BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:24 PM

In other words you intend to go round in circles again shambles...

Re:

No judgement by one poster of another's worth will change anything. And simply judging any reaction - without judging its cause - is just as futile.

shambles, I've read your comments, Joe Offer's, have my own eperience as a Joe Clone as well as as a poster here to go on, etc. The bottom line is how ever I try to look at things, what you say in trying to make "your case" makes no sense.

It points to other things but not what you seem to want to convince others about.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 06:58 PM

100!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: skipy
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 07:06 PM

&1
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,FIELDVOLE
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:13 PM

Shambles.

Unfortunately I would say give it up, you aren't going to get through
to this lot here! Even if you are correct, or it is a good idea.

I do think we should at least have a marker of some description on
a deleted post so that the thread has continuity, it's hard enough
at times to read a thread given that the posts are quite often out of
chronological order these days. And why not anyway?


NOTE!!!! THE SECTION BELOW WAS WRITTEN BY ME BEFORE THE FIRST TWO
          THREADS WERE CLOSED, I DECIDED NOT TO POST IT AT THE
          TIME, BUT **** IT. YOU MAY AS WELL HAVE MY $1 AS WELL.

Snip.........................................................

When I first arrived here, (probably whilst looking for lyrics as a
lot of us do), I was so pleased that I had found you all, it was my
kind of place! And, as I have said before on other threads,
thank you ever so much to Max, Joe and the other people who run
the 'Cat, and the great people who post here with all their opinions
and knowledge.

At that time, the way I saw it was that the threads were pretty
much wide open, people said more or less what they thought and
gave their opinions freely.......nearly anything went.

It had a good atmosphere, the trolls and others were there, but the
main point was IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE THREADS, YOU DIDN'T READ THEM!
It was MY choice, to do so or not. I would open a thread, read a
few posts, then decide whether I wanted to read on or not.
I assumed at the time that the mod's were taking care of the real
crap and spam that came on to the board.

THEN THE WHINGERS AND WAILERS, MOANERS AND PC PEOPLE ARRIVED!!!!

Slowly it started......

I didn't like what you said about......

I don't like the comment xxxx made, can we have it deleted.....

This thread should be below the line, (this being the second post in
a thread started by a nice guest asking for help, by the way).

You mispelled this word.

Etc, Etc, Etc. Until you got used to opening a thread
and finding a good discussion peppered with posts objecting to this
that and the other or someone beefing about what someone else had said,
and in the process forcing the moderators to take actions that they
possibly might not have done.

And slowly all the good posters drifted off to lurk, and the 'Cat
became what it is today.

I agree with The Shambles that I too have read through threads only
to come upon a post which is objecting to an earlier (DATED) post,
I go back up the thread to find out what they have been talking about,
only to find nothing, I go up and down again, nothing again, I carry on
but feel a bit annoyed that I don't know what had been going on, even
if it was bad or flaming. if a "deleted" message had been left I would
not have looked further and assumed that the post was so bad that
the moderators felt that they had to protect me from it.

I remind myself. I AM AN ADULT, I *CAN* MAKE UP MY OWN MIND.

The same applies to threads. I have gone back to look for threads,
refreshed on three days, not there. Refresh on seven days, not there!
Refresh on fourteen and above days, not there! But nothing to say
that xyz thread has been deleted.

I really don't see why a simple "Post deleted" or "Thread xyz deleted"
cannot be put in it's place. No reasons given if you don't want.

If the people who keep objecting to things keep it up then the board
will continue to deteriate. If you don't like something, don't read it!
If you have read it and didn't like it, skip past it to the rest of the thread!
And if you don't like the rest of the thread....DON'T READ IT!!!

LEAVE THE MODERATORS TO DO THEIR JOB:

BUT......I repeat. I AM AN ADULT, I *CAN* MAKE UP MY OWN MIND.

We are mostly adults here, we can make up our own minds. thank you.
And please remember, I like the music that you don't....YOU like the
music that I don't. And the same applies to the threads.

