 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:14 AM A birthday thread about a music resource (for instance: Mudcat) belongs in the music section in my opinion. It would have in Shambles' opinion too had it been moved to the BS section... Shambles' judgement on what is right or wrongis dependant on what the moderators do or don't do. They must be wrong - simple as that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:04 AM Any one care to try and explain and justify why the BS thread Do you support the status quo? was first deleted anonymously with no editing comment of explanation. Then was later combined with the musical thread Do You support the Status Quo, renamed and relegated to the BS? And why 'any other thread' started (certainly by me) with the same general interest to ALL posters as this Mudcat birthday thread would do - if it were allowed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to remain on our forum at all - would undoubtably and quickly be relgated to the BS section? Perhaps the sensible answer - to avoid the wrong judgement call being made and to enable all posters on our now divided forum to equally contribute to these discussions - would be to have all such threads on both sections? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:19 AM Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam From: Joe Offer Date: 17-Sep-06 - 03:21 AM Sorry, but I can't sift out all the Guest posts from the others, without messing with a thread more than I feel comfortable doing. I agree that the conspiracy-theory posts add nothing to the thread, and tend to stifle real discussion. guess that's a good reason for blocking Guest posts in the non-music section. -Joe Offer- Are posts from guests ('i.e' non members) going to be blocked? If this is Max's intention can this be stated? If this is NOT Max's intention - can our 'moderators' be instructed to stop publicly 'pitching' for this? To work under the current set-up or to leave and set-up their own forum where they can block who they wish? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:53 AM I notice that KREX's birthday has not been relegated to the BS section. So perhaps with our forum's 10th birthday coming up - there is to be a more common sense approach to such things for posters to look forward to in the next ten years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:31 AM Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant. Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play. Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept. It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 06 - 09:41 AM That really is a gem, Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM "Shambles-you just are bloody moan too much and make trubble!" Shambles does moan at times. However, it's others who make the trouble. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Answer that and you'll know the difficulties don't come from Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: Just found Mudcat too From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:06 PM Is this not BS material? Apparently not - but the following thread is judged to be When was Mudcat lost? |
|
Subject: RE: Just found Mudcat too From: The Shambles Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:09 PM But if this thread is so judged and relegated to the BS - then so must the following. Just found Mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Ennui 1st Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:47 PM Judging by your non stop perusal of this site, I would think you'd make an ideal moderator. Only thing is, that if you were one, the rest would probably all leave. Except of course the mysterious Guest that has materialised in you support. Odd that isn't it, you've had more support from one anonymous poster in the last few weeks, than you've had from named Mudcatters in the last 8 years? How convenient too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 27 Sep 06 - 06:27 PM Things may change - but only when posters once again feel free to express their views, whatever they may be - free from the fear of the special restrictions, intimidation and bullying we see encouraged here - being addressed towards them. It would not be surprising if the regular guest posters on this thread turn-out to one and the same. But I am not surprised that many those who post their views now choose do so anonymously - been this be seen as 'support' or the very opposite. . Including those who would feel themselves qualified to anonymously impose their judgement on me and their other fellow posters. The whole point is to try and enable open discussion to take place on this issue as on any other subject on our forum - the fact that various attempts are made to prevent this and posters are openly encouraged to take part in this, is regretable and reflects very little credit on our forum. But things may change - let us all hope they will improve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 28 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM Birthday threads For some reason it is now judged that having obit threads on the music related section is OK - even when whoever the unfortunate person is has no musical connection at all. There is even a prefix for such threads. To my mind when someone has died it is really a little late to post nice things about them or to say how they may have influenced your life etc. As they certainly will not be able to read it. And it is not considered good form (by some posters) to post anything in such threads that may be seen as any way critcal or to be too silly. Wolfgang's attempt (in this thread) to provide some reasoning behind our 'modertaors' erratic treatment of 'birthday threads' gave me an idea. As this would remain on the music section, where all contributors would see it. I thought that starting a thread there on some musically related persons birthday (whether they were still alive or not) - would give our forum a chance to say what they wished to about that person, without feeling that they were expected to be reverential. Or posters could decide for themselves whether they wished to post to it at all. If the featured person were still lucky enough to be alive - there is a chance that they may even read and appriciate it. It seemed to me to be a bit more positive and less depressing to keep reading on our forum the names of all those who had died. But such is the nature of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's witch-hunt - that the regular's on 'snitchers corner' [The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum] have already suspected and found some terrible motive for such threads and have alerted 'Big Brother'. Perhaps encouraging all this paranoid silliness can now be ended and all posters be seen to be treated equally?
