BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: curmudgeon
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 07:52 PM

Will you lot please stop picking on Roger. Get off this thread and leave The Shambles ALONE1

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:57 PM

[PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

I have asked before who protects us from the abusive personal attacks and offensive name-calling when these are publicly posted by (some of) our 'moderators' and often in editing comments.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:51 PM

The Shambles, your posting record shows why you in this position of being limited to one thread on your "pet subject". Comparison with ANY other poster's record will show why you are unique in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 06:35 PM

My posting record will stand up well against the posting records of those who who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters.

And who set the example that the posting of abusive personal attacks, name-calling are now acceptable posting behaviour on our forum.

And who publicly encourage other favoured posters to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters and to take part in witch-hunts - all liable to inhibit posting - rather than to encourage it.

The main point of the introduction of our 'moderators' was to protect our forum from abusive personal attacks. As (some of) these 'moderators' indulge in this themselves and make no attempts to prevent such offensive posts coming from certain favoured posters as long as these post are directed at certain easy targets - this part of our 'moderators' role is clearly not now taken very seriously.

Most of the current effort seems to be addressed at control and protecting our 'moderators' from any moderately expressed criticism about their actions appearing on our forum. Or at least inhibiting this and limiting our forum's opportunities to see it or respond to any discussion on this subject and encouraging public support for these actions.

The idea proposed to justify all this sillyness is that in someway the imposition of these selective restrictions - adds to reasonable conversation on our forum. Incredibly that for threads to be closed, and to silently delete amd move posts and encourage various other 'fun' attempts to prevent the moderately expressed views of certain posters from appearing as posted - is not our 'moderators' preventing reasonable discussion.

The fact is that all I CAN attempt to do is post. And my posts can quite easily be simply ignored.

The totally paranoid over reaction is to attempt to justify the prevention of my reasoned views appearing on our forum - as they have done since 1998 - by nonsense assumptions and accusations charged in highly emotive terms about 'flooding' and preventing others from taking part in reasonable discussions by 'crowding' them out by attempts to 'dominate'.

It is pretty clear how all these imposed restrictions will prevent resonable discussion but perhaps someone can explain how simply attempting to post views - (that others appear to wish were not posted) - in any way, shape or form can prevent other posters from taking part in reasonable discussion? For this is the charge.

Do you need to be censored

I don't - do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:56 AM

The Shambles, I don't think anyone doubts that you are the only person this sanction is applied to. It is a situation of your creation.

What we don't know is whether this "rule" would be applied to anyone else should they persitanly have multiple threads on a topic, etc. While I hope it is never put to the test, my own feeling is that you have set a precident and that any other poster constantly behaving in the same way would receive the same treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 06 - 08:25 AM

You may have missed the following editing comments as they were inserted into existing posts and which clearly demonstrate, that we are not now all playing under the same rules.

And this thread is closed, too. We allow only one Shambles-Dominated thread at a time. If we don't control him, Shambles tends to post the same thing in five threads, all at the same time.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I figure if he starts a complaint thread or posts five complaint messages to a single thread, that's the thread he's chosen to dominate - and all his other complaint posts get moved to that one thread.
The idea is to allow you to express yourself, but to control the duplication and domination. Say what you want - once. As has been said before, the problem is not the content of your posts, but the endless repetition. This restriction on you applies only to your complaints about Mudcat editing - your messages on this subject are confined to one thread at a time. If you post complaints to one thread today, in general you may not post complaints to any other thread today - you have to wait until tomorrow to post complaints to a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:38 PM

Again, I fail to see where I said that Mudcat is operating under a double standard.   Shall we look up the word "if" in a dictionary?

Why are you insisting that I have finally accepted anything?

Perhaps you do need to look up the meaning of if?

What I said was IF you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules - as now implemented by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - we could continue our discussion based on some kind of reality?

For in our discussion - you have moved on from a position of trying to maintain - against the evidence - that we were all playing under the same rules to a position where even IF this were not the case - any rules at all can be implemented. To which I have agreed could be the case.

So what is it? Have you now accepted the pretty obvious fact that we are not now all playing under the same rules on our forum? Or are you still trying to maintain that we are all playing under the same rules?

