BS: Is closing threads censorship?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Alba
Date: 09 May 06 - 05:01 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:09 PM

Really nasty, no excuse, NONE.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:29 PM

It was a momentary lapse. The man is just so full of himself and so childish. Kind of like an immature Don Quixote.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:22 PM

Guest - That's over the line and you know it. I can only assume that you are trying to be deleated for some reason. If you don't like his threads don't read them. Move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:09 PM

Never have so many spent so much time posting so many messages on something that they have absolutely not one bit of control over. Get a life.

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Sambles, you, on the other hand, should end your life because you are a useless specimen of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:36 PM

Sweet Jesus get this person a job and out of the House or a workplace without a computer before he disappears up his own ----
amen

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:30 PM

But have you missed the posts where the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (whose censorship actions are most suspect of being personally motivated) takes full responsibility for the actions of all the rest of his team, even the anonymous ones?

Or do I have to dig those out too?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:27 PM

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM

and perhaps it should just stay where it is until and UNLESS it become a reality. We don't NEED 'comments' on something that may not happen. YOU want comments...and an extra forum for YOUR 'comments'.

What part of "denied" did you fail to grasp?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:26 AM

Because you just can't have too many Shamblecentric threads!!!

Actually, Joe moved it to BS (which it is.....if it were being considered by Max and about to be implemented, you can be assured it would be on the whole forum) but Shambo couldn't take it up with Max or take no for an answer so he started a second one.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:19 PM

You keep saying, obviously Max doesn't agree with Joe Offers suggestion that members only post in the BS section. How do you know this, have you been told it by Max?

No from someone much more in the know.

It was Catspaw.....Or was it Bill D?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: jeffp
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:15 PM

I of course make no such claim but Max is also NOT showing any sign of being pleased with the conduct of those he entrusted certain aspects of our forum to.

Neither has he shown any signs of being displeased.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:05 PM

I think the relevant dates of the two quotes made by Max and Don T should be quoted. I believe that about 6 years elapsed between the two, and a more up to date message from Max might be in order, to see if he still feels the same in view of the amount of abuse and back biting there has been since he originally made it.
You keep saying, obviously Max doesn't agree with Joe Offers suggestion that members only post in the BS section. How do you know this, have you been told it by Max?
As for "how do we know their editing decisions are not personally motivated?" we don't, we have to trust that they are fair in their actions. After all as I said previously, this is not, and never will be a democracy. If it were then we would be able to vote off Clones or Posters we don't like by collecting enough signatures.
Now that WOULD be an interesting exercise!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:04 PM

Shambles....you are [bleep] (for antisocial behavior) indeed an asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:51 PM

I believe there are about 10 clones, with access to a delete button, are they all being accused of conducting personal vendettas against Shambles?
Giok

No they are not - but if they were accused of this - how could they demonstrate that their judgement and imposed editing actions were not unfair and personally motivated against any individual fellow invited guest?

But have you missed the posts where the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (whose censorship actions are most suspect of being personally motivated) takes full responsibility for the actions of all the rest of his team, even the anonymous ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:43 PM

Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that.
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may claim to know better than Max what is best for this community, but he is the final arbiter, and he is not showing any sign of being displeased with the management he has set up.
Don T.

I of course make no such claim but Max is also NOT showing any sign of being pleased with the conduct of those he entrusted certain aspects of our forum to.

He has not agreed to our bouncer's latest proposal to limit the public's access to the BS section and for all guest postings to be 'reviewed' on the music section. Nor has he made any public reaction to their admitted failure to impose the peace they require without this latest proposal being accepted.

Do you see this as a vote of confidence for our current 'system' to continue to divide us?

