Subject: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:30 PM Received this from another forum which was just formed, recently. Makes a lot of good gd sense to me and I'd like to see some, if not all of it adopted for Mudcat. I don't want to see anymore good people run off by sniping, attacks, etc. as has happened over the past 2-3 years. Seems to me the following would take care of a lot of the problems. I have removed the name of the forum from which I received this. I wouldn't feel comfortable if we used it verbatim without their permission; and, of course, we could rewrite it. Any emphasis is mine: Enter your personal information below. Your email address will be used to confirm your feedback and comments. Your comments and feedback will be posted after you reply to our confirming email. Your name, occupation/affiliation, and location will be added as a personal signature to any comment you add to the forum and therefore public information. Our philosophy for public discourse is that individuals need to put their name and reputation behind their comment, just as in any other public venue. Other personal information, such as your email address, will be held confidential as described in our Terms of Use. NOTE: This is a user moderated forum. BLANK is not responsible for the content of any material posted by users. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT The success of your forum is dependent on the individuals who participate. A collaborative, respectful exchange of ideas is encouraged. Simple principles: 1. No personal attacks. Stay focused on the issues. 2. No foul language. (Might have to define this!:-) 3. If someone has already stated your position -- rate it or amplify on it, don't repeat it. 4. When you have a new idea to contribute, keep it brief and clear. This part would need some tweaking. The forum it is written for has a rating system for each discussion/idea/concept posited. I don't think we need that for Mudcat, BUT the idea behind it is good and I like the way they requested courteous postings. BLANK is user moderated. We do not edit or censor -- you do. By rating respectful, insightful, well-spoken comments as "important", you make them more likely to be seen. By rating disrespectful, off-point, run-off-at-the-mouth comments as "unimportant" or even "inappropriate", you help them fall to the bottom of the list where they are seldom seen. BLANK is designed to have the good drive out the bad, rather than the bad driving out the good. BLANK asks that users observe the same common courtesies that they would observe at any face to face gatherings. Users should avoid ad hominem attacks (criticisms that are aimed at the person rather than at the ideas being espoused). BLANK reminds users that, because tone of voice and facial expressions do not easily travel over the Internet, the intent of a message can easily be misinterpreted by others. BLANK asks that users make the effort to type those extra few words that can change what would otherwise be a rude message into a polite, but vigorous questioning of an idea or concept. Thanks, kat |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM Kat, You are right, it looks as though the rating system would be difficult to impliment form a software perpective as would the "self moderating" aspects. But without that, is there anything new here? Aren't you a moderator now? Are you saying that banning Ad Hominim would be a new thing? Isn't that what Joe means by "personal attacks" in the FAQ? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Date: 24 Apr 06 - 07:08 PM I am NOT saying it's going to be any way, JtS. I am only suggesting ALL of the other parts but the rating part. As to ad hominem attacks (criticisms that are aimed at the person rather than at the ideas being espoused seems to me to be akin to personal attacks, yes. kat |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Apr 06 - 07:23 PM I guess you are talking about the "electronic signatures" I'm all for that. Would you suggest that this be available to all or would it be kept on file to curb bad behavior? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Date: 24 Apr 06 - 07:38 PM Good question. I like that we can choose nicknames, BUT I also admire those of us who post under their real names, i.e. Art Thieme, Rick Fielding, etc. I think I would favour having a confirmation email to establish an identity, but let a person choose a consistent nickname, at least for the BS section. For the music section, the above suggestions about "being nice" and the messages being vetted before posting makes sense to me, if they are as a Guest. kat |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM The current policy seems to be to let some attacks stand if they are part of a discussion but it seems that that is just making it hard for you guys. The lines are to hard to draw and to other people looking on the lines seem arbitrary. My suggestion would be to delete all personal attacts from everyone then tighten things up to the point where people learn where the boundries are and they learn not to mix attacks with discussion, then to loosen thing up from there. But I don't guess you moderators have enough manpower for that. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:14 PM Well, I don't have any manpower, JtS.:-) It'd be nice if folks would just take the above as a suggestion and try it. It's pretty much what Mudcat used to be...a nice place and I believe we can get back to that. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:20 PM I'm still not sure what you want folks to do. It looks like that forum is deleting all the posts that don't meet their standards. Is that what you want? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:24 PM I mostly would like for folks to take this to heart: " BLANK asks that users observe the same common courtesies that they would observe at any face to face gatherings. Users should avoid ad hominem attacks (criticisms that are aimed at the person rather than at the ideas being espoused). BLANK reminds users that, because tone of voice and facial expressions do not easily travel over the Internet, the intent of a message can easily be misinterpreted by others. BLANK asks that users make the effort to type those extra few words that can change what would otherwise be a rude message into a polite, but vigorous questioning of an idea or concept." I hope that is clear enough. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:30 PM Our forum managed to be a fine place without any such rules. It is just the creeping in of more and more restrictions over the years that have almost ruined it. Such things are fine - at the start-up of any such forum. It looks to me that this example is going to be a fine one for you and all of those who do not like and can only accept our forum on their their terms, which they feel they have some right to impose on everyone else. And also feel they have some right - as you to do to publicly suggest that other posters be banned. Had such rules been in force at the start-up of our forum and posters always contributed on that basis - fine. But to introduce such things - or impose any further posting restrictions at any later period is to move the goal posts. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 08:47 PM Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: katlaughing - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:20 PM YOU need to be banned, Roger. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: michaelr Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:21 AM The goal posts need moving because the punters have begun using corked bats, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. Shambles being one. I'm all for making everyone post under their real names and e-mail addresses, as is practice on the Cittern forum I frequent. Keeps it all nice and polite. Rating each other's posts, however, seems childish to me. Cheers, Michael |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:54 AM Rating each other's posts, however, seems childish to me. Who are the Mudcat icons? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: autolycus Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:05 AM I suugested 2 strategies on another thread. 1). The best response to horrible, antagonistic etc.etc. posts, is for everyone else to ignore them 100 %. 2). Post to the best sort of standards you adhere to. And encourage, praise and support anyone who does likewise. Ivor |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:29 AM My God Ivor! - you will get some flack for that suggestion.... Subversives like you are considered dangerous around these here parts.... *Smiles* |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: kendall Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:38 PM Katlaughing, if those rules were adopted here we would end up with nothing but articulate adults who don't need a mouthful of 4 letter words. Shambles, what has driven some people away is not rule changes, it is nasty personal attacks and flat out stalking by cowards who like to pick on women. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM Jeez, Kendal, ya think? Wouldn't that be loverly! Thanksdarlin'...kat |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Sorcha Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:04 AM I hope you look good in blue, kat, because I don't...I'm not holding my breath...this is basically a Member Only proposition...and it ain't gonna happen. I seriously doubt the Hold on Guest stuff will happen either, but it's a good idea. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:10 AM Pistols at dawn? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: bobad Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:23 AM Chlorpromazine would be better. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:43 AM "Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM Perhaps the 'no rules' thing worked fine when Mudcat was a small site, but then like Topsy it growed, and it became necessary to try for some semblence of order, it's called evolution Roger, you should try it on your arguments. Never mind, if many more members old, new, or would be, are driven away by your constant bickering perhaps the old rules will fit the newly reduced Mudcat? Or maybe this pond is just too big for a small fish like you? Giok" I think this older post is cogent in this discussion. Giok |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:26 AM Shambles, what has driven some people away is not rule changes, it is nasty personal attacks and flat out stalking by cowards who like to pick on women. Kendall I may not think capital punishment acts as a deterrent to murder but that does not mean that I think murder to be a good thing. Just as pointing out the fact that the constant restrictions imposed on our forum to shape it to the taste of a few (who still are not satisfied), has done little or nothing to protect anyone from nasty personal attacks, stalking or bullying, does not mean that I think nasty persoanal attacks, stalking and bullying to be good thing. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:33 AM Nor yet is constant repetition a good thing. G |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:41 AM Nor yet is constant repetition a good thing. You have said that before. Is stalking a good thing? Oh I forgot - when you are doing it for the greater good etc etc. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:42 AM It's a far better thing that I do! G. [That's been said before too] |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Grab Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:16 PM Ruined it how, Roger? If the requests are to avoid personal attacks, duplicate posts saying the same thing, or threads created purely to continue an argument/discussion/whatever that started on another thread, why is that unreasonable? Quoth the FAQ: The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, Jeff/Pene Azul, and Joe Offer, or under their direction. Seems clear enough. In other words, your posts/threads *will* be deleted if you repeat yourself on the same subject without saying anything new. I presume you disagree with this? Checking the last week's history, I notice the following threads started by yourself: Some similarity in the content of those threads, no? Note that this is just threads, and just from posts last week - I'm too lazy to look back for the last couple of months, or to check all posts you've written. Graham. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM Seems clear enough. In other words, your posts/threads *will* be deleted if you repeat yourself on the same subject without saying anything new. I presume you disagree with this? If you find a pub session and you like it - you will most probably stay. You find some where folk just get on with the music, have fun, respect each other and practically anythings goes even (playing the same things more than once). You find others where seats are reserved, the music seems to play second fiddle to persoanal ego trips, it is a serious business and there are very strict limitations on what is played etc. I tend to like and stay in the former but there are those who prefer the latter. Either are fine to participate in as long as you accept their defferent nature from the start. What has happened over time on our forum is that it was like the the former and the participants were busy making the music and having their fun in the usual fashion and before they knew it - it had been changed into the latter. Any rules need to be understood and accepted before you start playing and not introduced and heavlily enforced halfway through. Even so reserving the right to do these things is something I suspect that all the early particpants would have accepted. But reserving such rights are not the same as enforcing them on the slightest excuse in order to shape proceedings to the tastes of a few individuals. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Wesley S Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM Roger - The people who are showing up for the "session" have changed. So new guidelines are needed. In my opinion. You may disagree. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: MMario Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM The analogy has to be stretched and warped to fit the situation here. first and foremost being that the sessions are held in a public space. But the mudcat forum is hosted in a PRIVATE space. secondly - Shambles keeps refering to "recent" changes. I haven't noticed any change in policy in approximately four years, I believe, possibly more. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Grab Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:04 PM Most sessions I go to aren't total free-for-alls that just happened. Someone went to the trouble of getting the landlord onside; and someone (maybe the same someone) decides whether we're doing two songs each, or one song each, or 10 minutes each, or whatever; and someone (maybe the same someone) says "and now John/Jill's turn..." And if someone has a three-song slot, and plays the same thing three times running, then someone else is likely to say "look, stop mucking about". No? Graham. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM But the mudcat forum is hosted in a PRIVATE space. The next intention of a few may be to change it to exclude the public but at the moment the analogy of a session taking place and hosted in a privatly owned 'public house' remains perfectly sound. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM Sod excluding the public, I'd settle for excluding Roger! G.. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: MMario Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM No, your analogy is not perfectly sound. The analogy should be to a session in a PRIVATE HOME, and therein lies the difference. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM The analogy should be to a session in a PRIVATE HOME, and therein lies the difference. MMario you should come over and try and argue this to our Government on licensing legislation.......... |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: MMario Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:16 PM ??are you saying there is no differnece between a session in a private home and a session in a pub? Because if you are basing your agrument on that you are basing it on a false premise. there is a huge difference. and your analogy made no reference to licensing - so I don't see how that applies |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:48 PM The analogy should be to a session in a PRIVATE HOME, and therein lies the difference. Private home or a public house - WHEN the public are invited in to freely participate - there is NO difference. The host of both can throw you out but your fellow guests cannot. And if you do not like your fellow guests - the only course open to you is for you to leave. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM blah, blah, blah. How to be uptight about a web forum. or why a web forum should not be the dominant part of your life. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: jeffp Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:53 PM If your host hires or selects volunteer security people, they certainly can throw you out. As can any bouncer at any bar. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM Give them guns anbd they will leave peacefully. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: jacqui.c Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:39 PM Good point jeffp. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST,Martin Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:41 PM "If your host hires or selects volunteer security people, they certainly can throw you out. As can any bouncer at any bar." Didn't Hitler do that? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 26 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM The military use of the Rules of Engagement is almost always followed by the addendum Levels of Force. During the years I have been using the Mudcat Cafe I have never seen Joe or Max exceed or abuse their position of ultimate arbiter on this site. If anything they have remained neutral and forgiving. We are all guests, and should not try to run the site to our own dictates. Yours, Aye. Dave |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:05 AM We are all guests, and should not try to run the site to our own dictates Including any bouncers. I make it a point of of never entering any place where their are bouncers on the door. Had there been any bouncers on the door of our forum - I would not have started contributing here - perhaps others feel the same? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:56 AM So the place where you are going to regularly grows some and the owner decides to hire bouncers......What do you do? Spaw |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:12 AM I ask him to re-consider. Which I have and which I will continue to do. Do I have that right? What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:23 AM Really chaps you must catch up, they are called 'Door Stewards' now, nothing so vulgar or threatening as bouncers. JOCDS rules OK? G.. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:24 AM Not that is was my request - but I do feel a little personaly responsible for my part in the imposition of what has become bouncers to the rest of our forum. I will continue to say what I can to try and put that right. User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99 I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing. To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it. |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Manitas_at_home Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:27 AM "I ask him to re-consider. Which I have and which I will continue to do. Do I have that right?" You do. But he hasn't. So why keep banging your head against a brick wall and annoying the neighbours on the other side of the partition? |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 04:40 AM What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether? It would appear the answer to be that for some posters - is as they don't exclude me (and I can ensure that by always being seen to be in agreement with whatever they suggest)- then bugger the public........... |
Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Apr 06 - 05:11 AM That's only legal in private so far Roger!! G.☻ |