 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 08:02 PM We* do our best to retain the content of what you've posted, but the location and multiplicity of your posts have become a serious problem and will be controlled. Joe Offer A serious problem - really? A serious problem where the best and only solution (as with everything else) is imposed 'silent deltion'? Instead of making all this fuss - why not simply let adult posters decide for themselves what they wish to read, respond or ignore? If you really think that a poster is posting just to get a reaction. Why then oblige with one? If you think a poster is just trying to get around restrictions (and succeeding). Why try and impose yet more for them to get around? If you don't want more threads started. Why keep closing the existing ones? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Slag Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz--skzzsnicks!! Huh? Are we there yet? Wake me when it's over. Oh, if you want to delete this post, be my guest. ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:36 PM Somehow, that seems unfair, like our freedom to discuss has been overwhelmed by those who feel a compulsion to post words in ridiculous quantities. What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion? -Joe Offer- There are many things that also seem unfair. But this concern of yours about 'quantities' is only the latest in long line of things on our forum that you judge to be concerns - like birthday threads - claims for the 100th post etc etc. All of which are dealt with with the same and only weapon that seems to be used for everything you judge to be a concern. This is some form of judgement, inhibition, restriction censorship - usually imposed after any possible damage has been done. Many posters may share your concerns, your judgement and taste but not always agree with the same old solution. As the result of chasing all these things is just endless restrictions - and still you are never satisfied and complain - as you do here about - the lack of and how to return to - 'humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion'. Joe if you are really serious about such a question perhaps you will first be prepared to accept that - if you do not like what our forum is now and wish to publicly moan about it here - you (as current Chief of the Mudact Editing Team) have played no small part in this? Rather than looking and appealing for more support from those who may be like-minded and at the same time looking for yet more scapegoats to blame and to censor - perhaps it is time for you to finally accept that there little YOU can do to 'take back our forum' - that you have not already done? And rather than still looking for yet things to do - it is time to accept that there are things on our forum that are just not able to be controlled to conform to your tastes - especially by the only method you now seem able or prepared to try? And that freedom of expression means having to be exposed to things that may not be to everyone's taste and that most of a moderator's role is simply put up with this and just as importantly, to tell others who may also complain and judge the worth of their fellow posters- to put up with it also? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Jeri Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:35 PM I've only made two mistakes about people's character here at Mudcat, and Shambles was the first. When he made a show of learing the last time, I wrote, trying to convince him to stay. I think it's likely he never intended to go and just wanted to play folks, and it't the thing I most regret, out of all I've done here. Joe, I'd like Mudcat to be membership only (cookieless people allowed to post with a password), with a couple of people such as Max and Jeff with a 'boot' button. We've gotten so many 'surf-ins' and Google probably has us listed for quite a few flame topics. I think it might be a good idea if a volunteer were to set up a blog for the political stuff, to get most of it off Mudcat. I'd like to discuss politics sometimes, but so would a lot of others who get hammered by angry, hate-filled folks with a lot of time to post, and it's often not possible to discuss things rationally here, with people who actually listen, and care a little bit about you and not just proving their dick's bigger. Martin Gibson wasn't kicked out because he was THE problem, but because people couldn't leave him alone. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's gone, but for me, it was the angry mob following him around that was the most significant thing. Roger is outwardly polite, but none of the things he wants (most of which we have to assume), he's not going to get. In retaliation for this impotence, he trolls. He slaps up multiple copies of virtual posters. His posts seem to have one intended result with their oh-so-civilized, 'in-your-face', persistent, ridiculous demands: to annoy. They have no other logical result. Consider the probability he'll get Joe to change the way he does things by staking out threads waiting for him, baiting him, accusing him and just plain trying to piss him off. He can't have things his way, so he tries to make certain other people's lives miserable. Then, even more people come along and witness poor Joe trying to explain something to a brick wall that doesn't want an answer, or see kendall write for the bazillionth