Perhaps our forum will be told by Max what is now proposed to replace it - following the publicly admitted failure of our current 'system'? For I am sure that those currently imposing their judgement upon us would not want to continue imposing these failed measures.........?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:37 PM

I do get the point. If Max didn't approve of what they were doing he would put a stop to it. I'm sure that he doesn't ignore what is going on. It is his decision that the editing continues. Accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:24 PM

I believe there are about 10 clones, with access to a delete button, are they all being accused of conducting personal vendettas against Shambles?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,another
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:01 PM

You are missing the point. He doesn't have a problem with the site max intended, but it has evolved far away from that now. Those doing the editing are now over fervent to say the least and fine exponents of the personal attacks that they rant about.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 06 - 01:22 PM

Shambles you are a moron and someone should delete you...permanently. There is no such thing as censorship on a privately owned site. The owner or his designees have 100% of the power to mold the site into what they want it to be. They can cut out all comments on any subject, by any poster,etc. for whatever reason they want and that is fine because it is the owner's site and not your or mine. If someone is not happy then that person can open their own version of Mudcat.   Why don't you leave and do that Shambles? You contribute absolutely nothing with all of your repititious rants. Start your own site and say whatever you want and then edit out all those who don't agree with you. It will make you happy and it will probably make a lot of other people happy. You can even block all responses from Martin Gibson if you so desire.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 12:37 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: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:59 AM

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

Thank you Shambles. I think some may not catch what your trying to do.
The Mudcat's gonna grow. There will be a lot more content, a lot more people, a lot more posts, a lot more media, a lot more songs. We can't stop that now. But does this change anything? Some of us may get nervous that our happy world here may change, but what ever stays the same? The Real World is what it is, as is the Mudcat, and both are changing and growing everyday. Fear not the future, fear not the growth, fear not the change. It all comes down to one simple thing:
It will be what we make it... PERIOD
Max

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:55 AM

Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that.
Max

Who now exactly is out of step on our forum?

Thread #91207   Message #1733152
Posted By: Joe Offer
04-May-06 - 02:21 PM
Thread Name: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO

You know, Shambles, we were all talking about this very subject in Is Closing Threads Censorship?. In fact, I think I made some very good points in that thread. Why is it that you feel a compulsion to start yet another thread? Is it because you can't stand up to logic, that you have to move away from those who try to face up to you with reason and factual information?
Isn't that just plain cowardice?

You have been a problem here for a long time, Shambles. You try to overwhelm Mudcat with countless repetitions of your groundless accusations. Pehaps we should make a new rule, just for you: perhaps we should say that we will allow only one open thread with more than ten Shambles posts at a time. I suppose you'd come up with a way around that - you'd start a new thread every time you hit nine posts in an old one.

You seem to be trying to make Mudcat into a forum that centers around Shambles, and I don't think it's fair to the rest of us to allow that to continue. Feel free to say what you have to say - but quit all this repetition and this constant opening of new threads. In general, then, please be advised that we will allow only one "Shambles thread" to be open at a time, and I will take editorial action to enforce that. I will handle the enforcement of this particular policy - not the volunteers.

-Joe Offer-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since there is already an ongoing discussion of this subject, this thread (Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO) is closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:39 AM

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Objectionable Material (50) RE: Objectionable Material 16 Apr 98
>snip<
I happen to think that the forum is about we people that enjoy and find meaningful these musics. I like to hear about your lives and children, your odd thoughts and likes and dislikes. This is a community. Shall we discuss merely the one thing that puts us in common? I tell you, I made this forum to know you people and increase my knowledge of the universe and the people that I admire, respect and have something to share with.

But what I think doesn't matter so much. This is a collective just like any other community by its definition. If I edited out all the messages that I did not find relevant or did not agree with, I am sure none of you would be here.

Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Just have respect for our brothers and sisters that come here too. They are like you... at least in one way... they are Mudcateers.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 06 - 10:35 AM

One more- just one more.

Anyone who has children knows the phenomenon of a child whin(g)eing and ranting and pleading and conniving alternately in an effort to get its way, even when the child was given a clear answer early on. It is an exceedingly frustrating and draining experience for the parent.

I've also read: Yes, God does answer prayers. It's just that sometimes we don't like the answer.