Yes, it is a matter of judgment and it's not always a clear-cut matter. But that's what we get paid the big bucks for. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 28 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM Obits were originally in the upper section. As were all other headings EXCEPT BS: After a time Obits may (in fact usually) get tagged as non music and drop below the line that has been procedure and custom since the heading tage were instituted. nothing new. nothing strange. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 28 Sep 06 - 06:49 PM Subject: RE: Obit: Steve Irwin is dead From: GUEST Date: 04 Sep 06 - 01:33 AM Sorry, this has nothing to do with music, should be in the BS section -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No need for this notice. Obituaries should be started with the "Obituary" tag, whether or not they deal with music. The Clones and I will eventually move the thread to non-music if that's where it belongs. That process seems easier than having two "obit" tags, one for music and one not. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: skipy Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:05 PM Shambles, this may piss you off! I have stayed off this thread for ages, I have not asked for you to be removed, I have said that you need some help and / or some space, but the bit that will piss you off is that there is someone else that is more of a pain in the arse than you are (no names, no pack drill!) so you are not number 1 anymore, how does that feel? There is another that pisses me off more than you do! Time to regroup & lick your wounds, time to reflect, time to accept, time to grow up, time to be humble & let this thread die. Skipy, who will read whatever you write in the future when you let this crap drop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM Skipy, who will read whatever you write in the future when you let this crap drop. Unlike you - I only have this thread to express my views on. The only way I will be permitted to post my views elsewhere will be if I am prepared to change them. I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:47 PM "I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............" I guess widdle Shamby Pamby can't see too well. Try this:Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:49 PM You may have missed the following editing comment - as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh this thread. Note: non-music birthday and obituary threads are routinely moved into the non-music section. If it's a thread about a musician that ends up being just congratulations and condolences without music information, it will also eventually get moved. But you knew that already. It has been said many times before. Yes, it is a matter of judgment and it's not always a clear-cut matter. But that's what we get paid the big bucks for. -Joe Offer- Perhaps - as it is not clear-cut - our forum can be left to decide a threads fate? If it is of interest - it will be posted to - if it is not - it will fall off the page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:54 PM And then again, YOU, SHAMBOLINA, may have missed the following post:********************************************************************* "I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............" I guess widdle Shamby Pamby can't see too well. Try this:Subject: From Max: State of the Union AddressShambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:45 AM Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Big Mick - PM Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated. If they are responding to him, silly though I believe that to be, that will be allowed. I am not sure if our forum can expect Catspaw to be eliminated by Big Mick or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: manitas_at_work Date: 29 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM "If they are responding to him" seems to be the operative phrase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM "If they are responding to him" seems to be the operative phrase. Who else would a personal attack be responding too but the one being attacked? As I do not post personal attacks on Catspaw or anyone else and do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be made to me and that I am not protected from - any personal attack posted about me - will be unprovoked. So even using Mick's strange logic - these personal attacks cannot be justified - by our 'moderators' just because they may share the sentiments. In some of Mick's earlier posts he encourages posters not to use this thread for discussion - but by this later comment - he is actively encouraging the posting of abusive personal attacks to be made about certain posters in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Ennui 1st Date: 29 Sep 06 - 09:33 AM No the roundabout and underhand, not to mention indirect attack is more your style isn't it Shambles Sweetie? Agent provocateur is the correct term I think, you are like a little mosquito, anybody within reach will do, but with a preference for clones. I bet as a little boy,(maybe you still do it), you stamped your feet and said "Shan't" when your Mommy told you to do things. Maybe she should have whupped your ass a bit more often to break you of the habit of being truculent, which is how you come over on here. As a sulking truculent baby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Sep 06 - 10:36 AM "I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............" PLEASE TRY AND RESPOND TO THE OBVIOUS POST REQUEST BELOW....PERHAPS YOU CAN SEE THAT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK FROM MAX, IN WHICH CASE YOU NEED TO GO!!!! Subject: From Max: State of the Union AddressShambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM I have no control over the posting of others and have no wish to. All that I have ever tried to do on our forum is to post my honest views. That others may judge posting these honest views to be seen in emotive and combative terms like: Attacking, Hijacking, Duplication, Domination, Crowding-out, Controlling, Manipulating, Trolling, Flaming, Spamming Etc Etc - is their problem. The reality is that these are simply views posted to our forum for discussion - which is its purpose. Why are those who perhaps should know better, now seen to encourage the simple act of of posting to a forum set-up for public discussion to be seen and judged in such terms? I suggest it is because they do wish to have control