BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:51 PM

If Galileo had said in verse that the world moved, the inquisition might have let him alone.
Thomas Hardy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 08:27 PM

A man in your county should be reading Thomas Hardy - definitely.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 06 - 04:14 PM

You are reading too much Orwell, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:45 PM

Perhaps the Mudcat hitman has eliminated my Scottish friend?


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?

There may not be any 'bad faith' involved in the current system of 'moderation' - but the posting of this support certainly appears to be an example of 'blind faith'. It is rather like continuing to place your money on a horse to win - when its trainer has already announced that the horse has died. It is very loyal and trusting on the part of these posters and punters but perhaps not really very sensible....?

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-

I am not sure, and it is not really explained why it is now thought to be OK to scare visitors away and for our forum to look even more exclusive than it currently does by changing to members-only posting.

And I for one, have certainly thought of many solutions and made lots of positive suggestions - I am sure that you can too.

In order to protect all parties and ensure that posters can for the first time express an informed opinion on whether the 'moderation' on our forum is proportionate or not - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary?

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:52 PM

Or a tig er?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 07:53 AM

Is giok having a lie in?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:23 AM

Today Mudcat, tomorrow the world!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:21 AM

And with me writing all of the posts.

At least that line figures...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 06:18 AM

I'll do the deciding
Humans only need guiding
To do want I want them to do
Justified by the means
The end - seen in my dreams
Does it seem like a nightmare to you?

The goal is elimination
Of all duplication
Can't you get this into your brain?
I'll make sure that you will
Finally swallow this pill
As I will post it again and again

I will enable debate
Like a totalitarian state
With kind and generous hosts
Peace will be imposed
Every open thread closed
And with me writing all of the posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 05:28 AM

Well you certainly missed the point there then!
Yet again

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 04:51 AM

I agree that if one uses personal attacks on Shambles, they will be eliminated.

Good to see this is being taken seriously and that the posters of such things are to be eliminated. About time too.

Is this to be with the services of the special Mudcat hitman who will be chosen from the ranks of favoured posters or Mick, are you also going to volunteer your services in this role?

That could well be a problem - for as one of our known 'moderators' who has constantly set the example that such posts are acceptable posting behaviour - you may have to eliminate yourself.

Thanks for the offer but it is not required that the posters of personal judgements be eliminated - just that our 'moderators' do not continue to set the example that this is now the whole object of our forum and that all posters can be seen to be treated equally. And remember:

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:05 AM

If you HAD been contacted what would you have said?

The point is that I was not contacted - so our forum will never know what a more stylish approach may have achieved.

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

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

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

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

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

However a less drastic approach is possible, has less danger of being counter-productive and as the following post shows - it is appreciated

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,khandu - PM
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM

I am with The Shambles on this one.

A couple of years back, I created a thread regarding a certain troll. Within moments, Pene Azul pmed me and explained that he believed this thread would probably do far more harm than good and requested permission to delete it.

Certainly, he could have deleted it without bothering to ask. But Jeff showed more class than that.

The simple act of contacting me beforehand made all the difference in the world. I told him to delete it and I felt rather good about it all.

Had he or anyone else deleted it without contact, I would have been pissed and would have posted a grumbling thread about it.

Simple decency goes a long way.

Change my thread titles? Sure, if you believe there is a good reason. But show some civility and respect to the creator of the thread by sending a simple PM.

khandu

There is nothing decent, friendly or nice about all these imposed measures like the 'silent deletion', of entire threads and posts, thread closures, title changes and the like.

These imposed judgements by one (favoured) poster on another are drastic measures and they will produce counter-productive responses. Perhaps drastic measure like this should not be used as the first and only action and should only be used on the rare occasions when such drastic measures are proportionate?

Then the impression of (anonymous) 'moderators' (or some undefined 'we) being in constant conflict with named members our forum will not be the one that is perceived and which undoubtly will now inhibit some posters from contributing.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 08:22 PM

He would have objected to having been contacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 08:07 PM

If you HAD been contacted what would you have said?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:37 PM

Here Joe had the courtesy of telling you what would happen in public and you still find a reason to complain?

Except of course that the change to the thread's title had already been imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. The then and current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's threat was to relegate a music thread to the BS if I expressed the view that I did not agree with his imposition.