And no, I'm not really comparing us with children and Max/Joe and clones as our parents - or to God - but they are the ones who set and relay the rules here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 May 06 - 08:50 AM

Nobody ever said this place is a democracy! Nor should it be.
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 04:59 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.
Joe Offer

Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer
------
Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Joe I know that you do not consider that exapmles of such posts from you are combative.
I know that you do not consider that such posts are setting an example that other posters will think acceptable and follow.
I know that you still expect our forum to accept that your imposed censorship of my postings are NOT personally motivated.

However, I suggest the evidence speaks for itself and your actions can have no remaining credibilty. So what do you intend to do about this and the effect this vain attempt, seemingly at all costs, to be seen to control every aspect of what others choose to post - is having on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:42 AM

Thanks, Shambles. I had missed that one. I deleted it, too. If people want to do combat, they can do it elsewhere. Same criterion applies to the "insults" thread.
-Joe Offer-

You may have missed the above editing comment. The clear message from the following example is that if you want to indulge in combat and make abusive personal attacks on your fellow invited guests and claim these are not personally motivated - make sure you hold on to all the weapons..........

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

Shambles quotes Joe saying: I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either.

Shambles sez: You could always ask him? But......

Shambles quotes Shambles saying: If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

Well, Roger, I don't want to be drawn into the discussion, and I try to avoid "pissing contests" as much as I can. You'll note that most of the time I don't comment unless there's something new to discuss. Lacking that, you attempt to insert me into the discussion, against my wishes, by posting out-of-context comments from me that are sometimes several years old. No, I shouldn't be obligated to look them up and give reference information for them - they're from your stalking library, and I would assume that you should have that information if you post the quotes. If you believe in fairness at all, the least you could do is furnish dates and context for the quotes you post. I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information.
Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression.
But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy.
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 03:30 AM

I don't see any real points being addressed here. Unless we have a systematic list of what Roger said that was deleted we cannot judge whether it was appropriate for it to be deleted.

In this thread - you do have a record of (at least) some of the abusive personal attacks posted by the chief of the Mudcat Editing team has repeatedly made on me (in public). You can have more evidence of these posts - if you require it.

As a result of this - can our forum ever accept that whatever censorship actions are imposed on my contributions are NOT personally motivated? For that is what the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are expecting you to accept.....

You do have the material here to judge that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:53 AM

PM a person and letting them have it

Has not been deleted and remains open.

---

Thanks, Shambles. I had missed that one. I deleted it, too. If people want to do combat, they can do it elsewhere. Same criterion applies to the "insults" thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 06 - 02:51 AM

A click on the following Martin's private insults (4)   will show a screen telling you that this thread has been deleted. There is no explanation of why, when or by whom.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 06:03 PM

I really struggle with what terrible crimes I could have perpertrated that would have ever justified any form of imposed censorship on my posts.

Or what awful things I could have done that anyone would call for me to get banned for? I do know I am judged here to be a really horrible person - mostly by people who I have never met.

However, my crime seems to boil down to just posting things that some other people would rather I didn't..........

He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy.
Joe Offer

Is such a crime really possible? Is there not enough room on our forum for all?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 05:30 PM

You defend the right of all posters to express their opinions freely, then, in the next breath you suggest that those whose opinions do not coincide with your own should either stop, or find another place to continue.

That of course is nothing like the truth.

I simply point out that those who cannot accept the realities on which Max invited the public to contribute on our forum and who need to impose more and more petty restrictions on what others choose to post - in order to change our forum to their personal requirements, and who constantly tell others to go away if they do not like these imposed changes, have always been posting in the wrong place.

Now that Max does not seem to wish to go along with the latest proposal and the admission is made that the current measures have failed - is there any choice but for those who support such things to go where they will be free to impose whatever restrictions they wish?

Max has been asked and does not appear to wish to impose the proposed restrictions on the public. But our forum now knows that this is the shape of our form that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to impose.......

