 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:32 PM See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM A prime example of spamming is described here. That alone would get a user suspended or even banned at most sites. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:11 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: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:06 PM And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you? See my post here10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM The PEL threads were too much for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made so many wrong assunption, personalised the whole thing and got his knickers so competly twisted that they have never unravelled since. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Wesley S Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:50 AM And Roger - you don't see your part in any of this? Joe just suddenly turned on you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM No... it's not... so why are you doing it Shambles? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:49 AM So you're judging it to be bad? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:45 AM Well setting a bad one certainly isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:44 AM Perhaps setting a good example was no longer working. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:42 AM I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer. So do I. That was in those days when he set a posting example that I was more than happy to follow. As to what happened - he seemed to think that what was once best achievable by setting a good example was better achieved by threats. I think he is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:35 AM did I glean from that message above, Roger, that you suggest that you would be an OBJECTIVE moderator? different, I'm sure!.....objective? Well, scholars differ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Ebbie Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:34 AM "When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer." I'm curious- Chief Carper, in your estimation, which happened first? Did Joe one day decide that he needed someone to harass? And you were a convenient target? Or were you perhaps loading the Cat as you are now? I remember the days when you admired Joe Offer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM Jon - put-up or shut-up. Interesting Shambles, after only a few hours and a handful of posts you are telling me to shut up. Quite amzing for someone who complains so bitterly about the occasional angry comment made to him following years of daily abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:30 AM " So I propose myself for the role." Sweet merciful crap on a cake, no....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Grab Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:25 AM if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here? If you're as keen on looking back through history as you seem to be, you may find the posts in which I said I thought Joe was out of line in insulting you. However, I also said that I could understand why he did it, in light of months/years of provocation. You yourself have just said that you consider him to be a liar, an opinion which I doubt is recent, since you have been implying for months/years that he's a liar. You certainly do, now, have evidence of people disliking you personally, Joe for one. Back in 2001 though, before the addition of Joe's "three little words" set you off, did you have any evidence of this? Your assertion is that all moderation actions on your posts have been driven by moderators' personal dislike of you (or at least that this could be the case). This would require that they (and Joe especially) disliked you *before* they did any of it. If you can find evidence of this from 2001 or earlier, I'm all ears. If not, your assertion lacks a basis in available evidence, when the alternative (that you were mass-mailing the forum and posting off-topic in the way which Joe described, in order to promote your viewpoint) has no shortage of evidence. And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct. This is your personal opinion, and that's fine. However you are in no position to force them to do so - Max is the only person who can, and you haven't convinced him (rather the opposite, since he has publicly requested you to shut up or leave). Peer pressure *may* be able to persuade them, but you'd need a significant number of active members who share your opinion in order to swing any influence. If you've not found these people in four years of trying, then I submit that it's never going to happen. In that case, you should be considering the possibility that your viewpoint is in the minority. You should also consider the possibility that in insulting people until they "fall" and react to the insults, you aren't in a strong position. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:22 AM You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers Jon - put-up or shut-up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:18 AM I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well! OK I see the main problem and cause of much of the conflict on our forum - as one of trying to combine two roles - that of 'moderator' and fellow poster. I am not sure this is now the best approach..... I use the name of the role for a number of reasons. To try and show when my argument is with the actions of the role itslf - rather than any personal argument with the current individual fellow poster who happens to be in that role. however, it is well known that the current holder of that role has some very strong views on how they want our forum to look and function. And for this reason, I am not sure that it is possible for posters to always be able to tell which hat is being worn. Perhaps a lot of support is for the individual currently in the role and it is thought disloyal to be seen to disagree with this individual - rather than taking a more objective view? Having someone so committed as the current holder in this role, does have advantages - it also has disadvantages. I must confess that I think the disadvantages are beginning to out-number the advantages. So I propose myself for the role. *smiles* When I first started posting here there was no Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who so readily imposed his judgement on my posts, threatened me and called me names - just my fellow posters - one of whom was Joe Offer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:08 AM "Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier?" Because Shambles is a passive aggressive little twat that needs to be slapped the hell off this message board... The problem is, he fits in almost perfectly with the people who own/run the place..