I personaly think that the threads like "Are hamsters rubbish".......
"Are turtles rubbish"....... and all the "clone" threads should be
deleted. BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY SO, because it is not my place to
do so....and somebody else may like them. I just don't bother
opening them,

Why are we pandering to the moaners, pedants and PC people anyway?
we didn't seem to before and the board ran well. Now if you post you
have to nit-pick in case you upset someone. I would suggest that
Dave the Gnome, in an earlier post,
(23 July, if it hasn't been deleted without trace) is correct!

I too feel that the board has deteriated over the past few years,
but feel that this has more to do with people moaning about things
instead of just accepting that this is somebody elses POV and passing
over the post. Now they start a war over the item instead of just
ignoring it.

I can understand what you are trying to say Shambles, you tried
another thread on the help section where I was in agreement with
what you were trying to say, and I think that a lot of the time you
make sense, but as I said earlier, you won't get through, you'll
get shouted down by the very people who are making a mess of the board
with their disagreements.

I can now see why Shambles has to keep on posting the same thing
over again in a different way....because he's not getting through,
if all that he wants is a marker on a deleted post...WHY NOT?
Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do.

And if he wants to alert the board to what he suspects is over
enthusiasm on deleting post/threads then surely he should be able to
voice his opinion on that as he would on any other subject.


FINALLY:

WILL ALL THE WHINGERS, WHINERS, MOANERS AND PC PERSONS LEAVE THE
MODERATORS TO DO THEIR JOB AND SEE HOW IT WORKS OUT!

HOPEFULLY THE MODERATORS, IN TURN WILL NOT DELETE REASONABLE POSTS
EVEN IF THEY ARE LONG, COPY/PASTE OR NOT PC.

Snip.............................................................

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:21 PM

"if all that he wants is a marker on a deleted post...WHY NOT?..."
1) That's NOT all he wants. His list of wishes is unending.

"Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do."

2)You are not doing it...you have NO idea what it would take to both follow & edit and sort and explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:33 PM

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:35 PM

"Why all the hoo-ha for a simple request? It's not difficult to do."

2)You are not doing it...you have NO idea what it would take to both follow & edit and sort and explain.

Well I know what is would mean.

"This post was marked deleted as spam but are we to accept the word the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that it was spam or might it have been deleted for some other reason? And how do we know who deleted it? Perhaps one of our unknown anonymous volunteer posters who consider themselves qualified to judge us on our made a mistake, or...."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:55 PM

OK, Fieldvole, I'll tell you why there are no markers for deleted posts.

When we delete problem posts, we're usually dealing with people posting large quantities of problem messages. For many months, I spent an hour a night reading every single message Martin Gibson posted, deleting every one that had even a hint of combativeness. I read them off a list of messages from Martin's IP - I just don't have time to read them in context. If they need deletion, I delete them by clicking the "delete" button - I don't have the time to go to the thread and see if people have responded and if the missing message is going to cause a problem.

We have other situations where we get a troll who will come in and post a dozen messages and then leave. I handle those the same way. I work off a list of messages from the IP, read them, and decide.
Another thing - if I delete a message, it stays on a record I can see, but it's not visible to other Mudcatters - there's no way to put a marker in to document the deletion, unless I go to the previous message and add a comment.

That being said, I DO insert editorial comments where there is a good reason to - but I don't often see a good reason when it's just deleting nastygrams from BS threads. It's just too tedious a process for the benefit it would provide.

People make far too much a deal of this deletion stuff. Most of we delete is obviously suitable for deletion - leering sexual comments, overt racism, crude and repeated name-calling, outright gibberish, repeated messages, and non-music advertising/Spam. The people who post this stuff know darn well that their stuff will be deleted - they post lots of this stuff. Most Mudcatters never have a message deleted - and if they do, they're usually contacted and given a private explanation. But for the repeat offenders who post large quantities of objectionable messages, it's just not worth the effort.

