BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:54 AM

It's great so see someone who's managed to keep his sense of humor, Ron. I admire that you acknowledged some of Shambles' points. I don't agree with 100% of what Shambles says either, but by da good laird he has the right to say it.

Joe has done and continues to do one helluva job, and I don't doubt that much of the crap he has to deal with on a day-to-day basis does eat into his first love with this site: MUSIC. Frankly, I have found that the music part of Mudcat has within it

1) more worth
2) more value
3) more satisfaction

than 99% of the BS section in its entire history rolled up in one big ball. I get tired of the line: 'It was SOOO much better in the old days' because that is bullshit, but it's the type of bullshit people cling to when their world changes. People never see themselves as being exclusive or hurtful--but many people on Mudcat are that way. They have been for years. Some even have edit buttons. And some folks with the edit buttons should have them taken away. But that won't happen, either.

Yes, Shambles can be a pain, but he is not filled with malice. The same cannot be said of some other folks. With that, I am off this thread.

PS I am the guest who got into the pissin' contest with you. Reading your subsequent posts, I apologize for that. And I'd tell that to your face also.

Keep well, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:39 AM

ouch!!   good one guest!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:33 AM

Gotta hand it to ya, ron . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:32 AM

Nope, it is an expression - lope the mule.

I guess you could say it means "love".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 11:29 AM

It's a typo, he meant to say love!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 10:17 AM

lope the mule--never heard that before.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 09:34 AM

This whole party analogy is starting to make sense... and that is frightening me!

I have been to parties where guests have been asked by the host to work as "bouncers" - helping to keep the peace and keep the party flowing. While they have been given a role to play, they are also going to enjoy the party to the fullest. The host is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the event, and he or she will make adjustments as the evening progresses to make sure everyone has a good time and a safe time.

The rules have to bend.   The spinach dip may start on the coffeetable in the living room and and be moved to an end table in the end before someone picks it up and moves it back again. No one will get upset, except for the one guest who was sitting on the couch in the living room expecting to be in front of the dip. You can't please everyone.

Some guests may get out of line, start fights, needlessly pick on another guest, or talk about their grandchildren or try to sell insurance. It is hard to get away from the latter.   Does the host tell offensive guest to pack up their snapshots and hit the road? Of course not. The host MIGHT explain that people are bored with the endless shots of grandson Jimmy getting his diaper changed, or the host might choose to ignore it. Let the part flow as it needs to and let the guests work it out for themselves.

You might also have a guest who thinks that the party belongs to them and that they are the owners of the house. They start tending bar, take over the grill duties, or decide that it is time for the limbo contest. The host may have had other plans, and they will either put a stop to the actions or just let the party flow.

At the end of the evening, everyone who is still able to grabs their carkeys and drives home.   The ride home might consist of the spouse berating their partner for the actions that they indulged in at the party, or a lot of gossiping about what went on. Usually, they will keep their opinions to themselves.   Sometimes they will start to tell others what they thought - and that is when the trouble begins.

So what is my boring description of the local get together proving? Absolutely nothing. The host might tweak the invitation list next time they throw a shindig so that more people have a good time, or they might keep inviting the same guests that set others on edge.   

For those of us who receive an invitation, we have a choice to make. Do we go and start a fight? Do we go knowing that someone is going to pick a fight with us? Do we go and try to have the party run according to our schedule and plans? Do we ignore the invitation and sit at home and lope the mule?   Whatever our decision is, there is a reason we do the things we do.   We all have to decide for ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 06:35 AM

LH fresh water is only any good after it has been through a brewery.
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Another voice in the wilderness.
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 06:26 AM

"We agree that Max certainly can block who he wishes. Perhaps you will accept that he can also un-appoint any 'moderator' he wishes? Or perhaps he feels that he can't?"

So it IS a war against the moderators, or is it perhaps just one in particular? Because if you're trying to get rid of Brother Joe, you're wasting your time. It's because of him that Max doesn't have to deal directly with a pain in the ass like you, so he performs a useful service for Max, and for us all, by confining your burblings in one place.

If a bouncer throws d out of the party, and then he comes back in the rear entrance and starts taking the piss out of the bouncers, they're bound to get a bit annoyed don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 05:20 AM

If the answer to the question has been repeated, perhaps it is time for someone like Max to make a decision. Is he happy with the response to the question?   A note to the individual stating that the policy will not change. If it keeps up, a warning is issued. If it continues, the person is blocked.

We agree that Max certainly can block who he wishes. Perhaps you will accept that he can also un-appoint any 'moderator' he wishes? Or perhaps he feels that he can't?

