Subject: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,Number 6 Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM Why aren't the identities of the moderators, clones, spooks, elders or whatever one calls them known here to the rest of the Mudcat members. Keeping it secret is a bit 'Orwellian', plus I feel it tends to polarize the community. sIx |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: MMario Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM Many - if not most- forums the moderators are anonymous. And the identities of most of Mudcat's "Joe-clones" isn't really a big secret, either. However, they are not *required* to identify themselves. I can see that some people have *tried* to make this an issue; but except for those few (and I mean VERY few) I don't see complaints about this. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM This is just my opinion, but I think that if the moderators are members they should be anon. It keeps personal differences from getting in the way of the moderating. Its like refereeing in sports it should be done according to the rulebook. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:16 PM Quite right Jack, just look at the vendetta The Shambles is conducting against Joe Offer, that's what can happen when a moderator is known. Giok |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM Good points ... one other forum I go to the moderators id's are known. I should also point out that it is a very regulated forum. Personally I still find keeping them a secret is a bit too much. But then again, I am not a person to hold grudges, and keep personal differences aside. I would rather know who they are, then to have this little secret organization, kept behind the curtain. This I feel breeds an element of distrust. Imagine if the individual names of you local police force were, kept a secret. sIx |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Rapparee Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:20 PM I don't know the names of everyone on the PD...don't really care, either. But then, I know and like the Chief and his Dept. heads. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM I do not how many of the anonymous moderators publicly post to call me names. I do know that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and some of the known ones do this and set the example that this is now acceptable on our forum. And at least two of these known moderators have publicly made it known that their wish is for me to be banned from our forum. Under such circumstances is it really possible for me or anyone else to accept that I will ever be able receive the same treatment as other posters or feel that I will be treated with the required objectivity by our moderators or accept that any editing action taken against my posts will not be personally motivated? |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: katlaughing Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM On some of those other forums, sIx, you may know them by a certain name, but they probably have different names if they participate as regular posters. Being known has only made some of us targets for a few malcontents. Had I to do over, I would have stayed anon. or used a different name. In the old days, before we clones, we had the Mudcat Elves who were folks who actually worked at Max's former dot com, OnStage Media. we didn't know much about them,;we knew the first names of a couple who appeared on Mudcat Radio, but for the most part they were anon and there was no question of what they did. Also, things have changed a lot since we clones came into being. At first we were needed, mostly, for fixing html mistakes, adding linebreaks, deleting duplicate postings, etc. Then came the great upgrade where a lot of those things became easier or automatic. As the site grew, we've added more moderating in the form of watching for attacks, etc. With more people the pot seems to get stirred more and more. kat |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM Why do you think I should be banned kat? And in what role are you posting the view that I should? |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM And this is just my opinion... I think since moderators are simply members wearing different hats, they should have separate member log-ins and moderator log-ins. The moderator names should be made public, but which moderator name corresponds to which member name should be kept secret. I further think edits, deletions and closures should be "signed" by the mod who does them using his/her moderator name. Whether or not moderators would choose to accept PMs sent to them under their moderator names would be strictly up to them. This would go a long way toward eliminating some of the "Orwellian" overtones of total moderator anonymity while providing enough anonymity to allow the moderators to do their jobs without being continually assaulted by irate PMs. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Ebbie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM IMO, if the clones were 'outed', there are those among us who would list their names every time s/he/they were unhappy about an editing decision, ad nauseam. Some people appear to have no sense of making a point and then stopping. Never heard of 'shaking the dust off one's feet and leaving town' if the populace is unreceptive, I guess. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: katlaughing Date: 25 Apr 06 - 01:58 PM BWL, that's the best thing I've read concerning this in forever! Roger, out of your 10,653 posts I have only deleted ONE, ever. I make it a habit when I am being a clone, of bending over backwards to NOT edit or make any changes to a post by people whom I do not get along with as a regular member. I refer them to someone else. I never post under anything but my name katlaughing and as such it is as a MEMBER. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:10 PM Kat, He's been posting a quote where you said he should be banned. I took what you said as a joke. Apparently he is trying to use that joke as a hammer. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: MMario Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:11 PM so - bee-dubya-ell; you are asking that a "volunteer" moderator ***, in additon to whatever else he/she must do in order to moderate; also have to logout as their own identity, login as a different identity and then reverse the procedure to be themselves. As far as "signing" their work; Do you want notices put if links are corrected? Or URL spellng is fixed? Or spam deleted? duplicate messages removed? Or if links are converted from absolute to relative so that they work regardless of the servername? or when related links are inserted ? Or a midi posted? Or a midi linked to song page and /or thread? Should they have to sign their work when removeing outdated or inappropriat posts to perma-threads? Lyrics formatted so they are legible? ABC files formatted so they are playable? html errors corrected? Those are a few of the tasks I've noticed that occur. I'm sure there are more that I haven't thought of; nor noticed. The fact that someone has an edit button certainly isn't a factor in whether or not *I* wish to emulate them. I doubt if it is much of a factor in anyone elses conduct. ***according to a conversation I had with Max last fall - at least up until that time - all the "volunteers" could more correctly be called "conscripts" - as per Max *HE* approached each to become a moderator rather then the reverse. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,Me Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:17 PM For goodness sake can you lot not leave these things alone? Concentrate on your own shortcomings and get a life! If ya dont like it get out of it! |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM Roger, out of your 10,653 posts I have only deleted ONE, ever. Perhaps to enable me (and other posters) to avoid a repeat of whatever this indescretion was judged by you, to be - you could inform me of what and when this post was? For I am not aware of posting anything that would require censoring. Surely it would be too hard to always ensure that posters knew where why, and when any censorship had been imposed? kat I did not take your post that I should be banned to be joke for I do not beleive it was intended to be - perhaps you could confirm my impression? |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: MMario Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM Shambles - you have said repeatedly that you have no desire to influence the way Max runs his site. why then, do you constantly attempt to do so? |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM Roger - it is not ALL about you, strange as that may seem. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM MMario 'Do you want notices put if' YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES And YES Why not? |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM Ah Roger don't you understand, rhetorical questions don't require answers. G.. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,and You Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM Guest,Me ... we should do lunch some time. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM Asking why his post was deleted is very reasonable. I am sure she remembers. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM The general idea is that anonymity of editing gives a spirit of unanimity to the editing team. If there is a reason to question an editorial action, you may contact the Mudcat Troika, Max, Jeff, or me. I'm the one who handles day-to-day editing, Jeff handles tech stuff, and Max is the Owner Of Mudcat. If we attributed editing actions to individuals, it would allow people to pit one volunteer against another. All editing is done under my authority, so I'm the one to blame - and if you don't want to blame me, then the ultimate blame goes to Max. I prefer to be contacted privately, rather than having a thread started every time somebody questions an action. It's much easier for me to be both honest and diplomatic in private - and it's easier for me to fix things without hurting somebody. -Joe Offer- |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: MMario Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:01 PM shambles - because such notice is both needless and uneccessary. (Which is a redundant statement - but since you seem to like repeating things, why not be redundant?) |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: katlaughing Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:09 PM Exactly, MMario. Roger, take it to PMs. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,Number 6 Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM Thanks for the post Joe. "All editing is done under my authority" ... I can agree to that. sIx |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM You can reply there if you wish. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: greg stephens Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM I've just taken a look at this thread. It has reminded me why I normally avoid them. All a bit sad, isn't it? I admire those who put up with being moderators. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 03:24 PM Being both honest and diplomatic in private Joe??? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. ☺ G.. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: number 6 Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:24 PM Greg Stephens .... This thread is not a complaint against the moderators, clones or whatever ... I was trying to make sense of the reason these inidividuals are not known to the general populace of the Mudcat. I also expressed my feelings on this code of secrecy. Anything wrong with this. After all, you did read this thread, and you did spend the energy on posting to it. To everyone else ... I appreciate your responses.It has provided me some insight to the structure of the Mudcat ... If i hadn't asked, I would never have known. sIx |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: MMario Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:27 PM sIx - as you may have noticed;it's a "hot button" for some. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: number 6 Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:30 PM Well MMario ... there are a lotta 'hot buttons' these days here in the Mudcat. I feel it shouldn't prevent ones from asking. I'm certainly not one around here that shakes, rattles and rolls the old Cat to the point of tipping. sIx |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: artbrooks Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM ...or for one. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Georgiansilver Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM Why do so many people feel so insecure about there being some sort of authority over which they have no control? Just listen to yourselves! What on earth do you come here for? Music, BS, a place to complain, an open forum, an unrestricted place where you can criticise the people who run it? C'mon folks, get a grip. GUEST Me seemed to have the right idea. Get a life and get on with it! Look to yourself and your own faults. Let's all make the Cat a sharing, caring, wonderful place to be......or go under trying. Give your opinions on subjects...not people and the place will grow into a mature and acceptable forum. Love and Best wishes to you all, Mike. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:15 PM No, Mmario, nobody'd need to log in or out to act as a mod under a system like I outlined above. Just log in using different browsers that don't share cookies. Use Firefox as a member, Opera as a moderator. And, no, I don't think anyone (besides Roger) would expect all the minutiae to be documented. Just the big stuff like closing threads. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:26 PM The other reason we don't identify editorial actions, is that we delete problem posts because we want to eliminate or limit the harm they can do. If Katlaughing deletes a post about so-and-so who has sex with horses, and kat has to post a notice that she deleted a post about so-and-so having sex with horses and is that OK with everybody - doesn't that just duplicate the harm that was done? So, if there's a problem or question, contact me. And yes, it's much easier for me to be fair and honest and diplomatic if you contact me in private and don't make every editorial action into a reason for a kangaroo court. It's also much easier for me to reverse an editorial action if a request is made privately. -Joe- |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Georgiansilver Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:34 PM Sorry to even have to say this but JOE you should not have to justify your actions. Everyone here whether registered or Guest is a visitor and should remember that, They are not the heart and soul of Mudcat or the reason it exists. It is here for people to enjoy! When the enjoyment bubbles over into something else, then the moderators step in. That's life folks/folkies. Let's just get on with it eh? Best wishes, Mike. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: bobad Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:36 PM "deletes a post about so-and-so who has sex with horses, " Some may feel that is being judgemental there Joe. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM You may have missed the following as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. And Kat reported the deletion to me, and I reviewed it and undeleted the message because I disagreed, and there was no big deal about it - so I think that means our system works. If you disagree with the undeletion, Shambles, let me know. -Joe Offer- It is difficult for me to know if I disagree or not – as I still have no idea what the nature of the offending post could possibly have been. As for this being evidence that the system works - I think this is more Mudlogic. How can I or any other poster know or really accept that these editing actions are not personally motivated? When one of the moderators concerned has joined another and just publicly posted that in her view I should be banned and the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has just publicly posted his latest personal attack on me and called me a buffoon - because he considers that I am unfair on this editing 'system'. The first question should surely be if the editing is now always consistent and seen to be fair on the posters? And should any poster now be subject to abusive personal attacks like this from any of our moderators - known or unknown? Or see subsequent attempts to justify, minmise of defend these attacks from those whose supposed role is to protect us from personal attacks? Which ever side you may fall - the point is that you are being asked to take sides every time these attempted explanations justifications are publicly made and all this IS causing yet division on our forum that really MUST be ended. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 06:09 PM Is there a mote in your eye Roger? G. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Apr 06 - 06:23 PM Here we go again! |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 06:33 PM Sorry to even have to say this but JOE you should not have to justify your actions. Everyone here whether registered or Guest is a visitor and should remember that, They are not the heart and soul of Mudcat or the reason it exists. It is here for people to enjoy. That is exactly why threads like this one will most likely exceed 200 posts (including one or two from me - unless reasons are found for these to be censored). Posters ENJOY posting about these aspects. It is the ONE thing that every poster has in common so why would they not ENJOY having their say about how things should be....? Some of our 'moderators' do not seem to ENJOY it quite so much however and would rather everyone else did not talk about aspects which they seem to like to feel are their private preserve. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Apr 06 - 07:07 PM Big stuff like closing threads is always reported to and reviewed by me - and I think it's proper for the Mudcat Troika to have a chance to review and change a decision before it's opened to public discussion. Volunteers are allowed to close threads only in the most obvious of situations, where there's a real and immediate problem. When they overstep that authority, they hear about it. I'm the one who had the authority to confirm or reverse the decision to close or delete, so I'm the one to contact. Jeff also has that authority, of course - but I'm the one who usually handles it. Max is the one who handles appeals of actions done by Jeff and Joe. I don't know about who might have suggested that Shambles should be banned. I've talked with some Clones about him, and we agreed that Mudcat just wouldn't be the same without Shambles, and I have to say I've always liked him - even though he aggravates the hell outa me sometimes. I suppose that I aggravate the hell outa him sometimes, too. -Joe Offer- |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 06 - 07:51 PM wow...a Mutual Aggravation Society! Next step, symbiosis! |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Bert Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:23 PM ...symbiosis... Isn't that what all of these censorship threads are? |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Once Famous Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:34 PM moderators are biased. |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:19 PM People are biased. They have opinions. What else is new? -Joe Offer- |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Alba Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:32 PM Don't want to be taking that word " Clones " literally now Folks ~~ Gives me an image of Joe in his DNA Lab growing new batches.. Next thing we know we shall have Katpaw and Jerrilaughing and Big Joe and Mike Offer and Jefax...where will it end!!!!!..:) Jude |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Alba Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:42 PM ROFL...you see how dodgy this tamepring with DNA is...who in the name of the wee man is Mike Offer! I think it was meant to be Mick Offer... Ah see ethical questions arising already or just a mad Scotswoman making a typing error. I'll go with the latter:) |
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: number 6 Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:57 PM Not all people are biased Joe. If one is a moderator they should try to look beyond personal differences as much as possible ... if they can't, they they should not be a moderator. Much like a good manager, or a coach. If you are biased you will one lousy boss, coach, cheif or whatever. Again not critizing anyone here or the Mudcat ... just making a statement, presenting my opinions. This is what forums are all about, just reminding those who will jump onto this with some negative idea that I'm slamming the cat and all that. sIx |