And yes, there's another reason for not posting explanations of deletions - if we delete something, we don't want to bother arguing about it. We have our own internal system of review of editorial actions, and it's a pretty good system. Sometimes, we're not at liberty to publicly discuss the reason for a deletion. Most Mudcatters trust us to do an honest job, but there are a very few who make a lot of noise about a lot of nothing. They say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but we're not here to serve those few "wheels" that do nothing but squeak.

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,FIELDVOLE
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 08:59 PM

Jon.

Yes, point very much taken, as I said, my thoughts were written when
the first thread was only about a third of what it ended up as.

I do see your POV and know that this is how it COULD end up, but
on the other hand.....maybe not.

Incidentally I have been on another site this evening where I came
upon a post simply marked "deleted", looked good to me, and no, I don't know how much it would take to mark a deleted post, but if you are going to the trouble of deleting it it wouldn't be too much trouble to just replace the text. maybe I'm wrong in which case I
apologise.

I must admit that it still makes sense to me to mark a deleted post.

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:07 PM

Fieldvole, the way this forum is set up, it takes a lot of work to mark a deleted post, and it destroys our record of the post that was deleted. Max, Jeff, and I review those deletions to ensure that they are justified.
The only way around that is to post an explanatory remark in the message previous to the deleted one, and it gets complicated.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,fieldvole
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:10 PM

Thanks for that Joe, I cross posted with you there, I apologise for that.
I/we do appreciated what you do for us! I realise that you spend a great deal of (unpaid) time deleting the stuff that none of us wants
to see and am very gratefull for that, but as I said, if it is at all
possible I think that a post should be marked to give a continuity
path if you know what I mean. If it isn't possible then fair enough.

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:15 PM

As I said Joe, fair enough, that explanation covers it admirably.
If it had been explained like that in the beginning...well maybe
these threads wouldn't have come to this.

Thanks

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:20 PM

Fieldvole, as far as I know, this marking the threads one is a recent one in the years this business has been running.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:29 PM

I'm usually quite open about what we do - but what I say gets lost in the huge volume of the discussion of Mudcat editing policy. The entire discussion centers on one individual who posts the same thing over and over again, ignoring the answers given to his questions.
It's like trying to have a reasonable, adult conversation in the presence of a child who's having a tantrum.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 09:29 AM

I'm puzzled about your charges of censorship. You constantly stress the importance of your topics - freedom of expression at Mudcat and the Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK - and imply that we are attempting to suppress information on these important topics. Nobody here disagrees with your position on these worthy causes. But no matter how worthy the cause, is it fair to flood us with megamultiples of your opinions, so that the opinions of others are lost in the deluge of your own verbiage?
Joe Offer

The above sounds all very noble but again - we see this concept of what is judged to be fair - being used to justify mean-sprited and selective editing actions that are not in the least bit fair.

Is it 'fair' for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be making assurances to our forum in editing comments - that are not honoured and still expect their words and actions to be thought credible?

And we have yet more examples of appeals from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, for support from the mob, for what are simply personally motivated judgements. For there is not and there has never been the slightest chance that simply by posting, that the opinions of others are lost is there? But it is a very emotive sounding call for yet more more personally motivated judgements to be made from the 'usual suspects' and sound justified.

When the only sure-fire way to ensure that the opinions of others are lost on our forum - is for our 'moderators' to get excited and subject them to anonymously imposed censorship for the slightest of reasons..... The same loss by this method, does not seem to be much of a concern to (some of) our 'moderators'. I wonder why?

The main concern for all this appears to be to ensure that our forum looks tidy. Are there not more important concerns and other more proprotionate ways to achieve this - without automatic 'silent deletion'?

Actions, they say speak louder than words. So as this is the only thread on the subject that is allowed to be open - it is clear that the subject of freedom of expression at Mudcat (which is further limited by him to the BS section) is not one that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is really very keen to see discussed openly on our forum.

