BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:32 AM

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:47 PM

Someone forcing you to read this thread? Gun to your head? Need a 911 or 999 call on your behalf?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:53 PM

Perhaps a better way to do this Shambles is to block you from posting to any thread in the same way that Martin Gibson was blocked. You are just as annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM

I can't believe this shamblesshit is still pilling up......

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:24 PM

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions.
Joe Offer

Do yuo really?

Perhaps the best way to do this is for our 'moderators' to just to allow reasonable discussion to take place on our forum?

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

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM

As there was never anything controversial about it - perhaps the following thread can now be moved back to the music section, where it may get some more contributions? And perhaps it could be given back its original title?

Do you support the Status Quo?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:28 AM

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

This is the true nature and current level of what you are asked to support as 'moderation'.

One day a still anonymous 'moderator' decides to delete an entire thread. When this action is brought to the attention of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's attention the next day - this imposed action is judged to have had no justification. End of story.

But is anything learned from this? Is our forum given any apology? What happens now to prevent such sillyness from happening again?

Nothing. Such things have occured time and time again and nothing happens or changes to prevent it. When such things are pointed out and suggestions made to prevent it - the accusation is taken-up that the same questions are being asked again and again.

We have a system in the UK that is supposed to prevent speeding. Cameras are run by private companies and are self-financing - by the money obtained from speeding fines.

So it does not take a genius to work out that such companies do not have any real interest in preventing speeding - as if they ever succeeded - they would put themselves out of a job.

No - an unmoderated forum is not a silly idea.

It is at least some ideal to aim for and any 'moderation' seen only a means to this end. But to some it would appear that this form of open-ended, divisive and secret 'moderation' - is an end in itself.

Posting restrictions are publicly announced against named posters for the 'crime' only of starting threads and posting. But anonymous 'moderators' who prevent 'reasonable discussion' by deleting an entire thread with no justification - remain anonymous and a 'moderator.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

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

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

The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:00 PM

Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing.

Paul - this remains a discussion forum and it is supposed to be fun. As there is no way that one poster can ever know what another's motivation may be - it is perhaps better for us not to follow the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'. That they now to use our forum as a means to judge the worth of their fellow posters and publicly make all manner of assumpions about aspects of named individual posters that they can have no real knowledge of - does not mean that you have to follow this example. And what this sort of thing has to do with 'moderation' - is not clear.

I cannot delete posts or close threads - I can only post and I need to make no excuse to you for what I choose to post. So what is the point of you speculating publicly that I may have 'provoked' our 'moderators' by what I choose to post. The day I tell you what you can post - is the day you can tell me. What you may choose to post is none of my business.

But the you have the chronology wrong. Before that thread was closed - posters there were not provoking anyone, just having fun. Perhaps any provocation was on the part of the anonymous 'moderator' who subjected the thread to imposed closure?

Perhaps you would also like to speculate publicly and make assumptions about their motivations for this provocation? Not in just trying to post - but in taking active steps to prevent others from posting.

If it matters, I started the Status Quo thread on the music section to enable posters to continue discussion on that subject. It may well have partly been in reaction to that thread's closure - for which I am for once in perfect agreement with the views expressed by current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - if not his actions.   

If anyone is to blame for confusing anyone - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for re-opening the closed thread, combining the two threads and then relegating it to the BS section and not the music section where is clearly belongs. Perhaps you will be taking this up with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM

Why is Shambles allowed to rant in both this thread and the one on mederated groups? I thought that he was limited to one per day?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:51 PM

And those ten are conspicuous by their absence on the SERIAL BULLY thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM

"Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run?"

The site owner can block Shambles' ability to post. The site owner doesn't. If you do not like what Shambles has to say, stop reading what Shambles has to say. There are about ten people who can't let Shambles be. Get a grip.

Keep saying what you have to say, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

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

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

The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:26 AM

Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread.

Paul you have obviously decided that I am the Anti-Christ and seemingly nothing I say will change that judgement. However I will make the effort.

The simple fact was that when I started the 'Status Quo' thread on the music section - the entire 'status quo' thread (with it music-related posts) had been deleted. This without any editing comment of explanation.

That thread was gone and history and there was nothing for it to be confused with - until the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team decided to overule the anonymous moderator's decision (was it you?), combine the dead thread with the Music one and send it to the BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:15 AM

"He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread."

Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread. An entirely different matter.

Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing.

Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:10 AM

I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job.
I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job.
Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT.

There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest!

Giok

Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles*

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

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

The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals.

If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures.

If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM

BS In favour of/Do you support the Status Quo?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 10:12 AM

A BS thread (called Do you support the status quo?) was deleted yesterday, for reasons unknown and by persons unknown.