But why would posing a question for discussion on a discussion forum ever be judged grounds for blocking a poster – when such posts can be so easily just be ignored? It may be judged to be boring, irritating or whatever, for some posters to see the same or similar questions - but if being boring or irritating were judged grounds for blocking a poster - would there be any posters left?

But seeing a question on the many different aspects of this subject which may be judged to be boring or irritating to some regular posters - will be news to others. Who may well be able to bring and add a fresh view to the issue. If they can find a thread on the subject that has not be closed, littered with posts containing spam, recipes, personal judgements and many other 'fun' things designed and encouraged to divert and prevent discussion of the thread's subject.

They will have no such difficulty in finding a thread open in which to place uncritical praise for the efforts of our 'moderators'. Which you will NOT find to be intentionally littered with spam - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Nor containing recipes, personal judgements and many other 'fun' things designed and encouraged to divert and prevent reasonable discussion of that thread's subject.

For example: Mudcat's tenth birthday You will even find that such threads are allowed to remain on the music-related section of our forum.

That said – the so-called 'moderation' of our forum IS largely well-intentioned. I suggest that should it continue - it needs to be seen to undertaken fairly and openly by those who are seen to share Max's commitment to the open invitation for the public's contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 04:49 AM

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

I disagree with the word bouncer but at least you have got one important word in there, "appointed". What you fail to add is that the appointments were made by the host.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 04:33 AM

Geez......This is getting complex. Let's get back to the real heart of the matter. Shambles......Bite me.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 02:24 AM

To extend the analogy a little. As it has been complicated further.

a,b, and c as well as being invited party guests are seen to have been appointed bouncers, along with some other party guests who prefer not to reveal to the party that they are also operating as bouncers.

The host wants one form of party with an open invitation to all to attend.

Some of the bouncers, like each other's company and feel that it would be a far better party if there was not an open invitation for all to attend (and if they were now allowed to screen every guest before permitting entry). [When it was accepted that should this suggestion be implemented that any Mudcat non-members excluded from posting to the BS section would only post on the music section - the suggestion was then made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that he first screened every post before it appeared]

One of their number speaking on behalf of the others, then openly states this - but the host does not indicate any intention of changing the open invitation...............

So what should these bouncers now do? Just carry on - when all the other guest now know these bouncer's wishes and as a result - that any attempts by these bouncers to preserve the host's open invitation - will be seen to be half-hearted ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:14 PM

Fresh water is good, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 11:08 PM

I am heavy into health foods. That works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:57 PM

Come on, spread a little Cheez Whiz (from the spray can, not the jar) on those Pringles along with a can of Fresca, maybe a Slimjim or two and you have a party!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM

Yep. No one here but us self-righteous folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:47 PM

Smart vermin will not eat Pringles, because they are utterly lacking in any real nutrient value and they also give you a tremendous salt overdose.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM

That's IT, Ron O: Mudcat is definitely suffering from an excess of superfluous Pringles. It was a situation waiting for the perfect metaphor, and you nailed it.

No, I don't wish to judge a fellow poster's worth, but I see WAY too many stale Pringles around here. Place is choking with 'em, and they attract vermin, too.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:33 PM

By the way - I am not saying that the host should NOT invite the guest. The host should be laying some ground rules and putting a stop to the fights so that everyone enjoys the chips and dip.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:30 PM

You are right Party Host. However, the next time you throw a party you might receive a number of "declines" from people who stopped having a good time. You may have a lot of leftover Pringles. It is entirely your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:26 PM

Excuse me for that. I got distracted by some bickering in the corner.

OK slowly this time - it's my home. It's my party. I have invited shambles to my soiree. He is a guest of mine and no other guest of mine has the right to tell me who should or shouldn't wear out my carpet.

Anyone not happy with my choice of guest has a number of exits to choose from. My patience is wearing thin and I can't hear the music over the cat calling.

Pass the Pringles please.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,party host
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:17 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:17 PM

Yes, he is. And it's about time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:10 PM

"But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else.

LOL Shambles, you are the one wanting things changed from how they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 08:01 PM

"But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else."

You are not alone in that, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 07:18 PM

I still think Shambles is his own worst enemy.

This view is understandable really - When the 'crime' I am accused of is posting - every time I post to our forum, I can only be seen to be confirming the accusation.

Especially by those who are encourged to make a fuss about and mock my posts appearing but proudly state they do not ever read them or claim they are unable to understand them.