over the posting of others, assume that others are similarly motivated and see any poster trying to express a different view to be a direct threat to their ability to continue impose their judgement on the posting of others. I suggest that it is time for a change to an open less combative approach - where 'moderators' are not seen to be in open conflict with our forum's contributors and all are seen to be treated equally and not encouraged to subjected to bullying public witch-hunts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:48 PM The thing about public discussion fora, is that they involve give and take on the part of the contributors. Your self centred mania, and refusal to respond to legitimate queries, or discuss your overhyped grievances places you outwith those parameters. The habit of keeping on asking the same question over and over again hoping to get the answer you want, is a form of bullying, a thing you often complain about others doing to you. Just because your bullying follows a different format from others who may adopt a more direct line, it doesn't make it any less oppressive to those at whom it is aimed. JGM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM "I have seen no argument presented here that has pursuaded me to change my views. I may yet............" PLEASE TRY AND RESPOND TO THE OBVIOUS POST REQUEST BELOW....PERHAPS YOU CAN SEE THAT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK FROM MAX, IN WHICH CASE YOU NEED TO GO!!!! Subject: From Max: State of the Union AddressShambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.There ya' go....and there you SHOULD go WeenieBoy!!!(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Sep 06 - 12:57 PM "I suggest that it is time for a change to an open less combative approach - where 'moderators' are not seen to be in open conflict with our forum's contributors and all are seen to be treated equally and not encouraged to subjected to bullying public witch-hunts." Putting all of Shambles past history aside, I think he makes a point. However, is there any evidence to Shambles claims? Yes, I know there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of postings that Shambles have made - but everything I've read seem to be open to interpretation I would ask this of the forum - 1. Has anyone felt that they have been involved in any conflict with the forum moderators? 2. Do you feel that YOU (I don't mean Shambles, but you the reader) have not been treated equally? I would love to see anyone who answers "yes" to those questions to please post here - and not as an anoymous "guest". Let us hear from members of this forum to see if anyone besides Shambles truly has this issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:04 PM I've had some posts modified and deleted and some other changes as well. No problem from me. The Mods all do a pretty good job! Spaw PS: "Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell." says the site owner Max!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM Oh sure, Ron...I have had conflicts! I was at a Getaway, and there was some VERY good beer in a bag ...and Mick & Max & Jeff and Joe Offer were ALL there, impeding my access to it! (Jeri was there, but she didn't get in my way...*grin*) Why, I was almost ready to mop up on the lot! Then they noticed I wanted a beer, and they not only made way, they opened the bag! And late at night, we were singing, and I could barely get a song in edgewise for all those folks singing! Why, it's enough to make a feller invent a new identity on the Mudcat in order to harass 'em! I'm sure Shambles would have let me sing & have a beer! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:15 PM What Spaw said! I've had posts deleted, and had arguments with the "Management", I don't intend to keep pissing and moaning about it to anyone who will listen, for the foreseeable future either! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:26 PM "As a sulking truculent baby." Ennui is a twit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM I don't think anyone is likely to agree with every moderation decision that has been made here, or at ANY other web site. I would also expect that there are a number of people here who at some time or other have had a dispute regarding some moderation decision - given the number of posts made, it would be almost absurd to think such things have never happened. What is more to the point is whether I believe that the attempt is made to apply what ever moderation there is (at whatever level there is) on a site is done consistanly and fairly. In terms of that overall picture, it is my belief that the moderators here do a good job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:38 PM Of course when Max's public statement is posted - what it says before is ignored and what it goes on to say - is omitted. Such as: Joe: Do I need to separate you two? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM >snip< My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community. Ron - It must be quite clear from the special restrictions imposed on my posting only by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that our forum is not all playing under the same rules - or being expected to. Until we are all seen to be playing under the same rules and posters can feel safe from having the same treatment imposed on them as they see imposed on me - it is hardly likely that any poster will be prepared to take the risk of posting anything that may result in this. Our current 'moderation' IS well-intentioned. That is why it so supported and why it is so dangerous. But the bottom line is that it simply does not work. Which is even now admitted by its chief achitect. But not only this - it is counter-productive and only encourages (directly and indirectly) the very conflict it is supposed to be dealing with whilst encouraging posters to mind everyone's business but their own. Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant. Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play. Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept. It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:48 PM Shambles - can you simply bullet point your gripe? That last note just rambled. You would be more effective if you could present your case in a clear and concise manner. I have re-read that last post three times and I am still unclear as to the point you are trying to make in regards to my post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 29 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM Did your post make sense, Ron? (Some of them don't.