with you about it but until then there really is no point to continuing this is there?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:51 AM

Or you can choose to simply ignore this and similar threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:50 AM

You can't choose your family so it rather follows that on our forum you cannot choose your fellow posters.

They have just the same rights to post as you do. And you have no control over what others choose to post.

When you have finally accepted this reality - all you can do is to try and tolerate your fellow posters and what they post - ignore it - or post somewhere else. It is that simple.

For this is a discussion forum. If any poster wishes to cover any subject - they have the right to do this - no matter how any other poster may judge them. For it only matters what is being said - not who may be saying it.

The only role any form of moderator needs to have is to enable this - not to control, judge or shape the direction of the public's contributions.

If any moderation is thought to be neccesary - it should be undertaken by someone who is not also trying to be a poster and whose decisions can then be seen to be objective.

There first needs to be some firm object of this moderation and a clear understanding of the basis on which these decisions are made and they should apply equally to all posters who should be encouraged to judge what they post rather than post only to judge what others choose to post.

Any moderation that does not operate on these lines - is liable to cause more problems than having none at all and relying on individual posters to self-moderate. We have before us the evidence of this.

We also have the admission of failure of this current editing shambles. Perhaps instead of threads like this with over 300 posts - where a third are from me and the rest are personal judgements of me - we could have a little more discussion on the rather important subject of the nature of censorship on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 09:44 AM

The only reason that I can find for you not responding in kind Roger is that you find 'Fuck off' too short a sentence for your taste!
Giok

(It's a joke Roger, it's a joke!)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:54 AM

yes Alba, you are right, it is time for caffeine !

I meant to write;

"yet indulge himself here, with apparent impunity,
with the very same negative intent aimed at Shambles?"

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,scaryfied & mystified
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM

Why does kendall insist on continuing to use this thread
as a platform to portray himself
as a smug interfering mean-spirited hypocrite?

What does he hope to accomplish?

Why does he repeatedly carp and snarl about the dire consequences
bound to be inflicted on mudcatters who "make personal attacks",

yet indulge here, with apparent impunity,
with the very same negative intent aimed at Shambles?

Very curious indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:37 AM

Knew I shouldn't have posted till the Caffeine kicked in..**smile**

Re: my typing whatevers..!

'em'...should read 'me'
as for the 'Is' after "years ago"..

I have absolutely no idea what the hell that is or where it came from..such are the joys of Dysl and no caffeine kick-in...oh well.
Just wanted to clear that up. Ta

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:07 AM

What he wants is attention.

How about a job in a bra factory? He can make mountains out of mole hills like no one else here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 07:48 AM

Please let em get this straight. 7 years ago on the Mudcat something happened to offend The Shambles on the Mudcat.
7 years ago! Is

(I just knew that NPJW would last longer, I knew it... just kiddin unfortunately)

That's a long time to be holding onto a resentment in my humble opinion.

Seriously Roger, I have not been around the Mudcat for 7 years and I truly mean no offense when I ask you this....

What do you want? Is there a way for you to say what that is, briefly and to the point in two or three sentences. Seriously.
Is this something you would think about doing so it may be clearer to some people on the Mudcat what your goal is.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 05:39 AM

Nonsense, Shambles. Don't make statements you are not sure of. I am a clone who does limited amounts of editing. I have had my posts edited and deleted a few times, and I have had a couple of my editing decisions overturned by Joe. That is the way it works. I have tried to learn from those few mistakes and do a better job.

How can I or any other poster really know if you are who you claim to be?

I should have used the word 'some'. For there is no doubt that some posters with edit buttons have been permitted to post things that other posters would have been subject to imposed censorship for.

If that does not include you - perhaps you should also be publicly critical of the actions of some of your fellow edit button holders - who have brought your integrity into question by their actions?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM

So give this a try, forget the past, yes, some stuff was done that I don't agree with. But let's forget it and start anew.

Bert-

The only reason I am forced to keep dredging all these individual cases of questionable censorship is because many posters will not accept that such things have kept on happening.