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:54 AM You are outputting a lot today shambles. But none of it will get away from your persistant abuse of the volunteers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM For some time I have requested that editing comments are not inserted into my posts without my permission. My concern is that often these so-called editing-comments are nothing of the sort. They are (mis) used - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - as a way of placing his personal views on the thread's subject but without refreshing the thread. A facility that is not open to ordinary posters. My request has not been accepted and this practice continues - (some of) our 'moderators' do seem to have plenty of time to insert editing comments and would appear to think this quite fun...... Another request has been made for all case where any form of imposed censorship action is judged to have been required - for this to always be indicated and for some (very brief) explanation of the reasons to be given in an editing comment. This would ensure that posters would for the first time be able to see and express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of censorship on our forum. This request has also not been accepted. Some of the reasons provided were that this would needlessly bring attention to the offending post or thread. And rather surprisingly, considering my difficulty in preventing editing comment from being inserted in my posts - that it would place an extra burden on our 'moderators'. I would argue that all it would need to do is bring attention to when censorship was thought necessary and that (some of) our 'moderators' do not currently appear to find placing editing camments currently too much of a burden.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:27 AM I realy don't want to get involved any more but something has been bugging me all the time here. Roger, will you please answer a straight question with a straight answer. Why do you insist on calling Joe 'the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team'? Isn't Joe easier? Or even Mr Offer if you want to be formal? Joe always refers to you as Shambles or Roger. What is it with not mentioning his name? Is it an actor type thing? Like MacBeth. Or is there some sort of legal implication that no-one else is aware of? I am realy interested to know. I'm sure other people are as well! Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:18 AM No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems. If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:13 AM For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too. What then is the word to use for someone who states: This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. -Joe Offer- And then closes not only that one - but every other thread on the subject......... I am more than a bit unhappy that my posting conduct is now being judged wanting and singled-out for special restrictions by those whose example of posting conduct - I have demonstrated - to be far more questionable than mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: MMario Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:00 AM at least 7 inconsistancies in the last post by shambles and the proof existing in threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:53 AM Graham before you scratch around trying to find something to judge my posting conduct as wanting (without providing and evidence and by putting your words in my mouth) - perhaps you may have more creditibilty if you will first pass the same judgement and comment on the many examples of abusive personal judgements and name-calling publicly posted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and evidenced here? And the example set that this is acceptable posting behaviour. For if you do not - how could you then judge the posting conduct of any ordinary poster as wanting - if they were to just follow this example set by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? You may accept there is a difference between expressing your views as as honestly as you can in a post and posting only abusive personal judgements and name-calling or responding in kind. I have always resisted this and have always tried to limit my posts to my views only and not make any personal judgements of the poster. A quick look back through this thread should be enough for you to verify that. I feel there is a difference between stating the reasons why you do not agree with another poster and then going on to use offensive language, calling them names and suggesting that they go away and do rude things with their hat. For example a post saying: I think this - Rather than a post saying: I think this and therefore you are a ''''''' [insert the offensive name of your choice]. Most of the abusive personal attacks and judgements made on me by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team and more importantly his open incitement for others to follow suit (that I have evidenced here) - were as a result of him feeling that I was treating him unfairly. In fact I was simply judging his actions in the same way that that he considered was fair - when he was not only judging the posting actions of others but was also imposing his judgement upon their posts and threads. He felt that I had no right to even judge or question his actions. And of course I had no ability to impose my judgement on his contributions. My view is that their should be one set of rules for those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on others and one for the rest of us. The rules and expectation of conduct of those who would wish to judge us - should be far higher. And they should remove themselves from this position - even when there is the slightest suspicion that they have may fallen from showing the very highest example of conduct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jacqui.c Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:21 AM Roger - I would think that both Jon and Grab have too much of a life to want to sift through all your postings for the past years to provide the excat quotes. Maybe you should get a life too. I would agree totally with Jon's premise - it is clear from your posts (and I'm not going to look for specific ones either) that you have the knives out for Joe, in particular, and the rest of the team. I also agree with Grab's last paragraph in his post 10 August 8.01. You constantly insult the intelligence of the members of the Mudcat forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Grab Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:01 AM Also been taking a break for a bit, but this was a good one. Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers. If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise? For over two years, you've said that he's not telling the truth when he gives his reasons for restricting/renaming your posts, so we have "liar" as the primary one. I have to say that if I'd been called a liar by someone every day for two years, I'd be a bit unhappy too. For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be seen to repeatedly do this - repeatedly attempt to minimise, justfy and excuse it - is just total hypocrisy OK, we have "hypocrite" too. insecure and unsure of the ability of their authority in achieving its stated aims but determined to hang on to this authority So we have "power-mad" too. Shambles, you seem to believe that just because you haven't actually used any swear-words, you haven't insulted anyone. Believe me, that isn't so. You also seem to feel that you've not insulted anyone because you've not said outright "you're a hypocrite" but instead said "this is hypocrisy", or you've not said outright "you're a liar" but instead said "why should I accept that to be the truth?". Frankly that just makes you gutless, playing semantics just so that you can say "I never actually said that". Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:42 AM Shambles, I REPEAT my accusation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:37 AM Shambles, I repeat the accusation and I will point you to your posting history over the past years as evidence. Such as? If this so-called abuse was as you have publicly alleged - it should not be too difficult to provide as least as many examples of the abusive personal judgements and name-calling from me - as I have provided from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to me. There are many more such examples of these................. I ask again - if you cannot provide any support for your accusations - would you please withdraw them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:27 AM Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers. If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise? Shambles, I repeat the accusation and I will point you to your posting history over the past years as evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:24 AM I will grant you that Joe has on more than one occassion bitten back but while one could argue he shouldn't have, I'm not surprised this has happened given your daily provocation for years. Jon - your accusation was - your continued abuse of him and the volunteers. If you cannot supply evidence of this 'abuse' - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise? Perhaps as you excuse the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for having - on more than one occassion bitten back perhaps you credit me (and other posters) for not following his example that such biting back - was ever acceptable posting behaviour for any poster on our forum - and especially not any trusted with an edit button. You appear to support the multi-standard of conduct which is at the very heart of this debate. but while one could argue he shouldn't have There is no argument. No 'moderator' can afford to be seen to ever do this, even once................For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to be seen to repeatedly do this - repeatedly attempt to minimise, justfy and excuse it - is just total hypocrisy. It is now a case of do as I tell you - not as I do. It is only going to clearly demonstrate that there is now one rule for those who feel themselves qualified to judge and another for the judged. And that any defence of this and any attempts to shift the blame, will discredit and bring into question the honest efforts of all involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:43 AM Shambles all the evidence I have seen points to you harrasing the admin team. I will grant you that Joe has on more than one occassion bitten back but while one could argue he shouldn't have, I'm not surprised this has happened given your daily provocation for years. The real shame is that the whole business has been allowed to go on so long that Joe has snapped, enabling you to add to your "evidence of persecution". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:40 AM http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1805977 The above link is to a post about our 'war on terrorism' - with which sentiments I entirely agree. Some may maintain that it has little or no relevance to this debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:31 AM We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers. Jon - I have provided evidence here for (only some) of the abusive personal attacks, persoanal judgements and name-calling, that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges is a good example to set to the rest of our forum as acceptable posting behaviour. Are you not going to pass judgement on this abuse and speculate on the reasons for it? Can you supply any similar evidence for your accusation of my 'continued abuse of him and the volunteers'? If you cannot - perhaps you will withdraw that accusation and apolgise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 05:17 AM Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index. Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion. His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them. So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads. So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted. Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted. So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair. So, that's the story. That is one side of the story - based on many groundless assumptions and pointless personal judgements. But it does demonstrate the difficulties created on our forum when the personal likes and dislikes of a fellow poster are mixed-up (by some) with the role of 'moderator'. Surely the first requirement of any 'moderator' to be seen to be acting impartially and not to be seen to be justifying the setting of poor examples of posting behavior and of openly encouraging support for their position from the mob? What is required is an end to division and a example set that encourages all posters to feel safe to contribute. Rather than the current example introduced - which confuses and inhibits posting by encouraging the posting only of personal judgements of the worth of fellow posters. When it is what is said that is important - not who may be saying it. The requests made about the PEL posts are being followed - but the same punishments are still being imposed. The new and selective restrictions that apply to my posts only, which have been imposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team are being followed - but still the same assumptions and personal judgements are being encouraged to be made.......How many times should a poster be punished over and over for the same old alledged 'crime'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 04:44 AM Am I wrong to consider the imposed censorship action detailed in the following - as a continuation of personally motivated and selective treatment by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804627 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:59 AM At least you have been a little more open in calling for Joe Offers head this time. We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers. It's a good job you are not doing the equivalant at the Annexe or Folkinfo btw. Pip and I were brought up in an old fashioned way whereby abusing "volunteers" would be considered a far greater crime than constantly having a go at ourselves. You would have gone a long time ago anyway as reasoning is impossible but repeats of that sort of behaviour would have hastened your departure. Fortunately for you, Mudcat seems to work the other way round. Jon - it is unfortunate for me (and others) that it works the other way around. For the clear facts (that you chose to ignore) that it is (some of) these 'volunteers' especially the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, who are the ones posting abusive personal judgements. And more importantly, setting the example for others to follow, that this is acceptable posting behavior. Do you consider that 'moderators' making abusive personal judgements and name-calling is acceptable? If it is not judged as acceptable for others - then it should not have been done and continue to be done by those who should know better. My 'crime' - if it is one - as a victim of thise - is to try and demonstrate the reality of it - rather than the 'spin'. I consider that my posting record is better than many of those who would feel themselves qualified to judge me and other posters. And yes - I judge that the example shown by (some of) these 'moderators' should disqualify them from imposing their judgement on others but there is nothing personal in this. How can there be - our forum is not trusted to know many of their names. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Jon Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:48 PM Oh well had typed this up earlier but decided to leave alone. Only posting now as John O L rekons (at least some of) the usual suspects were not leaving alone... This follows a comment from the why here therad. I think several of us who eventual post only post a fraction of what we feel like posting... Perhaps as this method - by the current Chief of the Mudcat editing Team's own admission, has not suuceeded in imposing the peace he requires and is proving somewhat counter-productive The only person making causing problems with the current system is you. If you won't leave, try taking a break for 6 months and see what happens without you. Unless Bert decides to try to prove a point on your behalf, 99% of the problems you complain about will go. - it is time for a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and a more stylish method? Interesting to see that you want new methods now. It was a return to the old before. Let's face it, it's not about improving Mudcat anyway - that's been obvious for years. At least you have been a little more open in calling for Joe Offers head this time. We get closer to the truth there but I still (other that I believe you are sick) believe that drives you towards your continued abuse of him and the volunteers. It's a good job you are not doing the equivalant at the Annexe or Folkinfo btw. Pip and I were brought up in an old fashioned way whereby abusing "volunteers" would be considered a far greater crime than constantly having a go at ourselves. You would have gone a long time ago anyway as reasoning is impossible but repeats of that sort of behaviour would have hastened your departure. Fortunately for you, Mudcat seems to work the other way round. Anyway, back to new ideas. Although the bbc moderation system is by far the most screwed up I've seen. they have one idea that I think is great for dealing with persistant pests. Such posters find themselves on "pre-mod" this means that while other posters messages appear in "real time" (and may be subjected to moderation afterwards), the trouble maker's posts have to be read by a moderator and approved before they can be read by others. The situation is only a temporary one and users are returned to "post-mod" if they post "normaly". On the other hand, if they chose to continue, they find themselves banned either temporarily or permanantly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:22 PM If Joe is grandly making these statements for public consumption then why is he inserting them into an existing post so that it does not refresh the thread? Jolly good question. I don't know......... Why not ask