As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has also recently closed a long-running thread on the subject of Public Entertainment Licensing in the UK is also clear that tidyness is now thought - by him - to be far the most important. consideration.......Perhaps our forum does not share this view?

---

I am unaware of any such thread that is closed. If such is the case, please direct me to the thread and I will review the action.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 09:45 AM

See how it goes, Fieldvole. An explaination for one thing is given so shambles picks on something else, in this case a comment made on 10th of August. We are supposed to forget everything else and carry on with whichever direction he chooses.

Shambles has only one consistancy with all of his requests and arguments and that is to find fault with Joe Offer and to a lesser degree the other volunteers. There is no desire whatsoever for any resolution (except maybe Joe resigns or Max sacks him).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Alba
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 09:53 AM

Well Joe I will hand it to you, explaination after explaination when none is even required. My Hat is off to you. How many years is it now 7 or 8!! Holy Crap!

I have watched this fiasco unfold for, oh quite a long time now and in my opinion. I think that the anon poster known as Shambles can have a WHOLE thread all to him/herself to whine, moan, talk shite...for whatever and I mean quite literally A whole thread

For myself however, this is without a doubt the final time I will look into this or any other thread of this nature started by the above mentioned poster.
There comes a point where I realise that I am not helping this person, I am only enabling this person and by enabling causing the Administration of this Forum a moderating hassle.

You, Joe, and many of the Admin Volunteers, have supplied the answers to just about every question that has been asked and more. I caught a drift a looooooooooooooooong time ago.

So it's TaTa from Alba to "Closed Threads and Deleted posts"
Which is truly a waste of bandwith and without a doubt a futile waste of precious, creative energy too!

Remember Folks Shambolitice is catching and carries a health warning.....!!!!!!


Roger, all I have to say to you from now on regarding this topic is.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:00 AM

There are very few (if any) people I would consider myself qualified to imposed my judgement upon.

You may judge that my expectations of those who would feel qualified to impose their judgement on me - are high.

When their actions are shown in any way to bring question to the integrity of all in such positions - I would expect the individuals concerned to accept that they had become a liabilty and remove themselves from any position of privilege and responsibilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:08 AM

There are very few (if any) people I would consider myself qualified to imposed my judgement upon.

You never cease to impose your judgement on the volunteers here. ~It is part of your perpetual abuuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM

You also ask people to judge from your "evidence" and then accuse them of jusdging when they do not find in your favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:01 AM

Roger. Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.

Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM

Yes I remember that one:

Im a free porn man of the travelling nation-

one of their best.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:12 AM

I think that a post should be marked to give a continuity
path if you know what I mean. If it isn't possible then fair enough.
Fieldvole

The only way around that is to post an explanatory remark in the message previous to the deleted one, and it gets complicated.
-Joe Offer-

So what is requested IS currently possible.

And what exactly gets complicated is not explained. But the reason why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not want to do as requested - is as follows.

That being said, I DO insert editorial comments where there is a good reason to - but I don't often see a good reason when it's just deleting nastygrams from BS threads. It's just too tedious a process for the benefit it would provide.
Joe Offer

The main benefit it would provide is to a poster not knowing where their contribution had gone. They would then know if it had or had not been deleted.

Secondly, our forum would be able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship. They could then judge the judgement made in their name and be able to express an informed opinion on its proportionality - for the first time..........   

Frankly I do not now care how tedious the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would find this - as this not a concern that should be very high on the list of concerns for our forum. There may be others willing to take his place - who may not judge that finding something tedious was
good enough reason to refuse a simple and basic request, such as this one...........

What all this boils down to is that: The current Chief of the Mudcat cat Editing Team can be seen to set the example of posting abusive personal judgements, call posters offensive names and incite others to follow suit. That he can be seen to place assurances in editing comments that he does not honour, impose special posting restrictions on selected individual posters. And insert editing comments where and when he chooses but refuse to do this when requested.