Or have you now returned to good old stand-by? Mudcat plan C (the witch-hunt?

Ron- if you really are at all interested in discussing this subject on this thread - perhaps you could explain what would be the point of our forum having rules if they did not apply equally to everyone?

If you are not and just wish to play to the usual suspects perhaps you could do that on Not posting to a thread Which has not been closed.

All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were once again seen to 'all be playing under the same rules'. Not all that much a heretical concept - some of us may think?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,KB
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:56 PM

Whew, it goes from nobody but Shambles to no Shambles at all. Quite a plot twist, that.
I know, I'm only feeding the beast, but it has only been about 10 minutes, I'm not really prolonging it much.

I really don't mean the following in a jerk-off way. Shambles, have you ever thought about finding a new past-time? Think of all the time you have spent on this. Might there be something more fulfilling? I am honestly not trying to be an a-hole here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:41 PM

You are right Art. I guess I was poking at windmills myself trying to get him to see what the rest of us see clearly. I will move on. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:40 PM

Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:39 PM

Wolfgang, I thought that this thread was really funny when I could look at it every few days and see that no one except Shambles had posted...and he did so every day, or several times a day, basically talking to himself. Let's go back to that, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 04:25 PM

Never was a harsher punishment dealt out by a moderator of a website than that by Joe to Shambles: he lets him post on on his course of self destruction to the amusement of the other posters.

Wolfgang (torn between laughter and pity)

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

Whatever turns you on.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:06 PM

Lucullus, you are either beneath me or below me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM

yo, Prof! How can he "debate some more" with The Shambles, when the Shambles doesn't allow debate since Shambles states false premises as fact; denies reality, contricicts himself and ignores anything that doesn't fit his strangely warped world-view?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM

What do you mean... "another one"? I am the ONLY research scientist who has made truly revolutionary progress in the study of symbiosis in the last 25 years! No one can compete with my achievements in this area. That's why I am going to win the Nobel Prize.

Now would you please get on with it? Debate some more with Shambles like you are supposed to. He can't respond properly if you don't, and I need some additional prime examples to fully flesh out my thesis.

I will be satisfied if together you can raise this thread to 500 posts in the next few days...as long as your average post does not fall below a total of 25 words in your case and 150 in Shambles' case. If so, it would call my whole theory into question, and that simply doesn't bear thinking about.

So be a good fellow, now, and get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:53 PM

great, another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:48 PM

At last! The perfect symbiotic relationship! I have searched years for an example of this. Years and years, I tell you! Thank you, thank you, Ron Olesko and Shambles! My efforts have finally been exonerated. I will now retire gratefully, accept my Nobel Prize, and bask in the fruits of my labors.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM

Again, I fail to see where I said that Mudcat is operating under a double standard.   Shall we look up the word "if" in a dictionary?

Why are you insisting that I have finally accepted anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

That this site's owners can implement whatever rules they want was never at issue. But up to now, Max has always made the effort to ensure that all posters are treated fairly and with respect. Perhaps you would accept this?

If you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules - as now implemented by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - we could continue our discussion based on some kind of reality?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:28 PM

That's the advantage of living in a world of your own like Shambles, nobody to argue with, and nobody to tell you you're wrong, oh so wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:11 PM

"Ron - so is that a yes or a no? I know you have already now moved on to plan B (i.e. the nonsense that there is now no need for a level playing field on our forum) but does that mean that you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules? "


Shambles, what are you smoking? Where did I ever say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:01 PM

Why won't this thread go away?

Well that dangerous and subversive thread will - as it has now been closed.


Done. No one has proven otherwise.

Ron - so is that a yes or a no? I know you have already now moved on to plan B (i.e. the nonsense that there is now no need for a level playing field on our forum) but does that mean that you have finally accepted that it has now been proven that our forum is currently NOT playing under the same rules?

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

so is that a yes or a no?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM

and....................




If you're British raise the first and second fingers
If you're American raise the middle finger

Make any gesture you think suitable in the direction of anyone you think is obsessed by an imaginary ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 12:54 PM

All those who see a double standard, please raise your hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM

Absolutely not! We are all working on a level playing field, and if I posted along the lines that you have I would expect a few deletions.