Today - the title of a clearly titled music thread Do you support the Status Quo?
   has been changed without the originator's permission for some reason to In favour of/ Do you support the Status Quo - and has now been relegated to the BS section by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread.

The following editing comment was inserted into an existing post which did not refresh the thread.

Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

And who (conventionally) posted the following:

Subject: RE: BS: In favour of /Do you support the Status Qu
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 06:02 AM

The first thread was stupid, but I don't think that constitutes a reason for deleting it. I undeleted the messages from the previous deleted thread and combined them with this one.
But I think the "discussion" fits best into the "BS" category, where the original thread was located. I'll admit that's an arbitrary decision, but I had to pick one or the other.
-Joe Offer-

As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has judged (amongst other things) that there was no justification for some other anonymous 'moderator' to delete the first thread – perhaps the better option would have been to return this thread to the BS section and to leave the other one alone, to remain as posted in the music section?

But rather than feeling they 'have' to be seen to be doing something – perhaps it is better that our 'moderators' do nothing and let our forum decide? It certainly would be better if before they decide to impose any action – that they are at least seen to communicate with each other first and prefably first consult with the thread's originator.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 04:07 AM

Warning Missing Messages

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:31 AM

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem

You may or may not be interested to know that an entire thread was deleted yesterday.

Our forum has no idea what the justification would have been given for this action.
Or who was supposed to be protected by it.
Or who was responsible for this action.

As this action is imposed in our name and in order to protect us - perhaps we should be informed when and why any form of imposed censorship takes place?

And perhaps we should not be expected to or be seen to publicly support such actions - until we are informed?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:13 AM

Well I, and many others like its is, and yes occasionally threads are deleted, but by what I have seen moderating it is good,-

I could post that from what I have seen rock chick looks like a blond, 19 year-old supermodel.....But as from what I have seen I have no way of knowing this to be the case - what would be the point of such a post?

Such opinions and judgements made about the current system of censorship on our forum by any poster may be honestly intended but are uninformed. As posters have no way of knowing what the true nature and current level of imposed censorship is.

rock chick - like most of the rest of our forum will not be aware that yesterday an entire thread was deleted. If they are going to be allowed and encouraged by our 'modertors' and are interested enough to post in support of theses measures - perhaps it is only fair that all poster are made aware of what they are, and when and where they are imposed? Which is why I suggest the following.

In order to protect all parties - 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?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:17 PM

This place is more like it is now than it ever was before.

besides, Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:07 PM

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM

What is?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:52 PM

Yes, but this place ain't what it used to be, and never was.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM

Tried that and he follows people around and pollutes their threads with his paranoid parrot droppings.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:41 PM

The people who come to slag Shambles have the option of going to another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:58 PM

You gotta admit, Roger - that was very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM

Ad astra per aspera

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 01:11 PM

"pompous parsimonious prig"

Only a pompous parsimonious prig speaks that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

"I am a man that is always open to pursuasion and this is best attempted by reasoned discussion."


hahhahahahhahha

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 11:29 AM

Someone will be asking for this thread to be moved to the music section if we keep this up.

[PM] Max         Explain the BS rules (52* d)         RE: Explain the BS rules         26 Oct 99

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max

Graham - the object of our discussion forum is to enable and encourge discussion. That does not mean that we have to all agree - does it?

Perhaps you would accept that being seen to able to agree to disgree on our forum is a good enough thing to aim for?

Perhaps you would also accept that the 'silent deletion', selective restriction and the imposed closure of threads containing reasonable discussion are not measures likely to encourage reasonable discussion?

Perhaps you would agree that these measures can only inhibit reasonable discussion and that this is the object of these restrictions?

I am a man that is always open to pursuasion and this is best attempted by reasoned discussion. Force, name-calling and witch-hunts - perhaps you would agree, form no part of any kind of reasonable discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 08:28 AM

Oh well, since we're being musical and requesting equal treatment...

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
I read the terms of membership when I came in
It said that if I posted crap it might get binned
So I posted like I'd talk in real life
And others who took advantage got banned
That's their call when the writing's on the wall
Just another Graham I am.

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
Max told Roger "you too should head off son
If you don't like the way the Mudcat's run".
But Roger kept the same old thing up
And said in another thread he'd explain
But to my surprise, he cries "I'm victimised"
Just another Graham I am

I'm just another Graham I am
Just another Graham I am I am
When Roger asked us all just what was the score
Me and loads of others told him hundred times or more
But Roger wasn't looking for an answer
His pretence at conversation was a sham
So it's a two-finger sign to that non-stop whine
Just another Graham I am

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 1st
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 05:22 AM

What a mealy mouthed pompous parsimonious prig you are Shambles.
Try the Preparation H you pain in the ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:29 PM

You are correct, of course. Four hundred posts is a good place to stop.

If you think this - and as no one is forcing you to continue - you are of course free to stop reading and posting to it - then as far as you are concerned - this thread will have stopped.