In fact the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges that he can do now exactly as he wants to with the contributons of others and despite personalising and blaming the whole issue on one individual - still expects to retain some credibilty and for posters to accept that there is no personal bias on his part in any of these actions.   

What it boils down to is that despite what is still politely requested - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not WANT to do it. Good enough?

You judge. And perhaps by the same harsh standards that other posters are expected to subjected to.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:21 AM

You judge

Here we go again. You want us to judge but call us judgemental when judgements do not agree with yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:48 AM

If you'd all just ignore him and let Joe deal with it........he's just another troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 12:35 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM

"What it boils down to is that despite what is still politely requested - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not WANT to do it. Good enough?" Shambles

Yep. That's good enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:54 PM

Shambles, when I asked Joe why we couldn't put a message in place of
the deletion, he gave me a perfectly good answer. That it is more
awkward for the admin team to do that, on this particular type of
message board, than it is to just delete the post.

It also bu**ers up THEIR record of events, and that is more
important than OUR knowing where a post has gone to.

Now, much as I agree in a way with a lot of what you are saying,
that is the answer that is given and we will just have to leave it
at that and live with it.

PLEASE!!

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM

I am unaware of any such thread that is closed. If such is the case, please direct me to the thread and I will review the action.
-Joe Offer-

You may have missed the above editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Joe - are you serious trying to inform our forum that you did NOT close the thread that I am referring to?

Or that you are going to continue to maintain a pretence to our forum that you are not fully aware of which thread I am referring to?

Which having closed it - you are of course perfectly aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:19 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

Shambles, when I asked Joe why we couldn't put a message in place of the deletion, he gave me a perfectly good answer.

I agree with much of what you say also.

And I am glad to see that you are satisfied with your answer.

I note your request, but as I consider what you may choose to post is a matter for you - perhaps you will accept that what I choose to post is a matter for me?

However the question is less why this could not be done as why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not WANT to do it.

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:25 PM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:43 PM

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

And that he would do this - even after assuring our forum (in an editing comment) that it would not be done.

A fact evidenced in this thread by me - and still ignored by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.....

And who still expects his words to be given some credit.......

The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread. Thus far in this one thread, you have copy-pasted my "This thread is closed" comment four times, and my "this thread is to be kept open" comment a number of times.
-Joe Offer-

Instead of just using this as an excuse for more groundless personal judgements - perhaps it can be explained to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team why this assurance given by him to our forum in an editing comment - was not honoured?
And why no apology is provided for not doing so?
And why our forum should expect any other assurance given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team to be honoured?

Or instead of this - will some urgent excuse be found by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to close this thread also?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM

The problem, in your case, is your compulsion to flood the Forum with the same words, over and over again - there is strong evidence of that compulsion in this very thread.

So shambles demonstrates his compulsion again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 03:13 PM

OK, Roger. You judge. I have undeleted every message the volunteers and I deleted in the last three days, and I have moved them all into this thread. Please tell the nice people why I should have to post an explanation for all of these deletions. These are normal examples of the messages we delete.

You will note that they are ALL porn or Spam messages from anonymous posters, except for one message from weelittledrummer that doesn't make sense without the porn present. I'm sure weelittledrummer won't mind.

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. You might even provide a link to the threads you're talking about, so people will understand. But what's the sense in continuing to argue about the closing of a thread when that action was reversed three months ago?

Oh, you have continually challenged my "This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say" statement, and have even pointed it out to be a lie. Well, Roger, you are allowed one "complaint" thread at a time. As long as you kept your complaints in that one thread, that thread was kept open. Once you started posting your complaints in another thread, the earlier thread was closed. That's the breaks. Most people naturally confine their remarks on a subject to the current discussion on that topic. Over a period of a number of years, you continually posted the same information over a number of threads, all at the same time - so very moderate measures were taken to compel you to act as others do naturally. Let me repeat: no attempt has been made to control the content of your posts, but we have had to channel your remarks into a single thread, instead of continuing to allow you to post the very same thing in a number of threads at the same time. It's your constant repetition that's the problem, Roger, not the content of your posts.