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 08 May 06 - 04:04 PM

Won wyziwyg, it seems that you are the one among others who have tight sphincters about what Shambles writes.

I say it again, if you don't like what he writes, just don't read it. Yet, you and the others do and get consipated over it.

I read it, also. doesn't bother me, any.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 06 - 03:57 PM

Roger, once again you avoid the point of my post (I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given that discussion of the point is not your strong suit).

You defend the right of all posters to express their opinions freely, then, in the next breath you suggest that those whose opinions do not coincide with your own should either stop, or find another place to continue.

You really can't have it both ways. Either you want complete freedom, and accept what follows, or you do not.

If the former, you really can't complain if posters' are not to your liking.

As for your self righteous insistence that you do not respond in kind, your use of certain terms for those you are attacking clearly gives the lie to your claim, as the way in which you use "anonymous fellow posters", "bouncers", etc. gives these appellations a denigratory and pejorative slant.

You are as guilty of trying to shape Mudcat to your wishes as any of the people whom you so despise, maybe more so. At least they are following a course which is acceptable to the owner of this site, as evidenced by the fact that Max has neither overridden, nor sacked them.

You may claim to know better than Max what is best for this community, but he is the final arbiter, and he is not showing any sign of being displeased with the management he has set up.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 02:58 PM

I think I supplied the wrong link - this should work.

Censorship and attitude rolled into one

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 02:50 PM

Roger demands a site where there is little or no effort to moderate, or to use HIS term "censor".

Don - I really think your argument is with Max. I demand nothing - I just expect our forum to reflect the philosphy and intentions of our host towards all of his invited guests.

Perhaps you should read some of this site's owner's public statements?

[PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00

>snip<
Censorship will not happen. I do admit to deleting something here or there, but the ONLY two ways that will happen is if personal or delicate information is mistakenly posted and either I see it or the SUBJECT or POSTER requests that I remove it. The second way is if I feel like it (This is half a joke, the temptation as "The Man" to remove downright garbage is just too tempting sometimes, and I do reserve the ability for EXTREME situations, ex. Telling one to go ahead and do it in a suicide thread.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 02:35 PM

I a sorry if dealing with all the different aspects of this issue is confusing - but we are not now permitted to discuss this subject and the double standards involved in the current 'system' of censorship - in more than one thread.

The following is relevant to the issue of our moderators deciding to close a pefectly clearly titled thread with many contributions and containing a good discussion on the thread's title - with the excuse that the thread's originator requested it to be closed.Censorship and attitude rolled into one

If you open that thread - you will see an example of the full incompetence of our current 'system' of censorship - which I suspect is the reason why the origignator's request to close this thread was so eagerly agreed to...Despite the philosphy of threads being a community effort - explained by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, below. What do you think?

It is also relevant to the imposed closure of the new thread started to replace it to enable that discussion to continue. An option that is said to be open to us.... Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO

-----------------------------
PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 26 Mar 05
>snip<

So, Jeff created a utility that allows us to change thread titles, and we use it. With almost 78,000 threads, it's important that thread titles describe the contents of the thread. It's simply a process of indexing Mudcat threads so that it will be easier for people to use them. The philosophy is that the needs of the general community are more important the the wishes of the thread originator - although we do try to take the thread originator's intentions into consideration.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

This philosphy would appear to depend on how our moderators judge the individual posters concerned and whether they wish our forum to see the contents of the thread or wish to try prevent this by imposed thread closures - despite whatever the threads originator's request may be?

For I made a specific request when originating the replacement thread   Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO   for that thread (and its links) to be allowed to die a natural death and not be closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 06 - 02:18 PM

Hear hear, Richard.

Roger demands a site where there is little or no effort to moderate, or to use HIS term "censor".

On the face of it, this precludes his complaining about other posters' opinion of him, if he wishes to be consistent.

It appears that he has had one post deleted, which was subsequently restored, and he has not produced any evidence to refute that.