time, "You can knock on a dead man's door forever," to which I ammend in my head, "you trying to PROVE that!?" Then there's Giok, who has a possibly unlimited tolerance for "same shit, different day." Now comes the 3rd ring of Shambles-troll hell. You've got Shambles, then the people who talk to them, then there's the people who bitch about the people who talk to him, although I may qualify for the 4th ring just by pointing out I'm in the 3rd ring. Let's face it - the longer we know each other, the more we get on each other's nerves. In any case, what you have is a big mess of people feeling badly. At it's center is Shambles. If you forget about right and wrong and just look at this practically, what's the one simplest action that would have the greatest effect? It's banning Roger. I'd guess we'd have to go membership-only for that to be most effective. I'd like it of all of us members had little check boxes by someone's name. (It could be subjects as well.) If we checked it, it would filter out all of that person's posts. Granted, we'd then have to filter out those who constantly quoted him or responded to him. This might not be a bad thing though, as it may make people think that if they keep it up, fewer people are going to be seeing their messages. Before anybody thinks I'm too stupid to have thought people might filter me out, too, I'd honestly appreciate it if people who didn't want to read my posts didn't find them in their face. It might throw thread continuity off, but for sensitive individuals, it might be worth it. Then there's voting buttons. If, for example, 10 people voted to zap somebody, then they'd be off the island. Seriously, I can't see this flaming and spamming stuff doing anything but getting worse, until the place becomes somewhere the people I like having around won't tolerate it any more. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I came upon Mudcat for the first time today, I might use the DT, but I wouldn't dare post in the forum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:12 PM Once upon a time in the early days, the Mudcat was experiencing something like this. Shambles left and things got better. Worked then, should work now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:58 PM That's like saying "I used to be 15 once, why am I not 15 now?" G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:36 PM Do you need to be censored? The above editing comment from the following (and now closed) thread. This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. -Joe Offer- There is nothing like a man of their word...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:29 PM No good complaining about not knowing why threads have been closed. Equally there is no point in complaining about duplication in different threads - if threads are closed and new ones then have to be started in order to continue the discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:25 PM What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion? -Joe Offer- How about every poster having to first obtain permission to post from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:22 PM Roger you've been told, open another complaint thread, and the old one gets shut down. No good complaining about not knowing why threads have been closed. ONE THREAD AT A TIME ROGER. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:22 PM What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion? -Joe Offer- I have suggested exactly how - and as you have ignored most of it - I could explain over again - but you would then just delete it for duplication. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:15 PM I think Internet Historian's Zumabot link tells a good tale. Here's an excerpt:
Serdar responded to, seemingly, every and any Usenet post he could find that mentioned Turkey or Armenia, even in newsgroups that had nothing to do with either country. The poster was generally harangued with such phrases as "your criminal Armenian grandparents" (even if the poster happened to be, say, Japanese) and with over-the-top subject headings such as "The Self-Admitted Crook and Liar", "The Criminal SDPA-ASALA Grandparents of The Gum Brain", or "A mouthpiece for the fascist x-Soviet Armenian Government". This was usually followed by a lengthy essay concerning the alleged Armenian mass murders. Some participants tried to argue with Argic, but that only made matters worse as he replied to each post with more harangues, along with successively more hysterical accusations concerning secret Armenian conspiracies. Some watched in amusement, and some even wrote parodies mocking the overwrought style of the posts. But the amusement quickly turned to annoyance when it became apparent that the sheer volume of Serdar Argic posts was overwhelming the discussions on the hardest-hit newsgroups. It quickly became apparent, however, that his responses didn't have much intelligence behind them. For one thing, they followed a distinct repeating pattern. For another, Argic did not appear to distinguish between the nation and the bird: posts containing references to Thanksgiving turkey were as likely to become targets as posts discussing Turkey's foreign policy. Over time, a consensus built: Serdar Argic was not a person, but a computer program which scanned the news articles and responded to any article that contained certain words, plugging in the name of the article's