 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Question re: moderators
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 25 Apr 06 - 10:12 PM If you have been around awhile the clones'/personality/preferences/biases/profiles/ are better known than the posters themselves.....run a log. (the backdoor is BASIC)
We know them .... better than they know themselves
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: heric Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:30 PM Seattle P-I ran a story about someone who had sex with a horse and their web hits rocketed sky high. Far, far more than any other news article they had ever run. Point to consider. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:55 AM No, Number Six, perhaps it's just semantics, but I do think all people are biased, that it's a natural thing for us to have opinions and preferences. What's important is for us to realize our biases and to adjust for them, so that we can be fair and just in our dealings with people. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: michaelr Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:08 AM If "biased" means "not objective", then Joe is right (IMO). I don't believe it's possible for humans to be "objective". In light of that, being "fair and just" will always come down to a human quality that can't be understood objectively. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:16 AM ...and some people feel comfortable living in the grey areas, and some have to have black and white. Our moderation policies tend to lie in the grey areas - I suppose that's a personal preference, but I think Max and most Mudcatters tend to be that way. Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: michaelr Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:20 AM It's Big Max Offer. And I wanna know about the horse-fucking! Where is that link? Cathy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:20 AM 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. Sadly along with all the other things that the introduction of our current 'moderators' has inhibited - like Birthday threads, song challenges, copycat threads, 100th postings etc - which should be left to every poster's personal tastes - there is a most important aspect that has been inhibited. It is that to been see to not in agreement with many of these imposed restrictions or wishes to discuss aspect of how things should be on our forum in public - is now to be risked as being labelled as anti-Mudcat and subject to abusive personal attacks from those who only undertake their moderator roles in order to protect us from abusive persoanal attacks. This is why any moderator should not be seen to have a personal view on anything other than enabling the forum to be shaped by the invited contributions of all our forum's posters. For many of our moderators - who are among the chief combatants in conflict here to talking longingly of peace sounds incredible to me. For it is not peace they seem to require - but total victory. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has further polarised the camps by publicly posting that he had formally proposed to make the posting of BS members only - as without this he could not impose the peace he required. So what side are you supposed to be seen to be on concerning this proposal (and the next one)? It often seems that the most important thing is for us to be seen to be nice and fair to our moderators. This is placing the cart before the horse. And when our moderators are clearly seen to be not nice, very unfair and not to consider the rules they impose on others also apply to them - it is not their fault but somehow it is ours. No one is forcing anyone in to this kitchen and if they cannot stand the heat - they can always get out of the kitchen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:33 AM No, Number Six, perhaps it's just semantics, but I do think all people are biased, that it's a natural thing for us to have opinions and preferences. What's important is for us to realize our biases and to adjust for them, so that we can be fair and just in our dealings with people. -Joe- So that when someone considers you to have behaved unfairly and unjustly and politely and says so - this is justification for you as a so-called 'moderator' to call them names like buffoon, idiot and asshole - regardless of the example set by these abusive personal attacks from those who are supposed to be protecting us from such things? Of course all of us are biased. And as fellow posters it is acceptable for us to be seen as such. It is not acceptable for those who would feel qualified to judge us to be seen to be biased and expect their judgements to be seen by others as objective or any better than anyone else's judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Alba Date: 26 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM Yet another Thread hijacked for the resident 'cut n' paste anything anyone tries to discuss' Member aka Shambles ! What is the goal Shambles. To turn every Thread in the BS section into a Joe Offer attack! For someone that advocates our forum you sure take up a lot of space and threads (even other peoples) in the BS with your own personal obsession. In fact it is beginning to appear that this is ~~~ your Forum. Your cookie would have got eaten faster than you could type censorship if I were a Moderator here. I believe it is your sole purpose to ruin this section now. I know you have spoiled it for me and a few others. Fully expecting a cut n paste of one or two of my sentences (maybe even my whole post...gasp) but I won't be back on this Thread either. Running out of Threads that don't deal with Shamble issues. I do congratulate you however on being able to turn whatever the subject topic into something about you you you I for one am getting thoroughly sick of it now. Sorry Number 6. It was not my intention to detract from your question. Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:34 AM All moderators should operate under a pseudenym, then they can continue to post as themselves. How do you or I know whether the 'new independant' moderator that Max has appointed is not one of the old moderators in disguise? The ones with """ tattooed on their forehead, AKA The Mark of Shambles, would then be able to have a skin graft to cover the mark of shame. Paid for by Shambles contributions towards the upkeep of the Mudcat of course! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,JTS Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM ...and some people feel comfortable living in the grey areas, and some have to have black and white. Our moderation policies tend to lie in the grey areas - I suppose that's a personal preference, but I think Max and most Mudcatters tend to be that way. Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic. -Joe- Black an white is not really so bad when one is talking about acceptable behavior. "No personal attacks", is a pretty good rule which really doesn't contain much gray area. But when you add the "implied unlesses" which some of the moderators appear to add, it does seem problematic. No personal attacks unless the person being attack disagrees with the attacker. No personal attacks if they are part of a discussion. No personal attacks unless the attack has been answered. and the Newest one brought to us on a recent thread... No personal attacks unless they are an opinion. It seems to me that these "unlesses" open the door to a lot of unnecessary bias. Also some as Shambles has pointed out once in a while among a mountain of ... stuff, some moderators' tendency to engage in name calling as a part of their effort to discourage it, tends to open up some unnecessary gray. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Once Famous Date: 26 Apr 06 - 08:03 AM acceptable behavior. Please define what that means. acceptable perhaps to a biased perception? or in other words, "what the fuck?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: kendall Date: 26 Apr 06 - 08:14 AM I think it's pretty sad when so called adults don't know where the line is regarding acceptable behavior. One may accept that in children, not in grown ups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:37 AM Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic. -Joe- Given a choice - I will settle for legalistic rather than mob rule. A very few but consistently enforced rules would protect posters and moderator alike (if we have to have the latter). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Wesley S Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:07 AM Roger - with all due respect - Mob Rule ? There are a few moderators chosen by the site owner. How does that constitute mob rule ? Can you please explain why you chose that phrase ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:11 AM Paranoia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Wesley S Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM John - I'm sure he has a good reason for using that phrase. I'd love to hear it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: jacqui.c Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:36 AM Roger wasn't chosen to be a moderator? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Wesley S Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:56 PM No - not yet. But it's an idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,Martin gibson not logged in. Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:01 PM Kendall, who drew the line? You? who appointed you to draw lines? Did anyone ever think how many enjoy Mudcat as pure organized chaos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,JTS Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:48 PM Yes Kendall, Very sad, very sad indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 26 Apr 06 - 06:01 PM Yep, it's sad. Sad that you grw up to be about as fun as your grammar school principal. Sad that you lost the child in yourself. Sad that you need to justify that you are an adult. Sad that you are just so boring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:41 AM Roger - with all due respect - Mob Rule ? There are a few moderators chosen by the site owner. How does that constitute mob rule ? Can you please explain why you chose that phrase ? If you look in any of the recent threads on the subject of aspects our forum and what posters want for it. You will see a familiar pattern. For attempts for posters to have their say in these threads - are permitted to be filled by other posts intentionally inciting others to follow what ever 'fun game' or others subject and equally determined that other posters do not have their say on the thread's subject. Despite the fact that one of our moderators had only recently and publicly stated that what he referred to as the 'hi-jacking' of threads would receive his editing attentions - and these attempts were described in one of the threads as 'officially hi-jacking' that thread. There is plainly now one rule for one - and a different set for others. That is as close to mob rule as one can get. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:43 AM Music posts by Guests to be reviewed (2) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 06 - 07:01 AM Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic. -Joe- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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.>Snip< |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Sorcha Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM And, just WHO was THAT from, Roger???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Alba Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:23 PM What does < snip > mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Alba Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:27 PM Ah I get it...>snip< just means one has cut and pasted a section from something, not the whole article..gotcha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:16 PM And, just WHO was THAT from, Roger???? That was from our first and second in command. There would now seem some question as which is which......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:20 PM Just a Foolish Thought, If a Moderator acts without Moderation, is esh then an Immoderator? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Georgiansilver Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:48 PM Moderately I suspect |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators From: Bert Date: 30 Apr 06 - 01:25 AM moderators are biased... Say Kay, If that is so. What did I edit that YOU KNOW was biased? |