When the fact that these things do happen and the harm they do to our forum is generally accepted -
and is not publicly questioned and defended and -
when those that question them are not subject to posts containing only personal judgements -
when this questionable censorship no longer happens and it is clear that lessons have finally be learned from past mistakes -
there will be no need for me to dredged them up or to be due any apologies from anyone.

And on the subject of apolgies - the following is supposed to be an apology? On the lines of - I am sorry if I may have inadvertantly upset you in some way? There can be no question that some of the things this posters has been permitted to post publicly were intended to be taken on a very personal basis. Nor that the intention of them was to encourage others to indulge in such things in the hope that the target would go away as a result.

Sham, I will apologize for any and all comments, no matter of my intent, which you took to heart and considered terrible or nasty or whatever you, on a personal basis only, considered them to be.

Spaw

That I have resisted the temptation to respond to them in kind does not alter the fact that the rest of the forum has been subjected to such things. There is no need for even an honest apology - just some assurance that such an example will not in future be set and posted - and if they are that these posts will be treated in the same way as similar posts from other posters.   

Then if anyone should disagree with any thing that I or any other poster may post on any subject in the future - they can be encouraged to respond or simply to ignore it............

But the incorrect idea that it is any other individual poster that I have some personal beef with is still encouraged. I can deal with anything like this by simply ignoring these contributions. The point is that it is the so-called 'system' of censorship that is the real problem. It is this 'system' - not any well-intentioned individual caught up in it that needs to be discussed openly and addressed.

Sadly I see little evidence here that this is to be openly discussed or addressed - even when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has now admitted its failure and can only propose that the public be excuded (from posting BS) and this be turned into a members only forum.

Is this going to happen or are we just going to have to be subjected to the same 'system' - despite the resulting division caused by it and even though it's architect has publicly declared that he has no confidence in its ability to bring the results that he requires?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 07:17 PM

Why? Because I tell it like it is? I don't make the rules, I'm only telling you what I know.So, shoot the messenger, that makes more sense than some of the horse shit I've seen posted here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,scaryfied
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 05:06 PM

Now it would be quite worrying if kendall was already a clone ?

and,if not already,

with any hope he will never pass the auditions
for future elevation to the powers of clonedom

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

Now hear this...There is one hard and firm rule...like it or not it is:
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Calling someone a f*****g asshole, or some other nasty name will get you deleted. Adjust, and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

"Clone who tries," exactly...same here.

For the record, I came "out" as a clone a long time ago. I DON'T think anyone has the right to out any of us without our permission, though. That is the way Max set it up AND, if I remember correctly, he left it up to us, as individuals, whether we went public or not.

Spaw, it would be nice if that could happen, but judging from past years, I don't hold out much hope. I know you can do it, but I doubt Roger can.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:35 PM

Well Goik, I didn't say it was impossible, I said I don't think we'll ever know.

Let's not ask for apologies for what has happened in the past. Let us move forward.

Personally, I am always prepared to stand up and be publicly identified for whatever I say and do.

----------------

Shambles, Yes Max has said in the past that there are no rules, but that was a while ago and rules sometimes arise simply from usage. We also set our own rules about our usage of Mudcat.

For example I rarely read threads that are more than about twenty lines long unless it's a song. Therefore I try to keep my own postings short.

This one is going to be longer because I'm answering several people.

So give this a try, forget the past, yes, some stuff was done that I don't agree with. But let's forget it and start anew.

--------------------------

GUEST, thanks.

--------------------------

Spaw,

I love all of your posts, even when you're taking the piss out of me you are funny and I can take it. I'm sure Shambles feels the same and will go along with it.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,a clone who tries
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:25 PM

"Is it the ultimate hypocrisy for similar posts to be deleted when those posted by those with edit buttons will be excused and safe from any form of editing action? "

Nonsense, Shambles. Don't make statements you are not sure of. I am a clone who does limited amounts of editing. I have had my posts edited and deleted a few times, and I have had a couple of my editing decisions overturned by Joe. That is the way it works. I have tried to learn from those few mistakes and do a better job.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:08 PM

I wish you a lot of luck Bert! No Shambles bashing? No problem!