All this and his (unasked for) personal opinion of 'song challenges' were all contained in that editing comment.

It may be considered to be a courtesy had I been contacted and asked my view on the proposed title change - before the change was imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:25 PM

2. Do you think it should be moderated?

A supplementary question for those who answered YES to the above -

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:20 PM

The only restriction on this poster is one he richly deserves. It applies to his constant attack of the moderating of this forum.

The so-called 'moderating' on our forum is not being 'attacked' by me or anyone. The attempt is only to enable open discussion on this issue (and others) without 'silent deletion', imposed thread closures and other selective restrictions.

If these selective restrictions are so richly deserved - why is any poster who constantly posts to defend the so-called 'moderation' on our forum is allowed (by our 'moderators') to post this uninformed judgement of support in as many threads and as many times as they wish. Often accompanied with abusive personal attacks and name-calling - following the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'.

But this 'moderation' does not need to be 'attacked'. For the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly announced the failure of these measures to impose on our forum the peace he requires. So why are these failed and counter-productive measures defended as if they were in any way effective - when their chief architect has now publicly admitted their failure?

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Would should now be openly encouraged to be discussed on our forum (and not restricted) are suggestions as to how the peace that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Mudcat Editing Team's measure have failed to impose - can be enabled.   

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 06:53 PM

Boy, there is no pleasing some people!!

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Another example - Where the possibility of having more than one thread on our forum one similar subjects - is thought to be justificaton for the imposed closure of a long-running thread in which the regular posters were seen to be following all the 'rules'.   

As for a Licensing Act thread being closed, the only one I can think of, is Affected by the Licensing Act 2003. It was closed (with explanation and crosslink posted) for a few days in April or May, 2006, because somebody had started a newer thread with the same title. We do this occasionally when there are two threads on the same subject, to avoid splitting and confusing the discussion. Upon request from Shambles, I reopened the thread. I also combined the newer thread with the older one. Shambles, if this is the thread you are referring to, please be sure not to mislead the nice people. Be sure to tell them that this took place in April or May, that it was closed because there was another thread active on the same subject, and that the thread was reopened at your request within a few days.
Joe Offer

Where it may be irritating for some posters to have to see the titles of two or more threads on similar subjects - it is hardly justification for such obsessive imposed deletions and thread closures. These are only guidelines. Our forum will survive such terrible things as having to see two or more threads on one subject for a few days.

I am not so sure that it will survive some of the examples now set by (some of) our 'moderators' of what they judge to be acceptable posting behaviour or proportionate 'moderation'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:11 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 05:10 PM

"The rule you are unaware of is that Shambles is allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from threads in anway way he sees fit. Even if you stated that you believed the earth is round and Shambles drew the conclusion from that that you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, you would have no rights to question how such a conclusion could possibly be reached."

Don't be so thick. We all know that the world is round--like a saucer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:42 PM

Thank you for your explanation Guest 22 Sep 06 - 04:38 PM

That has clarified the situation and I do see how I fell foul. It was unintentional, but a blunder, nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:38 PM

If I have broken any of the rules, I would be very much obliged if you could enlighten me, as I have not done so to my knowledge.

The rule you are unaware of is that Shambles is allowed to interpret and draw conclusions from threads in anway way he sees fit. Even if you stated that you believed the earth is round and Shambles drew the conclusion from that that you were a member of the Flat Earth Society, you would have no rights to question how such a conclusion could possibly be reached.

I hope that clarifies matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:24 PM

Guest 22 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

If I have broken any of the rules, I would be very much obliged if you could enlighten me, as I have not done so to my knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:00 PM

Well, Mick, the only moderation that will be needed is of those who attack Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

I really do not see how anyone reading my post could interpret it in that way.

You can not be aware of the rules then.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM

I will post to clarify one thing about this poster. Then I am back out of any discussion of him.

The only restriction on this poster is one he richly deserves. It applies to his constant attack of the moderating of this forum. Among other things, this poster would carry that selfsame argument to threads that were unrelated, and he would hijack them from their original subject. For a number of years he would use cut and paste quotes taken out of context. The problem became so severe that the decision was made that he had one thread per day to post his monotonous complaints.

I would also point out that where he is simply taking part in a discussion of other topics, there are no restrictions. There are several other threads such as this that he is currently participating in. If you participate, you are part of the problem. I don't buy into this "I can't help myself" thing at all. Of course you can.