I usually try to answer all questions the first time they're asked. When the same person asks the same question over and over again, I don't bother answering. These unanswered questions do tend to make it appear that I'm withholding information, but that's not the case. It does, however, make it very difficult for the rest of us to carry on a reasonable, productive discussion of Mudcat editing. The volunteers and I would very much like to serve the needs and wishes of this community, but not the petty paranoia of one individual.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 06:32 PM

"Subject: RE: Review: The Dubliners - What's the big deal?
From: GUEST,Porn - PM
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 06:33 AM"

Hey Joe, why you leaving this crap on the 'cat? Wake up there, son. Jaysus, what the hell kinda site administrator ARE you?


LOLOLOLOLOL

Subject: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: GUEST,depressed
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:32 PM

well... who the f*** cares anyway..?

sod it!


its all a waste of time and no one gives a monkeys anyway..



bollocks..!!!!



wheres my anti depressant tablets...?


f** it must have got confused and swallowed them all in one go


teatime last night.....


thats a nice hit thatd felod ew\inh fom te..zdsjsddddddddddddd

im ok dont wh\nt to gerthospirtlized and sexcrineed

cusx inm ok realy

Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:54 PM

canty remeber f i took my tablet

and i dont care if i take too

curz no no else fier cares

so why skiould i

i dont givegurt momnkeys


fudki t if i live or die


useless s pile of bolloks it is

Subject: RE: BS: F*** it whats the point.. why bother ?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 11:57 PM

This type of shit is the worst of trolling. Gets people concerned for no fucking reason. Piss off, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:02 AM

Too afraid to answer Shambles?

If setting a bad example isn't working, why do you continue to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: mudchat, why is there never anyone there
From: GUEST,depressed
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM

because the sad fucking loser wankers who hold power over life and death..

[in their own sad loser immagination]

stifle creativity and expression here

with the pathetic little delete button they command..


sad fucks they are

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,depred
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:17 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,depressed
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:19 AM

sad twats with delete buttons...

fuck you


you useless shite pellet

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:43 AM

Well, I think we have a tendency to respond by counterattacking large populations of people who have nothing to do with terrorism. I think that our responses to terrorism have been misdirected and ineffective, and have only served to make a bad situation worse by destroying any sympathy the world had for us.
So, yeah, I think we need to re-think things - to respond, but to respond judiciously.
-Joe Offer-

This not to make any judgement about the relative importance of two totally different issues. But I do think the criticism and the suggested approach has some relevance for this issue - if the word 'terrorism' in the above was substituted for words like ' abusive personal attacks' - 'flaming' - trolling' - spamming etc.

Generally the measures taken to try and deal with the (thankfully still rare) extreme terrorist actions - mostly affect and restrict the daily lives of ordinary people. As we can see currently, where thankfully there has been no loss of life. But the publicity and disruption caused by the new additional restrictions - on top of the ones already in place - for ordinary air-travellers, have had the effect disired by the terrorists anyway.

I have requested a few things here. Most of them have not been accepted. I did NOT request that all recently deleted threads be placed in this one. But now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided to do this - no doubt the blame for this will be shifted to me. When posters complain that the inclusion of such posts have offended and corrupted them............

But their appearance unbidden in this thread does not seem to have made the the whole Mudcat world crumble.

So perhaps these posts can safely be left where they are posted and all the restrictions, secrecy and division that is justified to deal with such things - can be seen to be disproportionate and re-thought?

Part of the reason for the request that all imposed censorship actions be recorded was in the hope that this would result in less imposed censorship actions. Especially as the automatic way of dealing with any perceived problems. And that an attempt could then be made to find less drastic solutions and a return to all of our 'moderators' (and posters) setting a better example of posting behaviour and leading by this example.