And what lines would they be exactly? And perhaps you could provide our forum with some evidence to support your claim?

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

If our forum had not been open to the public - there would not be any contributors to impose any rules upon. And had such 'rules' as you seem to find acceptable been imposed - there would not be our forum in the form that you found it.

But you would appear to want to have it both ways.

The justification given by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (and not the site's owner) for his selective censorship of my posts and closing of threads - is that he judges that my posting is somehow 'unfair'. So it would seem that he does not see the application of an unfair double standard on our forum as desirable as you would appear to.

And the attempt at justification made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is that in preventing my posts from appearing by 'silent deltion', and closing threads in which they are contained - is fair - as this imposed action is somehow judged to be enabling our forum to continue with reasonable discussion.

Perhaps you can explain how the imposition of this deletion and closure works toward such an end - on what you - on one hand claim to BE a level playing field and on the other hand - claim that is also somehow acceptable to not to have the playing field level at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 10:39 AM

"Perhaps you would accept that there has been no public annoucement to the effect that this policy intention has changed and that this was now a moderated site? "

No. I never felt it was an unmoderated site in all the years that I have been posting here. It seemed clear to me that this was a site was owned by someone and any ownership can make the rules as they see fit.

".. but it may be a good idea to at least inform posters of any major change - don't you think?"

I agree that is a GOOD IDEA to inform posters of "major" changes (and I do think that Max & crew have), but I don't think it is mandatory.   

If I invite you in my home and two hours later you light a cigar and tell you to stop, should you be allowed to continue simply because I failed to mention the "rule" at the start or gave you warning?

"do you accept that you (and any other posters) are able to start and freely contibute to any thread - but there are special rules and posting restrictions (including silent deltion) - that have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that apply only to me? "

Absolutely not! We are all working on a level playing field, and if I posted along the lines that you have I would expect a few deletions.

Frankly, even if there were a double standard - too bad! This is not a public forum, never has been, and the owners can implement whatever rules they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 06 - 10:20 AM

Unfortunately you appear to be the only long-term poster that feels that way.

One of the problems of our now split forum - is that many who post only on the music-related are now unware of discussions like this one - so it is difficult to state a definitive answer of what they may think - one way or the other. It is a bit like a ballot result where you don't send out a ballot paper or voting slip.

But the forum headings have not changed in any noticable way from when it was generally accepted that ours was an unmoderated forum (or at least when any imposed censorship was only a very last resort).
Perhaps you would accept that there has been no public annoucement to the effect that this policy intention has changed and that this was now a moderated site? And that it could be possible that some long-term music posters may still be unaware of the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. Especially as none of us ordinary posters who do take part in these discussions, can know this or make an informed opinion on it.

Policies can change on a whim, there is no harm in that - not for a forum like this.

Possibly not but it may be a good idea to at least inform posters of any major change - don't you think? The main policy that this is a forum open for the public's contributions has not (yet) changed. The worrying thing is that (some of) those entrusted to carry out this policy - now openly state that this attempt has failed and that they are now in favour of a change to exclude the public.

So perhaps those posters who do still beleive in, support the original policly and have always posted on that basis - do have good reason to question the will of (some of) those to use their best efforts to ensure that the original and current policy is made to work? Or of suspecting that they may not in fact be doing this?

"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Done. No one has proven otherwise.

I question how much proof you require that we curently are not?

For a start - do you accept that you (and any other posters) are able to start and freely contibute to any thread - but there are special rules and posting restrictions (including silent deltion) - that have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that apply only to me? I suspect that many posters may see this as one example of us not 'all playing under the same rules'.

Nope. Until Max pulls the plug on him, Shambles gets his one complaint thread to express what's important to him. If it gets out of hand, I'll close it and he can start another thread.
But if I close this one now, Shambles will just start another thread, and another after that, and another. I have no desire to do battle with him. I wish people would ignore him so maybe be'd be talking to a wall and get bored and talk about something else, or go away.
-Joe Offer-

I suggest also that had I posted only to call you such names as in the following example - that this would have been judged as an abusive personal attack and censorship action imposed. There are examples of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and (some of) his known 'moderators' setting the example that using offensive language and much worse name-calling as this - is acceptable posting behaviour.