I agree with GUEST. Those that try and reason, or even respond to his posts on this subject only encourage it to go on. I much prefer the tactic that has been used of late to just ignore him and watch him flop about trying desperately to lure someone in.

I am now back out of this other than to monitor it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM

"Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said..."


Nothing I said suggested that I should have or desire to have any control over anyone else's posts. I really do not see how anyone reading my post could interpret it in that way. I merely suggested that your present tactic is not working and that, by doing what you say you want to do - i.e. taking part in reasoned discussions - plural ie on more than one topic - you might find that you could return to this topic later in the conversation.

It is how conversations work.

Should you not wish to do so, I suggest you direct your request to the site owner.

These are suggestions which do not in any way try to controll what you post or where you post - but may help you to resolve something which clearly takes up more of your day than can be healthy, in the long term. Even the most ardent campaigners have to use more than one tactic - especially when they can see that their preferred method is having little effect.

Unless, that is, your campaign is having precisely the effect you desire - having no idea of what your true desires are, I cannot, obviously, make any comment on that.   

Howeve, God has granted me serenity to accept the things I cannot change - what a pity he hasn't done the same for you.

Oh - and by the way - no-one is forcing you to read my post - nor did I force you to read the previous ones. They might even have been posted merely to refresh the thread - who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM

"It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made."

How? From what you posted, Joe offered you choices.   He even said "If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section." I thought your big complaint was that changes are made without informing anyone? Here Joe had the courtesy of telling you what would happen in public and you still find a reason to complain?

Boy, there is no pleasing some people!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:33 PM

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Right you did ask - so I will assume that you do want an answer.

I will start off with a question for you. What do you you think started all of this?

I was trying to to do just that and I still am. It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made.

Here is an example of an attempt to start a thread song.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM

Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix?

This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first?

Thank you.

Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu.

The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads.

If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section.
You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:32 PM

Well you've got the underdog sympathy vote Roger!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:21 PM

Shambles: there are some folks who seemingly wish to keep on your case. Ignore them. You speak for yourself, and you have done so for months in the face of people who love to gang up on others. Ignore them and keep about your task.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM

Thank you. I will have a second cup.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM

I know I should not feed into this thread either.

Then why do you do it? Are you forced to?

Ron you are of course welcome to discuss the thread's subject when you can't resist posting to and both refreshing and moaning about this thread and your named fellow posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:14 PM

No one is forcing anyone to read or respond on this thread. That means you too. I happen to enjoy Shambles' posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM

Frankly I think the Mets have a great shot at going all the way this year. I'm hoping the Yankees are eliminated in the first round of playoffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM

Wesley S came up with the following - he does not seem to think much of it now but I have yet to see it improved on.

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others.

I'm convinced.

Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said - as this will only confirm your already stated regret at having posted it. On top of all the other terrible things you feel I am responsible for - and I have no wish to disapoint you further.

It would have been nice if you had concentrated on some attempt to solve the problem rather than making personal judgements and rehashing the same tired assumptions. For nothing you have said will change anything. It will only continue to personalise and identfy this issue as a problem only for one poster - and the idea that it is an issue that can be solved by action against this one poster. I will not respond in kind, except to say that when I post to tell you what to post - you can do the same to me.   

The main thing that is stopping posters from discussing this topic is that they are encouraged join in the witch-hunt and post personal judgements of certain easy targets instead. Plus the fact that - as it is known that I will not respond in kind - being seen to be playing to the crowd in this manner is not only encouraged to be thought to be fun - it is also thought to be safe.

Do you need to be censored

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM

Once you've opened a thread where there is a Shamble Ramble, it just gets under your skin. This is the same argument with the same reasonings and mostly I get annoyed at myself for reading them at all. In the end what happens is I stop opening up Mudcat at all, sometimes for months at a time. I return, just long enough to get annoyed and then off I go again. And don't tell me that I should simply not open those threads because it's not always obvious that the thread was either started by him or hijacked by him.

The complaint is the same, it never changes, and it won't. He will find a reason why he is being persecuted and that the moderators are out to get him and this post as well will be villified to be from a poster that just doesn't understand.

