 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Do you need to be censored?
|
|
|
Subject: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:45 AM So you have it from Joe himself The following from the above thread. Which has been now subject to imposed closure. Subject: BS: So there you have it. From Joe himself. From: CarolC - PM Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM These are the rules of the Mudcat, from the horses mouth. Just wanted to make sure everyone had an opportunity to see this for themself. Anyone who shares a computer, take note... you are now responsible for the behavior of others. Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM The problem is someone is attempting to provoke trouble by baiting Martin Gibson, and the problem is coming from the computer that both Jack and Carol use. I would suggest that if Jack is clouding Carol's reputation by posting anonymous messages from their computer, that they settle it at home. All I know is that it's a problem, and it's time for it to stop. If it continues, I will block the IP that is the source of the anonymous messages, and the users of that IP can settle it among themselves - whoever they are. The self-righteous prigs among us are a far greater problem than are the aggressive trolls. I don't like either of them - the trolls OR the prigs. Most of us are here to enjoy each other's company. There are a very few who are here to cause trouble. -Joe Offer- (I note that no one has threatened to block Martin Gibson's IP.) The discussion is over, Carol. I did not threaten to block your IP. I said I would block the IP that is the source of the anonymous troublemaking. If that doesn't apply to you, then you have nothing to worry about. Martin Gibson has had his IP blocked on occasion, and has had hundreds of messages deleted. I have spent hours upon hours dealing with Martin Gibson. And I'm done dealing with you. The discussion is over. -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Only yesterday there was an entire thread called Joe Offer but this along with all the posts to it seems to have been deleted……………… By Joe Offer? Do you feel that YOUR posts to the Mudcat Discussion Forum need to be subject to this form of censorship of one poster's judgement being imposed upon another? The above is simply an example of where we appear to be heading - the point is NOT if you judge the individual judgement - made publicly in this case - is correct or not. It is the larger question of censorship in general on our forum. If you don't think your posts need to be censored in this form - perhaps you will be brave enough to have your say in this thread now - for it may be your last chance to do so. I would have re-opened an older thread called Censorship on Mudcat for this discussion - but this has been subject to imposed closure.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Paul Burke Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:33 AM No, Roger, WE don't need to be censored. But YOU do, just because otherwise you'll fill the forum with utterly pointless boring stuff. Some posters need to be censored because they are gratuitously abusive. No names, no pack drill. You aren't but just voluminous and pointless. It's not a big thing, boy, it's about folk music, about enjoyment. Don't take it all so seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:43 AM Paul Do you not already have all the tools you need to deal with things you judge to be boring or in any other way not to your taste? Can you not decide for yourself what to read or respond to? Do you really need some other poster to make this decision for you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:55 AM Well, Roger, something has to be done. When we get people fighting back and forth here, Mudcat becomes a battleground. It's just not a place where you can carry on an enjoyable conversation when you have somebody dumping nastiness into every discussion. You've suggested that people police themselves, and that they ignore the nasty posts - but they don't, and it has taken away a lot of the joy of Mudcat. I'm open to any and all suggestions, but it seems to me that it's time for members-only posting to BS, with membership paswords sent only to those with valid e-mail addresses, and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view. I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously. If you have a better idea, express it. Try to say something new, something true, and something constructive. -Joe Offer- P.S. I saw no reason for this thread to be closed, so I reopened it. I closed the "members only" thread. It has lived its life, and there is no need for the discussion to be duplicated in both threads. And yes, there were about eight "Joe Offer" and "Martin Gibson" threads started today and yesterday, by the same two people. They had their say, all well-summarized in the first message in this thread. So, I deleted the eight threads because they were personal attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:59 AM Closing threads |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:07 AM This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. -Joe Offer- I assume the above is for the benefit of the anonymous ones who would otherwise subject this thread to imposed closure - as you have done to the following? Proposal for members only posting of BS As we have established that closing threads