writer ("John Sugaharo's criminal Armenian grandparents") and other random phrases. Because of the robotic nature of the responses, this program was promptly dubbed "the zumabot". I see that the Gaza Strip thread is flooded with 814 messages, much of it copy-paste propaganda and rantings from anonymous posters using multiple names. I can't imagine that it's possible for anyone to post a sensible opinion in that thread or the many others like it. I tried to say something when the thread was about 500 messages long, and I was condemned because somebody contended that I hadn't read the entire thread (which I hadn't). Somehow, that seems unfair, like our freedom to discuss has been overwhelmed by those who feel a compulsion to post words in ridiculous quantities. What can we do to take back our forum, so we can once again enjoy the humor and comraderie and richness of a decent, intelligent discussion? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:52 PM Is closing threads censorship? (with some irony - yet another closed thread). It is the imposed judgement and closure of threads that CAUSE the duplication that then leads to the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's need for selective 'silent deletion' of the duplication........... For example - if threads on this issue containing my posted views were not subject to imposed closure and remained open for any poster to refresh at any time - there would not be any duplication for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to get their knickers in a twist about and impose 'silent deletion' upon. For once closed - the only way a thread can be refreshed and added to - is by asking the permission of our guardians who imposed closure on it in the first place - to re-open it. As all these threads are suitable to be started in the first (without obtaining prior permission from our guardians) Perhaps from now on - all threads can remain open and free from imposed judgement? Or is far more likely that the next restriction is going to be that permission to start a thread MUST be first obtained from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? I am sure that is one suggestion of mine that will find favour...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:24 PM How many of those examples are in threads that have NOT been subject to imposed closure? Open or closed makes no difference to the use of the quote being allowed to stand. The truth, shambles, is that you have got away with more duplicate posts, repeat threads, off topic posts to carry out your campaigns in other threads, etc. than any other person and have done so by a long way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:17 PM So how favoured would a person for whom I can find at least 20 examples of quoting Max's "don't sweat the rules" be? How many of those examples are in threads that have NOT been subject to imposed closure? So not really very favoured at all......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST,an internet historian Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:09 PM http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/zumabot.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:05 PM Kendall - as that is at least the forth time to my knowledge that you have posted that phrase - it is a good thing for you - that the one and only punishment of automatic 'silent deletion' for that most terrible Mudcat 'crime' of duplication does not apply equally. Yes - this would show that you do appear to be favoured. So how favoured would a person for whom I can find at least 20 examples of quoting Max's "don't sweat the rules" be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:03 PM closing of a thread, as you point out, does *not* prevent you from expressing your opinion. Then what is the point of closing threads? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:01 PM Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:01 PM closing of a thread, as you point out, does *not* prevent you from expressing your opinion. YOu have just refuted your own point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:58 PM No-one has ever prevented you expressing your opinions here, have they? Yes they have. Many times. Even a thread that was specially set aside by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for the issue of censorship with much fuss - was despite the assurance given - subject to imposed closure. As indeed are most of the threads on this subject. It is because the ones that are started are closed - that new ones are started to replace them (and these are then closed). Or have you not noticed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:17 PM On a dead man's door you can knock forever. Kendall - as that is at least the forth time to my knowledge that you have posted that phrase - it is a good thing for you - that the one and only punishment of automatic 'silent deletion' for that most terrible Mudcat 'crime' of duplication does not apply equally. Yes - this would show that you do appear to be favoured. I'm outta here. It's all been said, over and over and over. Perhaps it has not all been said - perhaps we have not seen it because it has all just been 'silently deleted'? How would we know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Slag Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:46 PM Even in a filly-buster you have to read THROUGH the phone book. You can't repeat the same name over and over. Therefore I iterate, "YAW__AWWWWW_AWN!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: kendall Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:55 AM On a dead man's door you can knock forever. I'm outta here. It's all been said, over and over and over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:40 AM But have good enough reasons been provided and a final answer ..........? The final answer was provided two years ago by Joe. Max provided a final, final answer months ago. What part of "no" are you having problems with? And the illusion (or lie) of an uncensored forum can be maintained This is a *moderated* forum, and has always been one. If you choose to believe that "moderated" is synonymous with "censored", then by your definition it's censored. Most of the rest of us don't consider moderation to be censorship, because the reason for moderation is not to prevent people expressing their opinions. No-one has ever prevented you expressing your opinions here, have they? The only restriction placed on you is that you are only allowed to express your opinion in one place at once, and that's only after two years of mass-mailing your opinion across offtopic threads. but The Mudcat Discussion Forum is the part of his site that he has (currently) set aside for the public. You've missed the crucial qualifier - set aside for the public to use according to rules determined by Max and enforced day-to-day by Joe, Jeff and the moderators. Max only "extends an open invitation" as long as people follow those rules. In real life, private places such as stately homes often extend an open invitation to the public - but if you walked into a park, insisted that they changed the flowers because you didn't like them, and then sat shouting through a bullhorn as a protest when the groundsmen said no, I suspect you'd be turfed out in pretty short order. You wouldn't expect to get away with that in real life, so why do you expect to be able to do it here without consequences? If Max is happy for the our forum to be now censored and restricted in the way it is now Again, what part of Max's post did you not understand? And what part of "You too, should bid farewell" didn't you follow? There is of course nothing stopping you all from leaving the rest of us in peace now Again, what part of "You too, should bid farewell" didn't register with you? When the owner of the site tells you, with no possible ambiguity, that you're no longer wanted due to your behaviour, most people would take the hint that their opinions didn't coincide with the site owner's opinions. So for you to tell us what you think Max wants for his site is a bit bloody rich, don't you think? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:56 AM It's you who doesn't like the status quo Roger not me, I'm quite happy with things as they are, apart from the occasional moaning git! G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:44 AM Well Kendall did make a suggestion earlier in this thread, why don't we do that? When you have finally managed to turn our forum into your private members club - you will then be able to black-ball anyone you wish. There is of course nothing stopping you all from leaving the rest of us in peace now and going away to form your own private members club - as you appear not like and agree with the open invitation Max currently extends to the public on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:28 AM Well Kendall did make a suggestion earlier in this thread, why don't we do that? G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 05:25 AM This site is not going to be run the way you want it, or the way Joe Offer wants it, it will be run the way Max wants it. Max can of course run his site - The Mudcat Cafe - how he wishes but The Mudcat Discussion Forum is the part of his site that he has (currently) set aside for the public. That's right, Shambles. There is a general feeling among Mudcatters that enough is enough,........ Joe Offer As this latest step-up in 'silent deletion' - is justified by what is claimed to be what Mudcatters generally want - perhaps it can be first formally established exactly what Mudcatters do want - by actually asking all of them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:52 AM You may have missed the following 'editing comment' as it was inserted (anonymously) into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. Hi kat, I think it may be a cultural thing because recently I've known people to post a blank message to say that they have seen the thread but they refuse to comment on it. Ther could also be other personal reasons. A blank message doesn't take up much space on modern systems so I don't see why the clones just can't let them be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:32 AM If you don't like the answer, keep asking the question till you get the answer you want, is that it Roger? This site is not going to be run the way you want it, or the way Joe Offer wants it, it will be run the way Max wants it. As has been said before, if you want to dictate how a forum should be run, go start your own. This site has been and is continuing to evolve, this evolution is partly as a response to people like you and Martin Gibson, and other like minded people who feel that they should be top dog, and dictate the mores of this site, and partly as a result of experience gained as it goes along as to what works best for the majority of members. Evolution is an ongoing process and nothing you can do will reverse it, we must evolve or die. Don't be a dinosaur Roger! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jul 06 - 03:24 AM If someone wants to register a "no comment" then they can damn well type it in. kat Everyone else but you has heard the answer many times.......NO! Don T. Yes there have been many views and opinions expressed and they are all perfectly valid. But have good enough reasons been provided and a final answer ..........? There is of course no anti-censorship campaign to be encouraged to be attacked for some reason - just some posters trying to get their views and experiences across and others (some using many means not available to all posters) trying to prevent this. If any step-up in my attempts to get my views and experiences across is perceived, it will always be in response to a step up in measures to prevent this. A few months back The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly announce that he had already formally requested that posting of BS be limited to memebrs. This because of the failure of the current restrictions and censorship to imposed the sort of peace that he required. Max did eventually publicly comment on this but this change requested by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (and openly supported some other menbers of this team) has not happened. It may yet but as of this moment - our forum remains a discussion forum open for the the public's views. It is not yet the private members club that a noisy minority of posters have long wished it was and have done their best to turn it into. So the public views and wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team do not always turn out to be the final word. So the recording of all imposed censorship actions may still happen - as posters here have requested. I hope that it does - mainly in the hope that this measure will reduce the level of all imposed censorship actions and bring an end to judgement and petty restrictions. I have no real problem if our forum is turned into a private members club (as I suspect it is in the process of becoming) - it will be sad how a fine thing was limited in the way it has happened. But it will not be a place that I will be very interested in contributing any longer. But I feel it is time for some HONESTY. If Max is happy for the our forum to be now censored and restricted in the way it is now - then can this be openly seen to be the case and the pretence not maintained that it is NOT the heavily censored forum that it has now be allowed to become? The first step toward this honesty is for all cases where and when any form of imposed censorship action has been judged to be required - is recorded and a brief explanation provided for our forum as the the reasons. Perhaps Max could inform us if this can happen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: skarpi Date: 25 Jul 06 - 02:42 AM lo ll .ow re ou ts he me ry th es nd is ds? ey er rn ng st ve n th is ap!! us ia I ht is as er ut ll ou ld n nd ep in th is ap nd ou ve o e te y g t e d l e t i d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Slag Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:03 PM Yaaaawn! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 06 - 04:45 PM Me favoured? Who says so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 24 Jul 06 - 02:34 PM "If a blank message MUST always be deleted (even one from Dick, Kendall or some other favoured poster) or a thread MUST be closed - can there be some indication given that censorship has taken place and a very brief explanation as to the reason for it?" Everyone else but you has heard the answer many times.......NO! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 06 - 02:27 PM As Joe has previously said, deleting something and then quoting what you deleted in the comment would be utterly ridiculous. Of course it would. But that is not the suggestion being made is it? 7) Drawing attention to deletion of flames and spams "has little effect as a deterrent to these 'vandals', for it is done with such a fuss as to bring the attention that is so craved by them and is the main reason for their postings", according to a poster called Shambles (thread "BS: Poll - Stop Flaming and Abusive posting", date 30 Aug 04, time 02:33). Silent deletion removes that attention. That is my argument for dealing with those assumed to be 'vandals'. I suggest in the first instance NOT deleting them and leaving their posts alone. To permit adult posters to judge for themselves whether they wish to respond or ignore the post - so that no form of censorship is required. It is of course too late for this option - once this choice is made for other posters - by our 'moderators'. By them imposing some form of censorship action. But what is the harm in then recording that fact and providing a brief expanation if this censorship action is thought to be required? Without this - the assumption will be made that the silently censored post was from a 'vandal' (or a troll or moron etc). When of course - it may not be. But our forum will never even know that any form of censorship took place. And the illusion (or lie) of an uncensored forum can be maintained. Why does the phrase 'silent deletion' remind me of a sniper? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 06 - 02:02 PM I can suggest several other reasons which don't require the moderators to be actively looking for people to victimise, as you claim:- Where have I made such a claim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Jul 06 - 01:13 PM Just for the sake of clarity of terms: paranoia: widely varying output, sometimes with no relation to input or even without any input at all obsession: always same output irrespective of and in volume in no meaningful relation to input Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Cruiser Date: 24 Jul 06 - 12:11 PM A suggestion regarding self-censorship: Stay out of the whole cotton-picking BS section. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Jul 06 - 12:07 PM Ooh too logical mate, Roger would never go for that! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST,Grab Date: 24 Jul 06 - 11:51 AM I can suggest several other reasons which don't require the moderators to be actively looking for people to victimise, as you claim:- 3) It would add a not-insignificant extra amount of time to the time that moderators already spend. 4) It isn't necessary when there isn't any content in the posts. Your stated interest is ensuring that no content is lost. If there is no content (and an empty post is as purely content-free as can be), then why bother? It adds to the page-loading time, and wastes space on Max's server. 5) Deletion of spam advertising also adds no content to the Mudcat "knowledge base". If spam is not deleted and spammers find that it stays around, they are more likely to return and flood the forum. 6) The purpose of deletion of flames is to avoid escalation of conflict. As Joe has previously said, deleting something and then quoting what you deleted in the comment would be utterly ridiculous. Should the moderators have to to paraphrase the flames, so you have a long series of moderator comments saying "Martin Gibson flamed catspaw49", "catspaw49 flamed Martin Gibson", etc, etc? This increases the time to load pages, and wastes space on Max's server. I can see no benefit beyond the knowledge that moderators are doing their jobs. 7) Drawing attention to deletion of flames and spams "has little effect as a deterrent to these 'vandals', for it is done with such a fuss as to bring the attention that is so craved by them and is the main reason for their postings", according to a poster called Shambles (thread "BS: Poll - Stop Flaming and Abusive posting", date 30 Aug 04, time 02:33). Silent deletion removes that attention. 8) When a particular poster has been wasting their time for over two years (I didn't realise it was that long - thanks for bringing up that old post to remind us) by repeating the same questions without change, even when answered long ago, then finding further reasons to insult that poster is utterly redundant. And note that insults are *not* anonymous. 9) Knowledge of how much work has been wasted shepherding your obsession may lead to a concerted campaign by the moderators to have you banned permanently. 10) The only "increased division, judgement, restrictions and paranoia" is present with you. No-one else is affected by any of these. If you stopped your campaign, then the restrictions placed on you would stop. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:54 AM Poll -stop flaming and abusive posting |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:40 AM Check back up the thread, and on every similar thread you've started, and count the number of posters for and against. I suggest you're wrong... There remains only one way to find out. When the secret ballot was introduced at our local Union branch meetings - the results were vastly different to the sort of results reached previously by using a show of hands. It was thought that voters may have felt less intimidated by this method and that a secret ballot enabled a more accurate result to be obtained. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:28 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread. You're Free, Roger!!!! Post all you want, say anything you want - just keep it in one thread, just like most people do. Don't be paranoid. You don't get deleted, Roger - you just get consolidated. Oh, and if you post a blank message, expect it to be deleted. Contrary to Bert's opinion, Joe and the clones think that blank messages were posted either by mistake, or for obnoxious reasons. If you wish to say "no comment," say "no comment." -Joe Offer- If a blank message MUST always be deleted (even one from Dick, Kendall or some other favoured poster) or a thread MUST be closed - can there be some indication given that censorship has taken place and a very brief explanation as to the reason for it? Our guardians cannot have it both ways and I fear that it now appears that is exactly what they do want. If they wish to increasingly find reasons to judge and swear at posters and anonymously impose all kinds of unfriendly censorship actions - a pretence cannot be maintained that this is NOT in fact happening. I suspect that this is the reason why the request to record ALL instances of imposed censorship action does not appear to have found much favour (yet). I can understand the thinking that posters finding indications of blanked and censored posts in a forum such as this - will perhaps not leave a very good impression of our forum. But if that is the reality and there is nothing to hide - why not be perfectly open about this and enable all poster to be aware of the true level by always indicating where it has occured? I can suggest two reasons. 