Based on his half a decade of overreaction, he has managed to wind up some incredibly patient people to the point where they have reacted.

To me, that suggests that he has made himself the supreme irritant factor in this forum, and is the most divisive individual involved in this nonsense.

And he has the immortal gall (no pun intended) to demand that those who disagree should remove themselves to another forum.

Whatever happened to his wish that all should be able to post their opinions freely, or does he now wish to impose his rules on the rest of us?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 01:54 PM

The following judgement of my worth posted publicly in order to gain support - will explain why I continue to consider that all of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Teams censorship actions against my postings are personally motivated. Remember that the following is only one side of this issue and much of it is simply not true..........But it does explain the thinking behind these judgements.

Do you think it possible for me and our forum to accept that any subsequent action against my post (including imposed thread title changes) are NOT personally motivated?

Subject: (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index.

Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them.

So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads.

So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted.

Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted.

So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair.

So, that's the story.

-Joe Offer-

By the way – In reference to Joe Offer's claim that I have compared him with Hitler - I put The Shambles - Joe Offer and Hitler in the advance search and the only post that came-up was the following.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 06 - 01:13 PM

I don't see any real points being addressed here. Unless we have a systematic list of what Roger said that was deleted we cannot judge whether it was appropriate for it to be deleted. In most societies it is accepted that some censorship is necessary. The issue is whether it is necessary in an idividual case. We do not seem to have the material here to judge that.

I am disinclined to return to this thread. The persistence that Roger showed (and rightly so) in PEL issues may or may not be appropriate on this issue. I felt the original (if it is original) amendment by addition to one of Roger's thread titles was both positive and helpful and I do not see the need for the discussion to have become so obsessive.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 10:17 AM

Are we expected to believe now that all your posts/threads are *not* personally motivated against Joe, Katlaughing, et al...?

I would accept that I would have some difficulty is asking our forum to accept that my posts and views were not personally motivated - were there evidence that I had posted abusive personal attacks and called any of my fellow these posters names because I did not agree with them or ever responded in kind to those abusive personal attacks that I am subjected to and not protected from.

I have not done this.

But I am NOT asking or expecting our forum to accept that my judgement is fair and not personally motived. It is (some of) our moderators who have set the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks upon their fellow invited guests who are asking this - and asking that they not be judged or treated unfairly and reacting with abusive personal attacks if they feel they are being treated unfairly.

Anywhere but in the land of Mudlogic - those who would judge us - would expect to be judged in proportion to their responsibilities. And to give up the priviliges of their role - if they were (even once) seen to fail to set the required standard and example.

Here (some of) or moderators repeatly fail and continue to publicly attempt to excuse, justify and defend these lapses and the unfair double standard under which this conduct is made and still expect our forum to accept their editing actions were not personally motivated.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Grab
Date: 08 May 06 - 09:17 AM

The converse also applies, Shambles. Are we expected to believe now that all your posts/threads are *not* personally motivated against Joe, Katlaughing, et al...?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,MN Monster
Date: 08 May 06 - 09:05 AM

And how mature of you to respond with one of your pathetically predictable tit for tat posts, Giok.

Of course, none of us is surprised at you being your usual self. Everyone knows you are as mature about forum moderation discussions as the thin skinned moderators of the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 May 06 - 09:00 AM

My how precocious, you could do something intelligent when/if you grow up!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST,MN Monster
Date: 08 May 06 - 08:52 AM

"I want a forum with no favoritism and no people treated unfairly because of who they are or who does or does not get along with them, or what they previously posted."

Bingo!

It only takes one clone or Joe to dislike you because you hold a point of view different from theirs, and you are done in this forum. For me, it was Big Mick hating me because I refused to tow his militaristic, patriot line on Memorial Day celebrations.

I've been his "MN Monster" ever since.

But the clones don't just delete my posts anymore. They now block my IP, denying me access on any old whim, but especially if I say something critical about moderation here.