provides no benefit to the technical running of our forum - perhaps it can be explained why all threads are not allowed (by you) to remain open and the choice to contribute to these or start new one be left to posters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:08 AM So, Roger, I think you need to have a little suggestion: make up your mind where you want to post something, and post it once. I really do believe you should be able to have your say, but when you copy-paste things so they're visible in half-a-dozen messages, that's not fair. If you post a duplicate message in a second thread, one of the threads will be closed. Learn to live with it. For quite some time, perhaps even before you came here, it has been a general principle that only one thread on a subject is supposed to be active on the Forum Menu at any one time. Try originality and constructive ideas, for a change. You'll find them to be far more effective than duplication. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:34 AM For quite some time, perhaps even before you came here, it has been a general principle that only one thread on a subject is supposed to be active on the Forum Menu at any one time. There are a number of other general principles that you have trampled underfoot in that time - probably all of them far more important than the one you now see as important enough to impose censorship on - as the one and only means to shape our forum to your taste. Despite the fact that you have no control over what anyone chooses to post or where - it may be wish (for those of us with tidy minds) that the forum appears ordered and that no two threads on the same subject should be seen at one time. But does the end always justify the means used to achieve it? It is twittering about with such minor detail while a far worse example of conduct is set and defended that has led you to now propose that the public be excluded from posting BS. I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously. For you appear to see no conflict with your above statement with protecting the anonymity of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters. Has this not also caused and contributed to the combat? Would a change to this not help? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:45 AM Can Carol and everyone else have the same rights as you have specifically granted to me? For I have no wish to be treated better than other posters - just a wish for us all to once again to be treated as equals and posting on an equal basis. This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. -Joe Offer- Perhaps the threads that were deleted can now be replaced, to enable others to say whatever it is that they need to say. And the ones that were closed can be re-opened to allow posters to say it where they have chosen to? In short - if a private members club is what you want and you are determined to turn The Mudcat Discussion Forum into this - can you please go elsewhere and create one of your own? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 06 - 05:08 AM Roger, repeat after me:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:16 AM How about answering the questions Joe? Including this one. Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:46 AM Dunno, Roger. As I see it, I sometimes disagree with people, but I'm not combative. It's the combative stuff that causes trouble at Mudcat. and I do believe that needs to be controlled. So, do you have suggestions for ways to eliminate that combativeness, so the rest of us can enjoy each other's company and conversation in relative peace? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:50 AM Another closed thread. For my friend Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:54 AM That's right, Roger. When threads get contentious, we close or delete them. If the freedom to fight is precious to you, go fight somewhere else. Many of us are sick and tired of the bickering and nastiness. What can you do to help us resolve that problem? And if you want to complain about the closure or deletion of a thread, tell us what value that thread had, and why a troublesome thread should be left open. Give us a reason, explaining why that closure is objectionable. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:02 AM So, do you have suggestions for ways to eliminate that combativeness, so the rest of us can enjoy each other's company and conversation in relative peace? Yes and to date you have ignored every one of them. The most important is the example set. If you set one where individual poster are named by you and their worth is judged publicly and discussions about their worth are encouraged in order to shape our forum to your tastes - should you really be surprised if this example is then followed? If you set the example of encouraging anonymous imposed censorship - and indulge in and premit others to indulge in abusive personal attacks on their fellow posters - can you really be surprised if this example is then followed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:22 AM Your allegation of "abusive personal attacks" is a gross exaggeration, Roger. Yes, I and other volunteers have sometimes expressed aggavation and exasperation, and perhaps at times we may even lapse into the sin of innuendo. "Abusive personal attacks" is quite another matter. As for our "anonymous" editing, I take responsibility for all editing. I think that means it's not anonymous. If you have a question or problem, talk to me. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Aaron Aardvark Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:00 AM I've actually been here a long time (Joe will know who I am from my IP) but have changed my Mudcat name due to some of the issues referred to above. I came and continue to come to this forum for the wealth of information it and its members have, and for the constructive and good-natured discussions on a wide variety of topics (not always just music) which I try to contribute to in a constructive way. Like Joe, I am absolutely fed up by the bickering and nastiness here. In a sense, I've seen the same thing happen in my professional area and in the world in general so it's hardly surprising as Mudcat is a microcosm of the outside world. But I continue to come back because there are some very good and generous people here. I will just avoid those that aren't in the future. I'm against censorship in general and, unlike Roger, don't have a problem with the hard calls and decisions Joe has to make under sometimes difficult circumstances. Aaron |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST,G Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:12 AM I am aware that material emanating from my IP have not always been the friendliest. And several times directed rather harshly at the same individuals. (Just a couple people) I read somewhere before a great suggestion that perhaps needs repeating.........IF you are disatisfied with editing, what you may call censorship or even manipulation, the solution is very simple; Start your own forum and do not allow yourself (selves) to be bothered by Mudcat. I am not trying to suck up to the powers that be - it is a very simple solution to what several perceive to be a problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Pied Piper Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:20 AM I doesn't help when some people are pretending to be something they're not; posting as actors playing a part rather than expressing there real feelings. I'm sure there are legal as well as good taste reasons to remove posts and someone has to do it so cut Joe a bit of slack; he's only human and will make wrong calls occasionally like we all do. So you get a post deleted, or thread shut down, it's not the end of the world. This is by far the least censored forum I visit and I appreciate the opportunity to speak MY mind learn from others speaking theirs. TTFN PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:37 AM Roger I think that Joe is too easy on some posters, and he allows things that I wouldn't if I had the choice. It must be a great temptation sometimes to delete wholesale. However Joe seems to be very good at resisting temptation, judging by some of the boring and/or obscene posts that are allowed to remain unmolested. I think it may be something to do with previous vocational training! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: MaineDog Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:31 AM I would like to know whether PM's are ever censored or edited or refused delivery. MD
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: wysiwyg Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:38 AM When I fall prey to Mudcat Psychosis, and lose my usual intentionality and post something beyond the pale-- you're damn right I need to be censored, and I appreciate our site volunteers more than I could say even if I used every word in my head and duplicated it in every post in every thread I might make for the rest of my foreseeable lifetime. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: mack/misophist Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:57 AM To paraphrase GUEST,G, somewhat: Whoever owns the ball, gets to make the rules. And as long as they're consistant and public, crying foul is childish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Bert Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:31 AM Joe, You said ...tell us what value that thread had, and why a troublesome thread should be left open... Well I'm somewhat concerned about what CarolC had to say. She says that 'you specifically mentioned her in a thread' and she posted a copy of that message. I feel that gives her the right to complain openly in the forum if she has been unfairly treated. Now I really believe that the message she posted came from you. I feel it would have been better for all of us if you had responded to her complaint openly in the thread that she had started, instead of closing the thread (or allowing it to be closed). I opened Mudcat this morning hoping to see a reasoned response from you in that thread but instead I see another thread started by Shambles. If you close or delete threads then the people who are complaining don't have an awful lot of choice but to start new ones if they want to get heard. You complain about Roger continually complaining about censorship and threads and messages being deleted. But when someone complains about YOUR behaviour here, you delete the threads. Then you admonish ROGER and ask him to say something new and something true. Well it's NEW that you have deleted some threads recently, and its TRUE because you have said so. Now I do believe that you are trying your best to avoid trouble and contention here, but sometimes it appears to me that your actions are causing even more trouble.