Perhaps you will accept that if others should wish to continue posting to any thread in your absence that is their choice?

Why should a thread remaining open bother you, or be subject to anyone else's judgement and why do you think you should you be encouraged to deny other posters their choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:59 PM

You are correct, of course. Four hundred posts is a good place to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:41 PM

400 Now close it quick.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:40 PM

Good for what ails you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:26 PM

I admire your fortitude, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 01:46 PM

Do you not think that there is rather of lot of fuss being encouraged to be made about posts and threads that so few posters appear to read?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM

I'm Graham the First I am
Graham the First I am I am
I started the thread next door
And said what I liked on seven threads more
And every personal judgement was encouraged
Not 'silently deleted, or banned
Going to thumb my nose in a few threads more
Graham the First I am ...

In order to protect all parties - 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?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Grab
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:03 AM

I'm prepared to refresh the thread for that - bloody marvellous, Guest! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui 8
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:53 AM

I'm Ennui the Eighth I am
Ennui the Eighth I am I am
I got posting in the thread next door
Then remade the point on seven threads more
And every one was Ennui
You couldn't see a difference worth a damn
I'm now going to post in a few threads more
Ennui the Eighth I am ...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 06:49 AM

(o) Yawn, I presume that is more of the same boring rubbish, never read them myself, just the name Shambles at the top of the post stops me going any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM

Seen one Shambles post, and you've seen them all.

That may be so and may well be your honest opinion to which you are entitled to express, having at least been able to see such posts on our forum.

I hope you are not suggesting that this would be grounds to 'silently delete such posts, to close threads and to impose selective posting restrictions - as such actions would only deny any newer poster the opportunity of being able to decide for themselves?

The only one of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's 'trumped-up' charges that would concern me was if there was any truth in the noble-sounding justification given for him 'having' to impose these selective posting restrictions - is that my posts were in any way preventing our forum from conducting reasonable discussion.

It doesn't do any good to discuss any of this with Shambles. He knows the names of all the moderators, and yet he continues to complain about their anonymity. In a three-day period a week or two ago, I transferred all the messages we usually delete into his "closed and deleted" thread, so he and the rest of the world could see a normal sample of what gets deleted. This demonstration didn't satisy Shambles, and he continues to assert that the Mudcat moderators are silently deleting something or another. I guess I have to expect that Shambles will continue to assert that horrible but nonspecific things are happening in secret.

I can't think of how to devise a system that will provide absolute proof that these horrible nonspecific things are NOT being done by Anonymous Fellow Posters. I tried, but he didn't believe me, so it doesn't do any good to discuss anything with him. I guess it's good to just let him continue to believe in these Horrible Nonspecific Things and in his Anonymous Fellow Posters, because it gives meaning and purpose to his life. I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.

Can it be explained to our forum how simply attempting to post my views can prevent others from conducting reasonble discussion and how the imposition of 'silent deletion' moving of posts and the closing of threads by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team is somehow making reasonable discussion possible?

If it cannot - can these selective restrictions be lifted and all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Ennui
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 03:23 AM

Seen one Shambles post, and you've seen them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 06 - 02:33 AM

Comparison with ANY other poster's record will show why you are unique in this.

Any comparisons with the posting records of anonymous guests and anonymous 'moderators' are not of course possble. For all the terrible things I am accused of - in reality all I attempt to do is post my honest views under my own name.

Even if I were totally unique in my views - that does not make honourable the many and various attempts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team to actively prevent our forum from seeing these views expressed for discussion where and in the form they were posted.

If nothing changes as a result of my views, requests and suggestion, then my views will remain the same. They are posted under my name to enable any other poster who may wish to - to convince me otherwise. I have read little reasoned discussion and argument that has convinced me but I may yet.

It should be clear by now that no amount of selective restrictions or encouragement of bullying will prevent me trying to see that at least open discussion on this issue can continue. And until Max decides to scrape around to find some reason to ban one of this forum's longer term members and greatest supporters - I will carry on trying to ensure that posting on our forum is encouraged rather than inhibited.

If posters find this tedious, boring, repetitive or judge it not to be to their taste for any reason at all - that is their right. They do have to read or respond to these posts as no one is imposing any measures to force them. My view is that posters should be left to be able to decide for themselves and not denied this choice by the imposed judgement of a fellow poster.

That you may not agree with a poster's moderately expressed views or judge them not to your taste in someway - and no matter what hysteria is generated - this is NOT grounds to censor and attempt to restrict or prevent these views.

Nor is it grounds for posters to be encouraged to support these attempts in public witch-hunts and to post only personal judgements of a fellow poster's worth - as is the example currently set by (some of) those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 09:41 PM

OK then. Bye, Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:10 PM

Amen.