Now how about Shambles agrees to drop the entire subject as well? Give it a try and see if he will Bert. Nothing and no one have stopped him the past 7 or 8 years but I'm behind you. Go for it!

Sham, I will apologize for any and all comments, no matter of my intent, which you took to heart and considered terrible or nasty or whatever you, on a personal basis only, considered them to be.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:38 PM

..ok, agreed by me Bert.

Its unreasonable to expect the owners of mudcat to find money or time
for new forum software with more up to date features;

so within existing limitations,
an active commitment to more consistent, rational, objective and fairer treatment
of the written contributions from all members is an acceptable positive outcome.


.. and as a bonus, because of this thread I've finally found
a mudcat name for BS threads
I can like enough to live with long-term !


nice one !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:20 PM

Sorry Bert but I know it is possible to tell who edits/deletes what. That said I don't think they should be publicly identified anyway.
If any apology is necessary then it should be a Mudcat apology, and an assurance that it will not recur.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:17 PM

The main problem I see here is a handful of malcontents constantly pissing and moaning about rules.Rules that the majority believe are necessary.

Many who think this - appear to judge that these rules should be imposed on everyone else but they themselves are safe to ignore them.

But what rules are you referring to? Has Max not publicly stated that there are none?

Has The Chief of the Mudcat Editing team not also just publicly stated that the attempt to impose these rules has now failed in achieving the required peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:02 PM

Aw come on guys! let it go.   Let's drop this subject for a few days and see if we can make it go away.

I think that Joe and the clones are now committed to trying to bring some reason to the editing process. Don't go expecting an apology from whever it was that messed up in the past; I don't think that we'll ever know who was responsible.

So, come on, no more threads or messages about censorship, and no more Shambles bashing. Let's just accept that some clone got a bit trigger happy and that some members got pissed and keep going on about it. It's time to forgive and forget and move on.

If we all keep our heads down for a while, maybe this will blow over.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:53 PM

The main problem I see here is a handful of malcontents constantly pissing and moaning about rules.Rules that the majority believe are necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:40 PM

hi beardedbruce,

can't speak for Shambles either..

But I'm in accord with your concise summing up of the main problems here.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:40 PM

You have even taken to suggesting that people who don't like Mudcat the way it is should go start their own site with rules to suit them.

The division exists and is not entirely of my making.

But is it not divisive for those who don't like the way it is and express their failure to stay but feel their have some right to impose their required changes upon everyone else? So many good things have been lost and this latest proposal is just the final insult to us all.

Shambles, please correct me if I am wrong- I do not claim to speak for anyone besides myself.

Yes the point is that any caretaker has to recognise and honour the host's invitation and to treat the invited guests equally. It will only cause division and trouble if the guest's suitability to post is judged publicly by the caretaker and fellow guests are then encouraged to support these judgements and to feel they should also express judgements of their fellow guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:25 PM

Good point, bb. Darn. That's the problem with allegories- ya can't cover all the hypotheses!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM

Ebbie,

I think that Shamble's point is that, in your analogy, the caretaker is letting SOME of the tenants play loud music all night, but telling others to turn their music down, because the caretaker does not like that type of music.

Shambles, please correct me if I am wrong- I do not claim to speak for anyone besides myself.

Nor do I have a problem with judicious clone editing of some kinds- but it MUST be applied in a fair and evenhanded manner to be acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM

Roger with the greatest respect you are promoting division, you leave people with no option but to be for you or against you, now that's divisiveness!
You have even taken to suggesting that people who don't like Mudcat the way it is should go start their own site with rules to suit them.
Now at a rough guess I would say you were trying to divide them from this site!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:59 AM

Allegory:

A man owns a house. It is a nice house, very large and reasonably well kept. But he doesn't live there so he asks one of the tenants to keep an eye on the place. The position is not a paid one, of course, but he knows that the one(s) he chose love the place.

The caretaker accepts and now plays a dual role: he still lives there and plays there but he is a bit more "equal" than all the others and all the others know it- he has the right to speak in the name of the owner. All of the others are aware of his role and they are glad that it is he and not they who has to stay awake. The others would all rather just play. Almost all of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule1.html

One of the problems of having a censor is that it becomes challenge to find ways of getting around being censored. You can do this by always being seen to suck-up to the censor so that they will find it is difficult to impose action on you as they would others.

There are many ways to 'push the envelope' but what happens is that in this game - and in the attempt to steer close to the permited limits - it is possible to forget that the most important thing is using the natural inhibitors that we all have inbuilt. In other words, self censorship.

All of tend to know if what we intend to post is really as worthy, pure and positive as we may try to maintain publicly that it is. All that I would like to see is posters not being encouraged by example to judge the worth of their fellow posters or have 'fun' at their expense - but a return to them being encouraged to concentrate on making the content of their own posts as positive, tolerant and as conscious of the realities and limitations of our forum as possible.

When it is finally accepted that our forum is not a private members club to be shaped - or when Max agrees to turns it into a private members club - as requested by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - peace may have a chance of breaking out. Currently posters are feeling they are being forced to take sides. I would like to see an end to all this division and for all posters to be able to post once again on equal terms. The very thing that made The Mudcat Discussion Forum the special place it still remains.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:00 AM

right, how do you do graphic smilies ?



thats one essential modern forum tool this place needs to try to prevent
a lot of the unnecessary misunderstandings & flaming..


..A new thread pointing to any past tutorials might be quite timely..

[can you do "winking eye" and "sarcastic but still friendly piss-take" smileys ???]


that'd be cool

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

☺☻

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

Giok,

I do not have a problem with having some indicator that "mature" words or topics will be in a thread-

but PLEASE note that many here take delight in causing gratuitous offence: would you deprive them of the only joy they can find in their pitiful lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:38 AM

The point is that whether these so-called humourous posts containing offensive language and telling others to F*** *** remain on our forum is less a matter of if it is judged to be humourous but of judging who may be posting it.

The whole justification for why our forum has been subject to one poster imposing their judgement on others - is to protect us from offensive personal attacks. If any of those entrusted with an edit button is seen to indulge in such things - what hope is there of this example not being followed?

Is it the ultimate hypocrisy for similar posts to be deleted when those posted by those with edit buttons will be excused and safe from any form of editing action? This sort of open abuse makes a complete nonsense of this current deiting 'system' and brings into question all of those with edit buttons who may try to set a good example and try to act responsibly and who get 'tarred with the same brush'.

But the answer is for those who really think that defending and encouraging such double standards is a good thing - is for them to find another place where they can do this without inflicting them on everyone else. Now that the failure of this current system has been admitted - there can be no justification for the rest of our forum to be subjected to this hypocrisy and the excuses given for it any longer.

It acts as a cover for bullying and actually encourages the posting only of personal judgements of fellow posters. Rather that discouraging flaming - it provides for those who find this enjoyable -almost a crusade to indulge in against certain easy targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:35 AM

Only looking for the explanation for these deleted posts, that seem to be causing the progemitor of them such mystification.
I'm not a sensitive soul, but do remember that some members like Shady Lady and Limpit are of tender years, and while many of today's kids have a wider vocabulary of swear words than I do, I still do try to 'edit' my own posts for that reason.
There is no need after all to cause gratuitous offence is there?
Giok ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:30 AM

I would think so, but... it seems not.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:28 AM

surely any 'necessary warning' is automatically implicit
as soon as the sensitive souls stray below the BS line ????

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

As do I, but if there are those who feel offended by something in a thread they choose to open, should they have some warning?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

I, and I expect many others in this 'audience',
chose to come to mudcat in the reasonable expectation of reading the fullest range of material
creatively expressed by a most diverse international *adult membership..



[* I hesitate to say 'mature' adult.. but I reckon most here are !]

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:07 AM

Giok,

So, we need both a BS and a BSX section here, to prevent people who would be offended by things of that nature stumbling on them accidentally?