'Nuff said. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM I think that Joe in trying too hard to be fair has painted himself into a corner, he would have been much better to have dealt with people via PMs and made no comments critical or otherwise in open forum. People, especially Roger have taken his words and used them against him by putting them into their own context to make them fit their agenda. This is obviously why most clones have chosen to retain their anonymity, it makes their postings immune from misuse. I think a firm 'No comment' is the best response, then no ammunition is given to those who would try to use your own words against you! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Jeri Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:29 PM MaineDog, no. You can delete them before opening if you want. If somebody sends you threatening messages (not just annoying ones, but ones that would be legally proscecutable as 'threats'), send a message to Joe. Joe's a decent guy, but Joe, you're the lead editor here. You validate an opinion by taking it seriously enough to argue. People already respect you, you don't need to keep asserting yourself. If you do, you can only LOSE respect. You can't get drawn into these arguments over and over again and expect people not to change their opinion of you. You, who used to believe in not responding to trolls, can't re-open threads just to have the last word. That's how I perceive what happened, despite why you said you re-opened those lovely threads. Was that for the good of the forum? But you can't moderate an argument and be PART of it, any more than you can referee a game and be part of it. Personally, I don't think there's much reason to even keep the BS section open these days, as most of the posts are old grudge-matches or outright trolling and flaming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:46 PM Start your own forum and do not allow yourself (selves) to be bothered by Mudcat. I am not trying to suck up to the powers that be - it is a very simple solution to what several perceive to be a problem. In the early more tolerant days of our forum - the idea was encouraged to invite peopole to join in and to do anything that may inhibit this - was thought to be a problem. Since the arrival of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff, his known helpers and his anonymous ones - this has changed to an idea where all the rest of the forum are encouraged to tell anyone who may not like what our once tolerant forum is being shaped into - that they can p*** o**. As if this was any real solution. But this has now changed. For it is the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff who is admitting his failure to impose the peace that he requires. It is he who is expressing disatisfaction with the result of his efforts. And despite having almost total control - is not satisfied with this and is now proposing that our forum be closed to public access. Now apart from not appreciating these constants efforts to shape our forum to the personal likes and dislikes of a select and vocal few - I like our forum on the terms that I first posted. Those that do not and who cannot accept the realities of what a public forum is - are now welcome to go away and start their own. Perhaps it would be better for all concerned if they did just this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Big Mick Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM Of course censorship is a need on a forum. It is just the type of argument Roger makes that makes him such a nuisance and such a destructive force. He is no less destructive than Martin. If there were no need for censorship, then forums wouldn't have moderators. That is their job, to moderate the forum to keep the discussion operating under decent guidelines. The premise this thread is operating under is bogus and another piece of troll bait. The answer to the question posed is very simple. Yes. All forums and public venues need some form of censorship. You can't yell "fire" in a public place unless there is a fire. And you can't keep eating up bandwidth, provided at personal expense by the owner, without subjecting yourself to the rules. I will continue to speak to the rules, and I will continue to delete threads which serve no purpose other than to attack others. It is time to stand for the things that made this place special to begin with. Shambles, had Joe not said what he said earlier, I would have deleted this thread. You are saying nothing new, and that you haven't said ad nauseum in the past. At this point you are simply an anachronism to the Mudcat that folks chuckle about. I would block you but that is not my call. Instead I will concentrate on a campaign for appropriate moderation of this forum. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Big Mick Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:53 PM And as a response to your last post, Roger, I must point out that you have a very faulty memory. I was there in those days. In those days you also got your nose all bent out of shape and made a very public exit from the Mudcat. I don't mind you telling a falsehood, as long as you don't mind me pointing out that it is such. You were destructive then, you continued to post Anon even though you said you left, and all these years later it continues. You are not a positve force here, you are a destructive one. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM Close BS and you might as well close Mudcat. Most people come here because they love a discussion ...on lots of subjects. We all have a shared interest in folk music but there is a limit to how much discussion we can have on folk music alone. We need a little moderation to keep the loonies in orderand I think Joe is doing fine. He might have been wrong to "noise up" Carol, but I've watched the wee bruiser put a sackfull of right wing bigots in their place, so why put on the petted lip with poor Joe . Joe's great he's never deleted any of my posts although i'm always on about Christian hypocrisy and what a shower of wankers the yanks are. I think he's fair minded and would secretly like to be a progressive God bless him!! ...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM Your allegation of "abusive personal attacks" is a gross exaggeration, Roger. Yes, I and other volunteers have sometimes expressed aggavation and exasperation, and perhaps at times we may even lapse into the sin of innuendo. "Abusive personal attacks" is quite another matter. Joe why can't you accept the concept that in order to sit in final judgement upon your fellow posters - that you have to be seen to be totally objective? Or that the example that you Bert, other known edit button holders and the anonymous ones set, will be followed? If you make public judgements of any named poster - as a fellow poster or as an edit button holder - this example will be followed in a form of 'witch hunt'. Trying to justify this example by minimising the nature of the personal judgements as you do - is just confirming my point. If you are to sit in final judgement - you cannot be seen to be part of the dispute or even to hold a personal view. As you well know my argument is that the need to have fellow posters to protect us from personal attacks is simply used as a means in practice for you to shape our forum to your personal taste. Now you admit yourself that these measures have failed to impose the peace you require - my fears are only confirmed by your intention to still stay and shape our forum into the private members club that a certain few have always wished it to be. No - there is no going back from this point. If that is what you and a few others want - then please go away and start one of your own and leave our forum to those who accept its realities and limitations and have always been quite happy with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:12 PM There is definitely a need for a certain amount of censorship on this forum, as there is on any forum. When it is done, though, it will never succeed in pleasing everyone. Sounds like the rest of life, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:12 PM Aye Ake, I kenned it wis you before I got tae the bottom, wha else but a Scot wid use the term 'petted lip'? It's an expression I love because it describes the phenomenon so well it could almost pass for an onomatapoeia. Thanks for the chuckle. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Bill D Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM It's very complicated issue as to what debate and explanation should be done in PMs, and what should be available for public reading. I think a lot of the opinions expressed here ought to be done privately, but some of it IS valuble for the members at large to understand. I would HATE to see the BS section go, for at its best it is a delight and place to share humor, opinion...even controversial opinion...with others. We have some very astute and aware folks here, and I learn a lot...and get to refine and explore my own ideas. I even enjoy, in theory, the ability to log out and be funny or mischievous. (I have posed as Guest, Edgar A., (a long time ago, I guess)just to be cute).......but this freedom is seriously abused daily now by flamers, trolls and other folks with petty and abusive natures who accuse, label, call names, threaten, embarass, insult...etc. Sadly, I am wondering if Joe is not right, and BS posting might better be limited to registered names. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. I have wracked my brain trying to even imagine a system where the good parts could be retained while filtering out the vitriol and rancor. I am sure a lot of the problem is just technical...(managing cookies and sorting of IPs..etc.)...but it obviously would involve a policy decision that Max has always been reluctant to make. Mudcat has always permitted a wider degree of freedom than about any site I have seen...and we STILL get compaints about the relatively minor bits of editing that are done. It kinda strikes me that, if we need to have 'some' censorship, it might as well be of a type that would reduce the workload on Joe and his team. I have been here since 'almost' the beginning (late Oct.'96)...longer than even Joe. Only Bert, who used to be 'on staff' and Max himself have seniority on me...and I have seen it ALL. My opinion is not particularly 'better' than anyone else's, but I sure have some perspective, and I have posted in 8-9 OTHER forums in 10 years, NONE of which were as well-designed and interesting as this.....perhaps that's why we attract so many obnoxious 'anonymous' posts, as well as regular, friendly ones. so...I'm rambling, I see.....well, this stuff is important to me! This forum has enabled me to chat with, and even meet, dozens of great people, from Max himself, right down the line to Jeff, Bert, Jeri, Big Mick, WYSIWYG, Amos, Carol C and Jack, Giok, Uncle Dave O., ...and many more .....the list is LONG! There are a number who I have NOT met, and sure WISH I could! Think about it, my friends, (those I have met, and those I only 'see' in the forum), we need to figure this out...and if it means giving up a couple of privileges in order to keep the important ones, we need to consider that, too. Be kind to each other, hmmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: SINSULL Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM I never thought I would find myself saying this. Joe has been too fair and it is time to cut out the crap. This is from the FAQ page: "We allow just about all sorts of discussion, but we draw the line when it's clear that an individual is flooding Mudcat with information - things like multiple "copycat" or interrelated threads, lengthy copy-paste messages of non-music articles from publications and Internet sources (one screen full of text is the limit - and remember that we encourage you to post the entire text of music-related information). If you regularly start more than one thread a day, you are quite probably starting too many. Please try to post to existing threads as much as possible, rather than splitting topics into a number of threads. I suppose there are a few other things we take action against, but I think this is a pretty good summary." Shambles has crossed the line. When he confined his repetitive BS to his owb threads I could ignore it. But now he invades every possible thread and I am sick of it. In the past, I recognized that he has some sort of "problem', emotional or mental or whatever. I don't care anymore. Throw him the hell out! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: SINSULL Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM Sorry for the Copy and Paste. When even Chongo the Chimp threads become Shambles' censorship soap box, it is enough! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM You were destructive then, you continued to post Anon even though you said you left, and all these years later it continues. You are not a positve force here, you are a destructive one. Can you please provide some evidence to support your allegation that I have posted anonymously. To the best of my knowledge I have only ever done this on the Help forum due to default or lazyness on my part or when my cookie has crumbled. As it seems possible for Big brother to check this - I trust that confirmation of your allegation - or an apology will be forthcoming? Mick when will you accept that the worth of any other poster is none of your business. They, you and me both are invited guests of Max and as Max is not making these judgements - there is no point in you making them. If you do not like the worth of you fellow guests - the only option open to you is for you to leave. Do you need to be censored Mick? Who is going to do that then? Are you going to join Joe's private members club when he starts it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: MMario Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM Roger - you say Joe why can't you accept the concept that in order to sit in final judgement upon your fellow posters - that you have to be seen to be totally objective? Joe isn't "final judgement" as his decisions can be appealed to Max - and geesh - he's a forum moderator - not a supreme court judge! I think everyone is aware that he is a) a volunteer; b) has a life c) is human. You also suggest: leave our forum to those who accept its realities and limitations and have always been quite happy with them. You've been complaining about the forum for years - do you now mean to say you are NOT displeased with the way it is run? If so, why all the objections? Also - you might want to remind yourself that it is not "our" forum - it is Max's. Joe derives any "power" he has from Max. This forum is not a democracy - it is a (benign) dictatorship; no matter what any of us feel or say about it. I feel Joe shows more control and good judgement then *I* or most people I know would be able to show under the circumstances. And we who use this forum don't have much to complain about..The moderators of another forum I belong to recently made the public comment that their "goal" was to respond to complaints within a week, but they considered 10-14 days acceptable. That particular forum has two FULL TIME PAID MODERATORS!!!! and far less traffic then the mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Big Mick Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:28 PM Amen, Bill. ***chuckle**** I remember those days, even though I came a bit after you. The piece that we had then was a sense of wonderment and excitement at the newness of it all. We were amazed at the characters and personalities, the enlightened sense of getting to know each other. We were amazed at some of the icons of ours, such as our Jean, Arlo, and a host of others. We were excited about building the place that Rick came to call "the place he always wanted to live in". We cared about the site, but these days it has lost that. I know we can never get back the sense of wonder, all kids grow up. But we can mature into the respected site we should be, the source of information in a short time we always laughed about. We can encourage the inquisitive minds, and the great debaters, and we can discourage the malcontents who come here to hear themselves "speak" or too just plain be destructive. The manipulators need to find another home. We can get this done. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Bill D Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:32 PM Amen, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Big Mick Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM Last correction of a false premise for you, Roger. I have every right, as a moderator of this forum, to judge the worth of the posts. That is exactly what moderators do, in addition to the housekeeping. We apply what we know of the guidelines to the posts of those who exercise the privilege (note: I did not say "right") of posting here. My right is generated by the obligation I have as a moderator to perpetuate this site for the majority who post here. They expect we will accept the task of not allowing the forum to crumble from the attacks of trolls. It is what we do. So go ahead and see if you can slip another false premise by. But in the meantime, any attacks, or redundant threads will be closed or deleted. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:35 PM I saw the same process occur at a sort of spiritual camp I visited at various times in the late 70's to early 80's. There was this incredible sense of innocence, wonder, open-heartedness, shared vision, and brotherhood in the early years. Then it started to change as certain competitive egos got involved in jockeying for power and control and some real nastiness began to percolate. It just got worse and worse, until the place fell apart in the end and ceased to exist altogether. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM I don't care anymore. Throw him the hell out! Do you need to be censored? As Max is unlikely to throw a fellow poster out just because you may not like what they choose to post - perhaps you may consider that joining Joe's new private members club will suit you better than Max' forum does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: SINSULL Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:39 PM "We allow just about all sorts of discussion, but we draw the line when it's clear that an individual is flooding Mudcat with information - things like multiple "copycat" or interrelated threads, lengthy copy-paste messages of non-music articles from publications and Internet sources (one screen full of text is the limit - and remember that we encourage you to post the entire text of music-related information). If you regularly start more than one thread a day, you are quite probably starting too many. Please try to post to existing threads as much as possible, rather than splitting topics into a number of threads. I suppose there are a few other things we take action against, but I think this is a pretty good summary." You have repeatedly and intentionally inflicted all of the above on the Forum. It is time for it to be stopped. MAry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM Boy, I sometimes wonder if Max pays any attention to all this contentious crap on here...and what he thinks about it. (?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM I think he should be rusticated for a while, so's we can all get a rest! G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Janie Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:11 PM I am not one of those who were here in 'the good old days', I think I came in in late 2002. But I have been here long enough to have definitely seen better days. Jay Baldwin, from the old 'Whole Earth' and "Co-Evolution Quarterly" days observed more than once that 'Don't shit in camp' is one of the basic rules of a tribe. I imagine that there were expectations that young children or people absolutely new to communal living were given a little time to learn this rule. And that the tribe understood that on occasion, anyone can mess their britches. But I bet that any person, tribe member or not, who continually and repeatedly defecated within camp perimeters was ostrasized and otherwise excluded. Mudcat IS a tribe. It IS a community. Tension between the individual and the community is inherent in social relationships. When the rights and individual needs/wants of individuals gain ascendancy over what is needed to sustain the group, the group falls apart. Chaos and 'lawlessness' reign. Every community or tribe needs some one to function as enforcers of rules that are held for the common good. Most people in a tribe understand the need for balance and do a pretty good job of maintaining it. With insufficient rules to protect the community as a whole, or no enforcement of those rules, it only takes a very few people acting out to disrupt the whole community. Mudcat is definitely worth preserving, but there are enough people (myself included sometimes) who put themselves first to the detriment of maintaining this tribe, that greater external social control is warranted to pull the forum back into balance. I definitely would favor restricting BS to members only, and I think Joe and the clones must have the ability to act as enforcers-even if their actions may at times appear arbitrary. If and when the pendulum swings too far toward control to the detriment of the forum's survival, then we can always give it a shove back in the other direction. But it is clear to me that right now the balance is tipped way too far in the other direction. We haven't policed ourselves well. We need help to get back to the center. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM Holy crap-on-a-cracker, this place needs an enema! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: bobad Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:20 PM Drop those drawers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:26 PM Sometimes, Clinton, you say things that are truly profound... Want another glass of prune juice? -Joe Offer- |