Every time a post of mine is seen to be moved, 'silently deleted' and another thread closed - this only confirms to many posters, that there must be some reason and justification for our 'moderators' to do this.

When of course there is none.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:43 PM

Guest. The person complaining about the party is d.

d is just trying to party.

But is pretty pissed at a,b,and c keep trying to get them thrown out and trying to turn the party into something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,perty host
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 06:42 PM

It's my party and I like d otherwise I wouldn't have invited him. If he offended me I would lock the door so he couldn't get in.

If I invite guests to my party it is bad manners for a very small minority of those guests to spend all night berating somebody in my home.

It isn't their place to tell me who I should throw out.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:51 PM

Guest. The person complaining about the party is d.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:49 PM

So then why the worry?   Everyone should shut up and go on about their merry way. If they aren't bothering anyone they can stay. If there is a problem, the host needs to do something to fix it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:49 PM

abcd goldfish? L, mno goldfish! OSAR goldfish!

see...bickering is a natural part of the alphabet.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM

But the hosts parties are very well attended... by hundreds or more. Comprising of many nationalities, religious persuasions and politicial leanings.

Only a.b,c and e bicker.

f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y and z are quite happy with the party and don't feel the need to bicker with another invited guest.

Who should not turn up at the next party?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:37 PM

You call that a "party"?

The question should be not who is ruining the party, the questino should be what the host is going to do to make the next party more successful. If the hosts parties keep turning into a bickering match, the reputation has been cast and it will be tough getting f, g, h, and i to attend.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:36 PM

Of what relavence is that, GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:31 PM

A neighbour throws a party and invites a,b,c,d and e.

a,b,c,and e have had a long standing gripe going with d.

They spend all evening bitching at him and about him.

The neighbour has chosen for d to be invited to the party and has no intention of asking him to leave to suit a,b,c and e.

Everyone else at this party has to listen and watch a,b,c and e whinge all night. None of them have a problem with d either.

Who is ruining the party?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 03:04 PM

I know...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 03:01 PM

"They don't have the power to issuse the "or you are gone" ultimatum"

No, but somebody does.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:59 PM

They stooped to a level of name calling that should not be part of the vocabulary of a moderator. If they believe in what they are doing, they need to have the balls to make decisions, issue ultimatums, and stand by them.

They don't have the power to issuse the "or you are gone" ultimatum, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:56 PM

If the answer to the question has been repeated, perhaps it is time for someone like Max to make a decision. Is he happy with the response to the question?   A note to the individual stating that the policy will not change. If it keeps up, a warning is issued. If it continues, the person is blocked.

Mudcat has the right to make changes.   That is not even a point of discussion.   The problem is that Mudcat has danced around the problem and not been effective. They stooped to a level of name calling that should not be part of the vocabulary of a moderator. If they believe in what they are doing, they need to have the balls to make decisions, issue ultimatums, and stand by them. That has not been fair to Shambles, or to the rest of us who have witnessed this in numerous threads.

I remember something that Harry Chapin always said - "when in doubt, do something".   It is time to do something or to continue to let the fish flounder until it starts to really stink.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM

and what do you do when four years after the answers he still hasn't accepted them?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:47 PM

And I hope the decision would be to treat him without prejudice. Forget the editorial comments - answer his questions directly. The answers might not be what he is looking for, but if the responder is direct and to the point and leaves out the personal comments, the action is much more effective.   Bullet point answers as well - "no, we will not be moving this thread because of X Y & Z". Done. Then when it is questioned again, the answer is there.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:42 PM

Sorry, Ron, I am 100% with you on.

Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further.

I've felt that decision should have been made one way or other for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM

Well Ron, I think you will find "honest and open" has been tried before.

I disagree with you but good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:34 PM

Jon - 24 hours ago I would have agreed with you 100%. I still think Shambles is his own worst enemy.

However, something about his post suddenly made sense. I started looking at some of the posts in the help section that he pointed to.

Yes, the mods are doing their job - and I think they are doing a good one. That does not mean they are perfect - Mudcat will always be a work in progress. I think the frustration that we all felt has boiled over and can be seen in some of the postings that they have made.   

I do feel that ANY forum such as this needs to take their members into consideration and deal with them accordingly. For most of us, they do. There is a difference between laying down the law and becoming abusive - even borderline abusive.

If I were in their shoes I would have probably said a lot worse. Shambles is the extra starch in the shorts, the grain of sand in the shoe, the gnat that won't leave the picnic. I do not have the patience that the moderaters have shown. Still, there is evidence in those threads that there is indeed a witch-hunt for Shambles.   