And that those posters who are currently encouraged by the example set - to only post to make personal judgements about the worth of their fellow posters and complain about what others chose to post - can be told to mind their own business and to concentrate on their own posts - by our (few remaining) known and still credible 'moderators'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:54 AM

Give us a break - we volunteer editors don't get paid to do this work, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.
-Joe Offer-

If you can't stand the heat - no one is forcing you to stay in the kitchen and feel that when you get hot and bothered you have some right to throw pots and pans at the customers.

Give us a break - we ordinary posters don't get paid to do this either, you know. We're here because we enjoy being part of this community and we want it to be a peaceful, enjoyable place to visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:14 AM

Roger, most of this stuff was deleted because somebody asked us to delete it - although it all would have all been deleted sooner or later. It seems that if Internet forums allow Spam to be posted, it gets posted in increasing quantities. I don't know why, but that's what seems to happen.

I moved the deleted messages from the last few days to this thread, so that people can see that we're telling the truth - that the messages we delete are just plain garbarge, and that such deletions should require no explanation or justification.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:25 AM

Unfortunately Joe, while you can provide pretty convincing evidence that Mudcat gets spam, you can not prove that you have not been selective in what you are showing the forum. Also, under the current system, even if for example the previous post was edited manually, you will still not be able to proove that this has occured for every deletion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't need convincing. I'm just commenting that whatever you do, at least under the current system, you could still be just as subject to "us not knowing the true level of censorship in our forum" as you are now. The only way that should remove that sort of doubt is system that automatically took an action,

eg. assuming the "deleted messages" are hidden but remain connected to the thread, it's unlikely to be to difficult to show "message deleted" instead of the posts content for messages marked as deleted.

That type of thing though is something I know you can not do yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:30 AM

Roger, most of this stuff was deleted because somebody asked us to delete it - although it all would have all been deleted sooner or later.

So these somebodies are not going to be very happy now you have decided to place it all here for whatever reason you decided to.

Our forum does know what spam is and what other things are out there - without this demonstration. And again you use the method of demonstrating the sort of obviously questionable posts that few poster miss much and would judge harshly - to confuse this with the heavy-handed methods used to ensure it does not appear.

The point is that these as the very same methods that are automatically imposed on far less questionable posts. When the only sure-fire way to ensure that the opinions of others are lost on our forum - is for our 'moderators' to get excited and subject them to anonymously imposed censorship and often for the slightest of reasons.....

And as you know my main concern is when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Forum's excitement leads him to propose to Max that the only way that he can impose the 'peace' that he requires - is for our forum to be changed into a members only forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 07:01 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

[..]
However the question is less why this could not be done as why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not WANT to do it.

For I am quite sure that IF he did want to do this - or indeed anything else - it would be done - whatever its effect and whether you or I liked it or not.

-------
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:30 AM

[..]

And as you know my main concern is when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Forum's excitement leads him to propose to Max...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 07:04 AM

Oh, you have continually challenged my "This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say" statement, and have even pointed it out to be a lie. Well, Roger, you are allowed one "complaint" thread at a time. As long as you kept your complaints in that one thread, that thread was kept open. Once you started posting your complaints in another thread, the earlier thread was closed. That's the breaks.

The above explanation (for moving the goalposts) may have been an acceptable one - had the assurance you given by the Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team, to our forum in that editing comment - This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say as long as he does not say anything in any other thread at any other time..

Perhaps you would confim that the assurance given was only? This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. And that his assurance that that thread was not going to be closed - is perfectly clear?

For there was no mention of the word 'complaint' in this assurance or any other qualification made in it - was there?

And as you admit to responding to complaints from (some) other posters to justify some of your editing - your view on the desirabilty or otherwise of 'complaints' seems to depend on what they are about and who may making them.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team obviously does not feel that he has to honour his assurances, given in editing comments and can change his mind at any time and attempt to justify this.....

Any future assurances grandly presented for public consumption by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team must be seen in the same light - to mean very little.