As you can see, they haven't been terribly successful at keeping me out of the forum with their juvenile blocking IP strategy. It is ridiculously simple to get around their efforts to keep you out of the forum. But I'm quite sure they will delete this post, just because I've "breached their security".

Yawn. Any 14 yr old can figure out how to breach Mudcat "security".

What we need is to get rid of the cause of Mudcat insecurity: it's censor-happy moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 May 06 - 08:02 AM

Personal motivation by the moderators is abused to many it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 03:00 AM

[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM

I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

On this evidence - is our forum really expected to accept that any action taken against any of my postings is NOT personally motivated?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 06 - 02:05 AM

Actually Shambles - I think the music section would thrive if the BS went away. Lots of good folks have left the Mudcat because of what goes on down here. And I think they would return if the word got out. But we'll most likly never know.

The BS section acts as a safety valve. You have see this in terms of its history.

All threads were originally in one place and their content could only be judged by the title.

In response to some complaints - the BS prefix was introduced.

In response to some complaints - the BS section was introduced.

In response to some complaints - should the BS section now be closed, the public excuded etc?

The lesson is that there will always be complaints. Every change made in response to these complaints will bring more complaints and unforseen results that will cause the original complainants to complain again. Perhaps those who cannot accept our forum without complaining about and needing to change the terms of Max's open invitation - can just go away?

The attitude now seems to be that as not all of us are going to be happy - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team may as well do just as he pleases. There can be much obvious unfairness shown by (some of) our moderators as long as no one is unfair to them and expects them to set a good example and to follow the same rules as they impose on everyone else.

And the current and paramount concern of (some of) our moderators is to ensure by the use of abusive personal attacks, threats and censorship - that no post appears in more than one thread and there is never to be more than one thread on the same or similar subjects - and all this public fuss is justified because this is judged to be unfair.....It does not seem to be considered unfair for (some of) our moderators to publicly call for fellow named members to be banned - for non-specified reasons. Presumably for not being in complete agreement with them?

Pehaps these good folks are just driven off by all these imposed and petty restrictions and the resulting and rather natural and predictable reaction against them? And now by the fact that (some of) these moderators seem detemined to continue to impose more unfairness and restrictions and indulge in the resulting conflict - even after admitting the complete failure of these measures to impose their required 'peace'. I question if peace can really be their main concern?

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Azizi
Date: 07 May 06 - 11:06 PM

Let me try that again:

What I expected and what sometimes appears to me to be missing from Mudcat is even handed moderation by those appointed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Azizi
Date: 07 May 06 - 11:02 PM

Guest 07 May 06 - 09:52 PM 's comment that [some of] "What goes on down here [in the BS threads]can be humorous, informative, thought provoking and witty" struck a chord for me. I've been trying to put into words the difference between the above the line and the below the line threads.

It occurs to me that while I like the informative and/or thought provoking nature of the above the line posts, they don't seem to me to be as humorous and witty as the BS threads.

Interesting information and thought provoking ideas are important, but sometimes wit and humor are just what the doctor ordered.

To borrow more of Guest 07 May 06 - 09:52 PM 's words, the BS threads can also be "argumentative, petty and underhand. That's life." I would also say that-to a lesser degree-pettiness and underhandedness and argumentativeness also can be found in the above the line Mudcat threads.

Human nature being what it is, there will never be a online forum or a real world forum that is completely free of negativity.

But I'm not sure that is point. What I expected and have been from Mudcat was even handed moderation by those appointed to do so.
I want a forum with no favoritism and no people treated unfairly because of who they are or who does or does not get along with them, or what they previously posted.

I don't believe that Mudcat is there yet. But I believe that this is an achievable goal for this online community.

At least I sincerely hope that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 May 06 - 10:15 PM

Amen to that, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 06 - 09:52 PM

What goes on down here can be humorous, informative, thought provoking and witty. It can also be argumentative, petty and underhand. That's life.

If people are driven away because of that they probably could do with being in the real world a bit more.