More examples of this curent double standard set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are available - should you wish it?

I do not post only to personal judgements of named fellow poster or respond in kind to the many name-calling posts that are encourged to be posted to me. I am not protected from these (nor have I asked to be) by our 'moderators' but in fact it is (some of) these 'moderators' who openly set the example that such posts are acceptable posting behaviour. And at the same time judge themselves qualified to impose their judgement on me and other posters and also expect our forum to support this double standard.

"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

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

I've just now had one post closed and another deleted! It was my own fault though.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 09:35 PM

"Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

I would suggest this is the case only where such a policy was clearly stated and understood prior to anyone first entering a forum. Many long-term posters here are still under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum and they support it on that basis."

Unfortunately you appear to be the only long-term poster that feels that way.

Policies can change on a whim, there is no harm in that - not for a forum like this.


"All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'."

Done. No one has proven otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 09:08 PM

If it makes you happy it makes me happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 01:06 PM

Big injustice or small injustice - the only way you can ensure that things this will continue (or get worse) - is to do nothing.

Whatever you may attempt to do - you may not succeed in, but at least you will have made the effort and often you do not have the choice.

But I consider just to have this thread open (again) and be able to have this discussion on this subject - is a move in the right direction.

It does enable all posters to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 06:20 PM

And there's the rub Shambles.

Some are, some aren't (regarding edit buttons).

You ain't gonna change a thing here. Stop wasting your breath, fingers, thoughts, bandwidth, space. It hasn't changed, isn't changing, won't change. Let it go. What's it matter anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 02:30 AM

Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

I would suggest this is the case only where such a policy was clearly stated and understood prior to anyone first entering a forum. Many long-term posters here are still under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum and they support it on that basis. And a pretence is kept up (for their benefit), that this is still the case.

Our discussion forum has always been open by the site's owner, to encourage the public's contributions and it currently remains so. Should it not follow that posters should expect to see on our forum, the public's words as posted and be able to decide for themselves what to read, respond to or ignore?

And if this not now to be the case - is it really too much to expect that they are always made aware of when, and the reason why they are not seeing the public's words as posted, and the identity of whoever is imposing their judgement on the postings of others?

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 qualfied to impose their judgement on our forum?

And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to only where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate to our forum, where and why such action has been judged to be necessary, in our name and order to protect us?

A move to this open approach is the only way that posters can now feel safe from personally motivated editing actions and the only way 'moderators' can feel safe from any suspicion that their actions are personally motivated.

If (some of) the current holders entrusted with edit buttons are not now prepared to operate in this open manner - perhaps some new ones can be found who are?

Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 11:02 AM

Five in a row now. Last time, it was 15. How many this time?
Joe Offer

It is hardly fair of you to try and also encourage judgement to be passed on this - especially if you are also counting the posts that you 'silently move' there from this thread (and others).

Perhaps as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - you can concentrate on encouraging posters to contribute by being seen to treat all posters equally and openly - rather than being seen to think it amusing to set the example of encouraing other posters to indulge in games that are designed only to inhibit posting.

I speak as the only poster who really is NOT posting to this thread. Not that this is out of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 06:07 AM

I had some free time this morning, Roger, and I looked up your posting history. As you probably recall, your first post was in August 1998 and for a total of 12000 plus in the years since. Have you ever tried to suss out the percentage of complaining ones versus posts that showed us that you are glad to be alive?

No.

Is your post a complaint Ebbie? Our forum may not judge from the sound of this post (and many of your others) as if you are all that 'glad to be alive'. Especially if you consider that looking-up and posting only to make personal judgements of my posting history is really the best way of spending your free time. Do you consider that volunteering to anonymously impose your judgement on your fellow posters on our forum is showing us an example of being glad to be alive?

Perhaps you may accept that that no one is forcing you or any other poster to read my posts or respond to them? And that despite the example currently set by (some of) our 'moderators', that the posting only of personal judgements and complaints about a poster's worth is now acceptable on our forum – that however I may choose to post is really none of your business? And more importantly that my attempts to post my moderately expressed and honest views - is in no way preventing any other poster from contributing to any reasonable discussion?