I personally have only one complaint about the moderation of this forum and that is the length at which this current discussion has been allowed to continue. Having said that, I have no solution to offer, just sympathies to those who have to deal with it. You see, I can just leave as I have in the past, the moderators can not....God bless 'em.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:40 PM

Strongly suspect Guest is a certain female person from Minneappolis MN.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:33 PM

"No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts. "

Not a good answer. No one is forcing Shambles to keep posting either after he made his point. As shown above, Shambles has refreshed his own thread to keep it visible. I would suspect that he may be posting as "guest", something that he has also accused others of doing.   

I know I should not feed into this thread either. It is interesting to see that before Clinton posted yesterday, there was at least 24 hours when Shambles was the only one adding to this thread.   It seems telling that the only people that see any merit in this is Shambles and nameless Guest, who could very easily be one in the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:29 PM

No - I know - but we have also tried just ignoring threads and then he just gets cross at being ignored and starts posting off-topic on other ones!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM

No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:21 PM

Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run?

Sometimes in a converstaion, the following phrase is heard: Can we change the subject please?

It is usually considered impolite, once a participant in the conversation has requested this, to continue to discuss the original topic.

Numerous people have asked if the subject you seem to want to discuss might be dropped or changed.

I think people might be more willing to return to considering this topic if you demonstrated your willingness to join and discuss other threads, which weren't seen as so negative towards a situation they don't see as a problem.

...I know i'm going to regret posting this, but i felt I had to have a go... (not as in 'have a go at someone' but as in 'give it a shot')

People have often commented on my ability to show wisdom in strained situations - to pour oil on troubled waters - i can't see it working in this instance because I really don't think you want the perceived 'problem' to go away. I suspect strongly that, even if an announcement were made that From this day Forward, whenever a post is deleted or edited or a thread closed, an editing comment will be inserted etc ... you would still deny that this was being done ... I'm convinced.

I don't think either that Max or anyone should go down that line, because, as has been said many many times, it is Max's forum and it runs as he sees fit.

If you have a problem i strongly suggest that you ask Max via PM. If he doesn't respond by acquiescing to your request - I would accept that as being his answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM

Mudcat is structured. Nicely so, IMO

Our forum is certainly structured so that no poster is forced to read or respond to any post or open any thread that is not to their taste.

It is structured so that all threads could (and should IMO) all remain open, without any affect of the technical running of our forum.

So threads do not need to be closed or judged - as the only judgement required is for posters to lose interest when they cease to refresh them with new posts.

The simple beauty and effective nature of this structure is all that is required for peace - but only when and if this is first recognised and applied equally to all.

All posters need to be encouraged to do (in the form of moderation and by example) - is not post publicly only to make personal judgements of their fellow posters or to respond in kind.

Posters do not need to be encouraged to post only to complain about what their fellow posters chose to post (especially in the Help Forum). And any changes introduced as a result of posters complaining about what their fellow posters may choose to post can be ignored and told to mind their own business.

Such posters can be asked to concentrate on their own posts and that any editing changes will only be considered for their own contributions.

Where ever possible - all post should be seen to reamain as worded and where posted and anyone else who may not like this can be told to mind their own business.   

Yes - our forum is well structured - so why is this structure ignored in favour of measures destined only to inhibit open discussion, divide our forum and involve it in constant and seemingly endless personal conflict?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:37 AM

you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe".

[Is that you Joe?]
If that were to be the case - then it just as well for any 'newbe' that I am not just content (like far too many others) to just watch and say 'I'm alright Jack'. For then any 'newbe' and guest would have been tolerated less and treated even less well than you claim they are.

If I have been treated differently to any other posters - it is not my wish or made at my request. My request is that ALL posters are seen to be treated equally. And are able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship action, to enable our forum for the first time to be able to express an informed judgement on whether all this imposed in their name - is really proportiate.

Anyone trusting enough who wishes to sign blank cheques - is welcome to send them to me.........

I have done nothing but try for many years to post my moderately expressed and honest views on our forum for the purpose of reasonable discussion - but which no other poster is being forced to read or respond to.

Many completly bogus accusations have been encouraged to be made and many attempts made to justify the selective prevention, alterations, moves and restrictions on my posts and the deletions and imposed closures of many threads in which these posts appear. With various and ammusing attempts at justification, to make such closures sound noble.

All of these methods of inhibiting reasonable discussion are now attempted to be justified to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, as somehow enabling reasonable discussion to take place.