1. It could be that there are so many forms of imposed censorship taking place as amtter of routine, that if it was all indicated - it is thought that every poster would be shocked and demand a more proportionate response. 2. Or it could well be that the level is seen to be so low that all the unknown numbers of anonymous fellow poster involved in protecting us are seen not to be needed at all and the increased division, judgement, restrictions and paranoia caused by this can be ended. Only when our forum is aware of the true nature and level of all forms of imposed censorship actions - will any poster be able to express an informed opinion of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 24 Jul 06 - 04:59 AM Shambles, did you copy-and-paste that last post from some private store? Cos I could have sworn you posted exactly the same thing, same words even, last year. I quote from something you yourself quoted:- "This restriction applies only to you, and only to the subject of Mudcat editing policy. It is necessary because of your long history of abuse, and because of your repeated failure to comply with requests that you limit your practice of copy-pasting the same information in multiple threads. Reasonable duplication and "thread drift" is certainly acceptable, but not for you - you have repeatedly gone far beyond what anyone would consider to be reasonable, and your posts have therefore been placed on restriction. It is important for people to understand that these restrictions apply only to you, and that they are a result of your long history of abuse." Your 09:18 is a perfect example of why this is required - there isn't a single thing in there that you haven't already said and got answers to. Now Joe may well dislike you personally, but every word he said above is justifiable. I suggest it is the the majority of us Check back up the thread, and on every similar thread you've started, and count the number of posters for and against. I suggest you're wrong... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jul 06 - 03:28 AM Would anyone take extreme offence if someone else decided not to take sides in this particular debate? I would not be extremely offended or surprised - but I would think it sad to post to a thread but add nothing to its subject. Let us be clear. The phrase 'personally motivated' in this context means to misuse one's power over a long period of time, to take censorship action and single-out someone or some group and clearly be seen to subject them to special treatment because you do not like them or what they say, but to dress this up as being for more respectable sounding reasons and to encourage public support for this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jul 06 - 12:09 AM Would anyone take extreme offence if someone else decided not to take sides in this particular debate? I'm just asking, because I don't want to cause offence, you understand. You see, there are a few things that I find offensive now and then...but that doesn't mean I think they should be censored. Then again, there's the odd thing that I actually DO think should be censored...very occasionally. Therefore I don't know where I stand on this, I can't figure it out, I'm totally befuddled, and I am quite unable to decide. So I'd rather just leave the bitching about it to those who ARE able to decide. Is that offensive to anyone? Gosh, I hope not! If it was, I would lose a whole lot of sleep tonight...and maybe have to consult an analyst about it, and that would be bloody expensive, so please DON'T be offended! Or at least if you are, don't tell me about it, okay? Pretty please? Dave the Gnome, when you said: "It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Men but not one calling Women. It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Moslems but not one calling Jews. It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling English but not one calling Irish. It's perfectly acceptable to start a thread calling Whites but not one calling Blacks. As long as you are aware of what is and is not PC you will get on OK." You were right on. That is exactly how present day fascist mind-control is orchestrated and accomplished. Yes, folks, THAT is something I do have a definite opinion on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: katlaughing Date: 23 Jul 06 - 11:07 PM Bert, when we joe clones first started volunteering, empty posts were routinely expected to be deleted as they took up space on a slow-loading, over-taxed system and it also helped for all of those who were on dial-up or had hamsters powering their syetems at home. (love ya Bill!) I see no reason for that to change. If someone wants to register a "no comment" then they can damn well type it in. kat
Hi kat, I think it may be a cultural thing because recently I've known people to post a blank message to say that they have seen the thread but they refuse to comment on it. Ther could also be other personal reasons.
A blank message doesn't take up much space on modern systems so I don't see why the clones just can't let them be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jul 06 - 10:30 PM Bert, the only people here with low intelligence are the ones who perpetuate this stuff and encourage this crap from this moron. |