That if I were not glad to be alive I could also ignore the thread's subject to respond with a post containing only a personal judgement of you? But as such a post would only litter-up our forum and totally fail to achieve anything except elicit a further response in kind - what would be the point of such a post? There are PMs for this - why not use them?

The following was posted when it was (wrongly) assumed that this site's owner, Max had prevented me from posting. Whatever the justification given for the selective restrictions imposed on my posts only, by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, this post shows that our forum's perception is different. That is only 'complaints' about one issue that are seen to be the problem to (some of) those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of our forum.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.

All I am suggesting and trying to be able to discuss on our forum, is a return to where we were 'all playing under the same rules'. If we currently were 'all seen to be playing under the same rules' – there would be little need for anyone's suggestions to be labelled as complaints. And for this to be done – in order to provide some justification for imposed restrictions and thread closures, just to prevent posters from deciding for themselves whether they wished to read, respond or ignore contributions?

The penny eventually appears to dropping and even the usual suspects (after thousands of posts) have finally grasped the concept that (conventional) posting to a thread only to make personal judgements about the worth of a poster -- only refreshes the thread. Sadly – and once encouraged – the usual suspects do not appear to be quite able to prevent themselves and now start threads to enable this witch-hunt to continue in this thread. Not posting to a thread

Where their fun games continue at the expense of a single poster but ironically in a thread where – due to the selective restrictions imposed on my posts only – by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - a thread which this poster is currently unable to post to.

Such a situation could hardly be described as fair – and as fairness is something that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team states that is his concern – perhaps all posters can once again be seen be treated equally and openly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM

I had some free time this morning, Roger, and I looked up your posting history. As you probably recall, your first post was in August 1998 and for a total of 12000 plus in the years since. Have you ever tried to suss out the percentage of complaining ones versus posts that showed us that you are glad to be alive?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 01:19 PM

Even if no one (but me) posts to a thread - it does not mean that it is not being read.

If the thread closed or a post 'silently deleted' - then no one is able to read it. Which is of course why this is now done on our forum and why noble sounding attempts at justification are made.

My point is to try to enable all posters to always be able to have the choice and not to have this choice made for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST,Zen Buddhist
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:11 AM

If a Roger posts in a thread and there is noone there to read it does it make a point?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:03 AM

It is sad that too much notice cannot be taken of any instruction or assurance given to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in the form of editing comments. For he has shown that he is not someone who feels his assurances should be honoured. Or apologises, takes any responsibility for the resulting effects of this failure or makes any effort to correct them. Seeing this presumably as part of the 'game' he feels he can set the example of encouraging to be played with the contributions that the site's owner has invited and in the process, compromising the integrity of all concerned in the process.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

It was not my request for any special treatment but the above assurance was publicly given to our forum in the following thread   Do you need to be censored?   which (along with nearly all the other threads on this subject) - is now closed.

Had this assurance been honoured – there would not have been any need for any subsequent threads to be started. No need for them to be subjected to imposed closure and no need to impose selective restrictions on a single poster or for noble sounding attempts to be made to justify these restrictions.

Perhaps these restrictions can now be lifted and all posters treated equally and any censorship judged to be required be seen to be undertaken openly and fairly?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:37 AM

Shambles,

Dewey is posting on another thread. Please go talk with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM

You could not walk into a movie theater and then start singing loudly when the feature starts - the management would throw you out. This is not censorship.

This would not be editing either - would it? But it would be imposition. And would being judged as being boring, tedious or repetitive really be grounds for any bouncers to throw you out of a theatre and then encourage and appeal for public support for this?

Of course, where one member of the invited public IS actually preventing others from enjoying or taking part in the the activity. It makes perfect sense to introduce proportionate measures to deal with this. But here - if you find a thread, a poster or post not to be to your taste - no one is forcing anyone to even open the thread, read the post or respond to it. Posters can decide for themselves. So why is it now thought somehow noble on our forum to prevent adult posters from being able to makaing this choice for themselves?

If such measures are seen to be used sparingly, openly and fairly, for the benefit of all - such measures would certainly have my full support on our forum. As they once did. If I supported the current censorship system on our forum - no doubt I would then be perfectly free once again to post these views in as many threads as I wanted. As other posters who support these actions, currently are.

When such measures are plainly seen to be abused by (some of) these 'moderators' and seen to encourage some of the invited public just to post only to judge and complain about the worth of their fellows and get these measures anonymously imposed on others - such measures - no matter how well-intentioned - are counter-productive.

For our forum is NOT a theatre - is it? The whole purpose is to enable and encourage contributions from the public. If these contributions are moderately expressed there are no grounds for any form of imposed editing actions. The bottom line - as any poster will be able to see - is that certain views are not encouraged and threads on this subject are quickly closed, posts are silently deleted and some totally bogus but noble sounding reason is provided as justification.

There is no reason why all discussion of this issue could not have always been contained on one thread. The reason why so many are started is BECAUSE any existing ones on any aspect of this issue are quickly closed in order to prevent discussion of it. The way all posters are treated on our forum is the only thing that all posters have in common but it is the one thing that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not appear to want our form to discuss.

If the object of our forum is to enable and encourage reasonable discussion on all subjects - perhaps our forum would at least agree that this is NOT acheived by our bouncers anonymously 'silently' deleting and moving posts and by closing threads and imposing selective posting restrictions on certain posters - because of what their moderately expressed and honest views may be.   

Whatever you may think - or be encouraged to think of my worth - the opportunity is currently here to have your say on this subject.

In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualfied 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: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:45 PM

No - I spoke too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:40 PM

Especially when I appear to be able to post to a thread called Not posting to a thread without these posts being subject to any anonymous imposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:33 PM

My dear Ebbie

Ebbie I am glad you found my sentence amusing – that was the intention.

Perhaps you can explain how reasonable discussion can now be possible? When as a result of measures designed to enable posters to carry on reasonable discussion - every other poster can post and even address posts to me – on to a thread called A return to only one section but they are denied seeing any response I may make – because some anonymous fellow poster is moving all my posts to this thread?

Perhaps you would agree that whatever your view of my worth may be - being seen to impose selective censorship measures like this - on one poster will only make the current methods of running of our forum look sillier than they already are?

Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:17 PM

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

At his request, I reopened it. apparently, he likes talking to himself there.
-Joe Offer-

I think this was in reference to the following thread Closed threads and deleted posts

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:07 PM

"All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion"

Roger, that sentence struck me as very funny. Shall we dissect it?

"All done to prevent me" (All done in the cause of keeping me from) "from preventing" (keeping me from) "reasonable" (sensible) "discussion" (communication)

"All done in the cause of keeping me from taking part in reasonable communication"

No. That's not what you said. Let me try again.

"All done in the cause of keeping me from making reasonable communication impossible."

That's closer.

Speaking of "setting an example", does it not seem incongrous to you to be the person perceived as making reasonable discussion impossible?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Nick
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 12:00 PM

Perhaps a naive question but does anyone else apart from Roger get censored?

Perhaps Readers Digest could do a shorter version of the (approaching) 1/3million characters on this thread (must be hugely over that if you pull in the other threads that say exactly the same thing).

READERS DIGEST ABRIDGED VERSION

Shambles: The moderators sometimes have moderated me and I think it's wrong.
The Moderators: Sometimes we moderate the threads - we believe we do this reasonably and without bias
Shambles: I don't agree with that.
The Moderator(s): OK
Shambles: I feel the need to reassert my position.



That's about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:57 AM

?? I am involved in a discussion. I made my point. It appears you are the one fanning flames here.

Why is it that when someone cannot logically offer rebutal or information that might change an opinion they it necessary to attack the individual, often becoming anonymous because they realize that their attack would be viewed as childish???   In that respect, Shambles is right.

I disagree with Shambles stance about Mudcat and the way he handled the situation and yes, I do think that he has taking it too personally. I tried to point out instances where I thought he was wrong. I made my case without any name calling or attack. If you wish to view it as something else in order to stir up controversy, then it becomes your problem.