Maybe it is time that the moderators reflect on how they dealt and will deal with Shambles. Get rid of Shambles or treat him without prejudice based on his past actions. The alternative is to go on "as is" and all the sniping, grumbling and whining will continue to where it hurts Mudcat even further.

I would also say the same goes for Martin Gibson - they got rid of him or her and things seemed "comfortable" for awhile. Now, Shambles is the new Martin Gibson.   Perhaps it is time to deal with the situation honestly and openly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM

No, I'm beginning to see Shambles points. I do think he has onnly hmiself to blame in most cases, but he does have some basis in reality.

shambles makes a list of points, some of which even contradict other points he makes. I too can find some things I can agree with out of the total. One can even get to the point of rationality with shampbles and watch things turn round via having ones words twisted, etc. to the point we are back to everything being the mods fault. Shambles has only one goal and you are mistaken if you believe that goal is peace and harmony (with the mods doing thier job).

Check out the last link he gave. You will see Joe make some comments about Shambles.   Were the comments necessary in public?   No.   Does Shambles deserve it - the jury is out on that one.

As for does shambles deserve what he gets, my answer is, Yes .

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 02:04 PM

"The only witch hunt is the one you lead shambles."

No, I'm beginning to see Shambles points. I do think he has onnly hmiself to blame in most cases, but he does have some basis in reality.

Check out the last link he gave. You will see Joe make some comments about Shambles.   Were the comments necessary in public?   No.   Does Shambles deserve it - the jury is out on that one.

Shambles, you joked back at me when I mentioned "bullet points". I was dead serious. You have done your own case more harm then good by the approach you have taken.   I am not dumb, but your comments have become exceedingly hard to comprehend. Maybe it is me, but judging by the reaction you get I'm not so sure.   I think your message has been clouded by your delivery.

Frankly, as I've said previously, the owners of the website can do what they wish with this site. But when you see all the wonderful people who have stopped posting here, it does get you thinking. Some of the U.S. folkies who were the reason I joined Mudcat have stopped posting here. Maybe there is a reason why the music section is 99% British these days. Perhaps those of us in the U.S. have lower thresholds for putting up with B.S. and rudeness.   

If you don't like the service at Macy's, you can always take your business elsewhere.

The inmates are only partially responsible for the riot.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM

it really matters little that I am treated unfairly - it matters if any poster is singled-out or seen to be treated unfairly and posters are encouraged to take part in witch-hunts.

The only witch hunt is the one you lead shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 01:42 PM

If I understood your last post, I think you are in agreement with that. While I still do not agree with your perception that you are being singled out and "censored", I do think I understand the point you have been trying to make a little clearer.

It really matters little that I am treated unfairly - it matters if any poster is singled-out or seen to be treated unfairly and posters are encouraged to take part in witch-hunts. Especially as it is supposed to being undertaken in the name of 'fairness'.

You will get a better idea from the discussions and attitudes shown in what I refer to as 'Snitchers Corner' or the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum. Which is aptly named as it is the source of much trouble. Posters are encouraged there to post anonymous complaints about and requests for editing action to be imposed on their fellow posters.

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3310&messages=25

The anonymous complaint was that this thread was spam. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team coments that is was just another boring 'Shambles' thread.

But later proudly states that there will be spam there now - as he has just placed it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 01:15 PM

You know what, I think I sincerely owe you an apology Shambles.   

While reading your last post a light bulb went off. If I am interpreting your last explanation the way I think you intended, it makes more sense than all the other posts you've made over the years. Maybe all we had was a failure to communicate.

I agree with you - this forum is a good place to goof off or have a good discussion. All that is required is to agree to disagree.

My failure to understand your posts is clear in my bringing up the "staus quo". Change is constant. My interpretation of staus quo is that is a current reflection of evolution and tinkering to find the right formula that will make the most happy.   You can't remain steadfast to old rules when change has occured.

If I understood your last post, I think you are in agreement with that. While I still do not agree with your perception that you are being singled out and "censored", I do think I understand the point you have been trying to make a little clearer.   

In order to achieve a pleasant experience for everyone, I think that moderators should make every effort to be fair and interpret the rules in everyones best interest. Perhaps it is the language barrier from both sides of the pond, but I don't think anyone really singled you out - you just came across in a combative stance and it built up to this. If I am reading your last post correctly, that was not your intention.   I am sure the moderators did not wish to cause conflict either, it just grew.

So, in all honesty, if my "new" interpretations of your posts are the points you were trying to make, I apologize for adding fuel to the fire.   Then again, I've always enoyed fanning the flames of discontent!