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM oh, piffle, Roger! YOU are a moderator at a singing session, but I assume you also get your turn! It is absurd to expect that we could FIND mods who are willing to just be moderators and not participate in the discussions! Piffle indeed. I am not a moderator at a singing session. I am a participant in tune sessions and the 'leader' of a regular weekly pub session - where the object is to involve as many musicians as possible to participate in playing sets of tunes at the same time. It is not without its difficulties but the approach taken is that everyone has as much 'right' to be in that public place as everyone else - no matter whatever their musical abilities may be. It does not make things easy but on many nights than not, the end result often rewards and justifies the attempt. I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure. Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:08 PM good comeback |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM "I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable. And if this is not thought possible the down-side and counter-productive results of having referees who also wish to be players cannot just be ignored. Especially after the main architect of the current 'system' has admitted its failure. Other optiona are to have any 'moderators' at all or to give the choice to our current 'moderators' of just being a referee. " ... or the other option, leave things the way they are. The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM or the other option, leave things the way they are. The majority of posters seem to have no problem with that. If this were the case - would this 'I'm alright Jack' attitude really mean that the current 'system' was seen to be impartial and all poster were equally treated? If this were the case - would it mean that its main architect's admission of the current systems failure can be safely ignored? As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. Not until every such action is indicated and explained with an editing comment and all editing comments are limited to where this has been judged to be necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:30 PM Well, tune session or singing session...moderator or leader, I have no doubt that if there were a real problem you WOULD have to find a way to deal with disruptions. Here, there are many thousands who come in at times, and the law of averages says that there is more opportunity for disruption than at a music session where you can look the offender in the eye! "I don't know how difficult it may be to obtain 'moderators' for our forum who are seen to be impartial ..." I can well imagine how difficult it would be. PAID mods would be unlikely to understand the issues here, and if they did, they would be unlikely to tolerate your brand of incessant complaining. "...but that does not make the need for this to be any less desirable." for whom? for youm? YOU are harping on some impossible model of complete impartiality. You, it seems, will never get the point that YOU are not the arbitor of whether moderators are needed and how the job is delegated, and to whom. The only way to keep things flowing on a site like this is to have some way to police ourselves....Max decided how and who, and he 'seems' to be ok with how they are doing it. The amazing part is how how much he and his appointees tolerate criticism OF his system and its rules. That 'could' change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. nor is there any need for it. The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED. It is not "our" forum" - it is Max's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM "As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. " So then you agree to stop posting these notes Shambles? Perhaps you would agree that you have no way of knowing and that your posts are fruitless? Don't forget - The Mudcat cafe reserves the right to edit, delete, modify, etc any post. AS IS THE RIGHT OF THE SITE OWNER AND HIS PROXIES AS APPOINTED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 02:55 PM Can someone explain to me why any poster would continue to post to support a system as being effective - when the main architect of this system has publicly admitted its failure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Wolfgang Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM As I have pointed out and as it has been ignored - there is no way any poster can make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our form. (Shambles) It has been ignored for a long time as a favour to you, because the argument is utterly wrong. Look to the other threads where you multipost that nonsense for a refutation. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:17 PM Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Ebbie Date: 29 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM Joe Offer, as the sham very well knows, implied that peace on the forum has failed as typified by the sham's incessant whining attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Manitas_at_home Date: 29 Sep 06 - 04:19 PM "As I do not post personal attacks on Catspaw or anyone else and do not respond in kind to the many that are encouraged to be made to me and that I am not protected from - any personal attack posted about me - will be unprovoked." There's more than one way to provoke a response as you well know. BTW, what makes you think these responses are encouraged by anyone other than you? Another uninformed judgement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Sep 06 - 05:00 PM Because it is not a "failure" as you are trying to read into the comment. That is YOUR opinion. That is your opinion to which, unlike me, you are entitled to express in any thread on our forum. Others can judge from the actual words and perhaps explain why posters support what they assume to be the status quo - when it is obviously nothing of the sort. For the record, I have already asked Max to make Members-Only posting in the "BS" section, and I think membership should be granted only to those with verifiable e-mail addresses (you register, and then get a password sent back to you). So far, Max hasn't said anything about being ready to make the change Joe Offer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that? So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. -Joe Offer- |