him........? Seems it shouldn't be so hard to understand. The folks that run and keep the site going have the right and duty to moderate the threads. This is a matter of what is and ought to be, and those that don't like it have no grounds to stand on. Seems like it IS hard to understand. Would you view your Government is such an open and trusting way? For you are prepared to take on trust that this moderation is acceptable, when you currently have no way of being informed of the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. Possibly you are prepared to do this because its abuses are being inflicted on me and other posters but not on you? The issue is not one of me questioning the right to moderate (or not) this forum. It is one of questioning the nature of it and if what is claimed - matches up to the reality of what is actually happening. Whether the posters have protection form any personally motivated bias and whether 'moderators' have any protection from accusations of this. Whether what is lost – is worth what is gained. The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team often justifies action against something simple like a post appearing in more than one thread – as being unfair. But does not seem to see that imposing 'silent deletion' as a first and only resort to such things, may be thought to be disproportionate, mean-spirited and equally unfair. The following indicate a number of problems that tend to get brushed aside in the rush to judge this complicated and thorny issue in simple black and white terms. OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure. -Joe Offer- If there really were grounds - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team should be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever action he felt forced to take. And be prepared to defend it on those grounds. If not – no action should be imposed. There should be no need to hide behind the idea that his authority came from the posters - if his authority comes from Max. For it is clear that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is left to act as he wishes but is insecure enough to feel that some appeal must also be given for some public support for his actions. The impression currently being given by this, is of a strange mixture of 'mob-rule' and carrying out the commands of a strict faceless dictator whilst at the same time maintaining some pretence that none of this was really happening. And then there is the type of action chosen (I have detailed my views already in this thread on thread closure). This is totally ineffective. It is used mainly as a means to look as if some action was being taken when all it amounts to is, a futile display of power – which just proves how powerless those using this method are but which divides our forum, like nothing else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John O'L Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:11 PM Same old posse eh? You supply the bread & butter, Shambles supplies the bullshit, you eat the sandwich. Carry on. You deserve each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:56 PM Sham sez - "You may have missed the above editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. But too much notice should not be taken of these type of assurances - grandly made for public consumption - that are provided in editing comments by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team." If Joe is grandly making these statements for public consumption then why is he inserting them into an existing post so that it does not refresh the thread? Hmmm? Awaiting your reply Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bert Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:42 PM Some other folks seem to be enjoying it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Peace Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM The thread is NOT useless for Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: katlaughing Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:15 PM PLEASE CLOSE THIS USELESS THREAD! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:10 PM http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804666 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 06 - 07:03 PM So as not to risk providng any excuse for any further form of imposed censorship - I will not copy and paste the evidence here, that usually results in this action - but simply provide a link to it - in the already closed thread. http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1804754 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 09 Aug 06 - 06:49 PM 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- You may have missed the above editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread. But too much notice should not be taken of these type of assurances - grandly made for public consumption - that are provided in editing comments by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. The following will demonstrate that he is not a man who believes he needs to stand by his word. This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. -Joe Offer- The above assurance was given in Do you need to be censored? before the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team subjected it to imposed closure and (along with all the other threads on this subject) - it is now closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 09 Aug 06 - 05:36 PM You sprung another leak Mick? At your size, I'm not surprized! :-P Heh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Big Mick Date: 09 Aug 06 - 05:33 PM SSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM Shambles. NO ONE CARES!!! There is not one other person who is constantly complaining here. Why should anything be changed because one person out of many is unhappy? You are the lone objector to the so-called editing. Why not channel these complaints and your never give-up actions to something worthwhile like fighting hunger or getting us out or Iraq. Persistence would be respected in a battle like that. It's just laughed at when you spend so much time complaining about editing meaningless threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 09 Aug 06 - 02:23 PM Blah... blah... blah... blah..... Shambles.... your 'voice' continues to be muffled by your buttocks |