Quite how this is supposed to work - where there is room for all - has yet to be explained. But it is just the latest and inevitable result of a system of so-called 'moderation' that publicly encourages other posters to indulge in conflict and where (some) 'moderators' are seen to activly indulge in open conflict and witch-hunts mounted against named individual posters, to try to prevent their honest and moderatly expressed views from appearing or remaining (as posted) on our forum.

---

Nope. Not me. I spell the word "newbie," and I sign my name. But you knew that.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:05 AM

Bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:51 AM

As a long-term poster

you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:28 AM

I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce.

Now that is gratitude for you.

There are no real grounds to justfy this current silliness - let alone grounds to ban me. As a long-term poster who has always used a name and only ever tried to post my honest views. Who does not post to indulge in abisive personal attacks, does not respond in kind to the many I am allowed and encouraged to be subjected to. And who despite being publicly encouraged by (some of) oue 'moderators' to be seen as public ememy number one - has done nothing but post attempts at reasonable discussion and tried my best to avoid posting any personal judgements of my fellow posters.

I hardly think it 'fair' (to use the word favoured by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) that I am to be judged by those who wish to reamain anonymous - be they anonymous guest or anonymous 'moderator'. Especially the latter - who now appear to think that reasonable discussion is achieved on our forum by them selectively closing and deleting entire threads, 'silently deleting', moving and by generally judging, interfering and restricting posts containing only reasonable discussion.

I have tirelessly supported (and still do) the continued unrestricted posting from the public on our forum - but now - one of these unnamed guests posts with the suggestion that I be banned. And with added irony that I be banned by those who judge themselves qualifed to deny others the rights that they take for granted - but who openly post their preference for them (the public, guests non-members) to be restricted.

The only 'crime' I have commited is to try to reasonably discuss a subject that (some of) our 'moderators' would rather obviously prefer not have discussed on our forum. If Max considers this to be grounds to ban a poster then he will do so. I hope that he will not feel himself pressured into such an action but will find others ways of finally resolving this conflict. One that does not attempt to prevent reasonable discussion by drastic means that CAN only inhibit reasonable discussion and make our forum look foolish.

And that he can do this in ways that do not define reasonable discussion as views only that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team agrees with - but defines it as free and open discussion, where the poster' words remain as posted (wherever this is possible).

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 06:29 AM

There is no bad faith in evidence.

There is no evidence to enable any poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. If there is no bad faith - what is the problem in our 'moderators' being open in this?

Bad faith does not need to be a factor in our forum's judgement - for incompetence, over-zealousness can still be factors even when well-intentioned.

The question for our forum's judgement is if this imposition is really proportionate or has in in fact now become counter-productive? That perhaps if (some of) our 'moderators' were not so busy- 'waging war for peace' - peace may actually be perfectly possible without such drastic measures and their results.

If all editing comments were limited to only where some form of imposed censorship was judged to have been necessary and editing comments were always supplied on these occasions - our forum would for the first time be able to make an informed judgement about whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship was really proportionate.

For example - currently it can be claimed that any post of mine (or yours) that is silently deleted - was not and it non-apperance was due to a mistake by the poster or due to some technical glitch. It can also be claimed (or implied) that it contained much more offensive material than it in fact did - in order justify the imposition to our forum. As the evidence will have been 'silently deleted'.

Without being open about this - no poster is ever seen to be protected from abuse and no 'moderator' is ever seen to be safe from accusations that they have imposed judgement disproportionatly and abused their privilege. There is one way to end this conflict once and for all - so why not introduce it?

Perhaps there can be and end to selective restrictions that are now seen to be imposed on my posts in this thread and eleswhere (and supported by many posters it would appear)? This makes reasoable discussion impossible but is imposed upon our forum on the the grounds that 'silently delteting posts and moving posts containing only reasonable discussion is somehow enabling reasonable discussion. A concept that George Orwell would recognise as 'Doublespeak'.

Whatever your personal judgement of my worth or the worth of any other poster may be encouraged to be - perhaps you will agree that an end to this witch-hunt - will enable this subject to be seen to be sensibly and openly discussed on our forum like any other subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:39 AM

Rather than making our forum look like a poor school-boy joke.

You have a point there. The restriction has been in place for a while and it its achieved little other than giving you something else to complain about. I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce.