BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:33 AM

That's a hard question, Jeri. Would it have been better for SRS to respond in the Irwin obituary, encouraging the attempt to turn yet another thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy?
Joe Offer

For the record the post that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is getting his knickers twisted about was a response to the following and another post in that thread whach just called another poster a F******. That he sees this post as an attempt to turn that thread into a gripe about Mudcat policy - reveals more about his motives than it does about others.

Subject: RE: Obit: Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin is dead (Sep06)
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 05 Sep 06 - 10:18 PM

I cannot believe this thread is still running. I liked the man and believed he knew what it took to get a message across in this day and age. Stilly, Ron, Don, and many others tend to agree while a number of you don't. For those who don't I have seen some well thought out arguments and I suppose we could continue those discussions and probably agree to disagree....a well tested Mudcat scenario.

Spaw

Why are these posts in that thread (and many others) not also worrying the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this.

Whereever they may be expressed - these are my honest and moderately views and the role of any 'moderator' is to simply to enable these views - not to be seen to be selectivly passing and imposing their judgement on the worth of the poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:49 AM

So, Shambles, what do you know about salting banana slugs?
Can you make escargot from slugs?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 04:17 AM

Escargot?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:15 AM

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

That all happened months ago, Peace, maybe longer. I have no complaint about you and I have no reason to want you to leave. You have made a wonderful contribution to Mudcat in the last several months, and you've done extraordinary work finding song lyrics.
-Joe Offer-

As for slugs - perhaps those who are not interested in this thread's subject can make their personal judgements along with the others in the thread created for this purpose? Not posting to a thread

I've never read this idiotic thread before, but through reference to it I knew it was where the Shambles nonsense was parked (whether he wrote it here or not, I know not). I just made a comment here to see if I could get his sorry ass off of the Irwin obit thread. The guy has the social grace of a banana slug. I don't spend much time reading threads here, only a small fraction of them. That doesn't mean I don't have a pretty good idea of who started what--I sometimes bet myself that Little Hawk or William Shatner or Amos or Giok or one of the others started a new one. So I thought that waving this flag at Shambles might make him move off of the obit thread he's trashed with his nonsense.

For the record, the thread referred to was a BS one. Had that been an OBIT thread - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's rules - it would have been in the music section.

Slowly the message must be coming across that all these noble sounding justifications are just posters being encouraged by the example currently set - to mind everyone elses's business and pass judgement on the worth of other posters? Which is a totally pointless exercise as the current result of all this demonstrates. Had I responded in kind to all of those personal judgements encouaged to be directed at me - the situation would be even worse. Perhaps a little credit can be given to me for this?

That the object of our forum is to encouage discussion from as many posters as possible and not finding ways to judge each other's worth and prevent discussion. And not to encourage only like-minded posting but even arguments. Not name-calling but the enabling of moderately expressed differences of opinon are part of what made our forum different. To manage to get a forum where posters can agree to disagree - was no mean feet and about as good as it gets. But it cannot be imposed, only encouraged by example.

That all the tools required to read and post what is to your taste and ignore what is not - are already provided.

That no one is being forced to read or post anything and if any one does not like this - they are free to go elswhere. Our forum is like any other place that is open to to the public. If you do not like the present company - your only option is to go - not to ask for or expect others to be removed because they may not be to your taste.

That the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has his current Public Enemy Number One - but no real crime to justify the resulting witch-hunt. That other posters feel encouraged (and safe) to join in these witch-hunts is hardly surprising but does not refect much credit on anyone.

Can the special posting restrictions on my contributions be lifted and can all posters been seen to receive equal treatment by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Subject: RE: BS: Not posting on a thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:25 AM

Is it safe over here? That "closed and deleted" thread is too full of people who take themselves entirely too seriously. I thought I was going to get eaten alive.

Pehaps if it were your posts being 'silently delted' and your threads closed and were the victim of one of your own publicly mounted witch-hunts you may take it (and the resulting mess) more seriously than you obviously appear to?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:52 AM

You may have missed the following two editing comments as they were both inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Well, whatever.
I haven't noticed you flooding the Forum with messages at a one-a-minute rate for several months, and I haven't seen you going anonymous to post provocative messages or impersonating Nazis. I call that improvement. If that conduct happens again, the restrictions will be reimposed.
If Shambles continues or increases his disruptive conduct, the restrictions on him will be increased. I hope that will be all I have to say on the matter.

Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
-Joe Offer-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe, you remember when Max said "Don't make me separate you two?" Shambles trolls you, you troll him, and then you take a swipe at Martin Gibson, gargoyle and Peace just for the hell of it. THAT's the 'game' I'm talking about. -
Jeri, sick of this childish bullshit.

Perhaps our 'moderators' could finally stop abusing their privileged positions (and edit buttons) and post their views like ordinary posters in conventional post that refresh the thread?

And stop abusing our trust by playing games? And concentrate on enabling discussion rather than restricting it complaining about and imposing their judgment their fellow posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 06:52 AM

shambles-you are a mad person just trying to make trubble, i wish you go away.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:26 PM

The problem is that posting complaints about what other people post (and not just limited to political subjects) is now encouraged and often appears now to be the only game in town.

When anyone making such a complaint been told (as they should have been) to mind their own business and to concentrate on their own posting - they would only have ever been one forum.

Folk don't need to be encouraged to gossip and pass judgement on each other's worth, for they will do this anyway. Once you have been seen to encourage it - it is difficult to change.

But not, I suggest - impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:52 PM

Which passages are more vital and should be given greater attention? The ones in ordinary type...or the ones in bold type...or the ones in italics?

And why do we not see some passages in bright colours instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM

"The problem is that The fuss and the semi-official witch-hunt against me that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team actively encourages - makes it impossible for me to make any post where some posters feel that it is accepatable to make some personal judgement of my worth or some reference to my views on censorship. Most of the time I ignore this."

...or, perhaps you dug your own grave and your comments have been rendered useless.

You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts. You use it as justification for your paranoia and it is just not the way everyone else sees things. It is only your view, and while you are certainly entitled to one, you should try looking at the world that everyone else on Mudcat is seeing.

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:21 PM

Duplicate post, Shambles...

Well despite the anonymous link implies - I thought I posted but when I looked I could not see the post here. So I tried again

Some anonymous person with an edit buttom and too much time on their hands had moved it to Closed threads and deleted posts   but gave no indication of this action.

I assume the same person then deleted my second attempt. All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM

You will not look into a mirror or accept personal responsibility and your are NOT ignoring the posts.

I feel that if I responded with personal jusgements of all those who feel they have some right to post only personal judgements of my worth and who are encouraged to post only this - and our forum was littered up with such exchanges - you may have a point

As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this?

Perhaps when (some of) our moderators show the lead in accepting their responsibilty for this current mess (and when you also ask and expect them to) I may follow their example in accepting whatever part I may have.

But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 01:56 PM

"But all I am trying to do is post and to enable all posters to be treated equally - I am not preventing anyone else from posting or forcing them to read my posts - am I? "

See, that proves the point that many of us have been trying to make. It isn't about "preventing" or "forcing" - it is simply the fact that we are able to read and then we comment on what you said. Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started.


"As I don't - and I am not now responding with any personal judgements of your worth - perhaps you could at least give me some credit for this?"

Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally.

I do not recall EVER seeing you admit to saying the wrong thing on Mudcat. You defend every sentence to the death. You join in the conversations and then when you are questioned, you become defensive and won't admit that you might have done the wrong thing.   

Then, when people get frustrated and lash out at you, you really enter a zone that you seem to be enjoying - martyr. Your civil rights are not violated here.   You have built up a reputation, just like Martin Gibson and others did, and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

I am sure you are a bright guy. I can't explain your behavior, but I can only point out how many of us are seeing it.   Your posts have become like a small child acting up at the dinner table. You can't be ignored because you are all over conversation.    Maybe spanking is the answer??

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:45 PM

"All done to prevent me from preventing reasonable discussion" the Shambles

hahhahahhahahhahahha

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:14 AM

Again, this seems to be an example of paranoia. I am not "judging your worth", I am trying to reason with you and tell you what many of us are seeing. YOU are taking any criticism of your action personally.

Perhaps you should try and actually read some of the personal judements of my worth, the name-calling that it is thought to be fun to be encouraged and the various and physically impossible suggestion made. Even entire threads are started for such things. Most of which I do not respond to at all and never in kind.

Are you suggesting that these are not intentional judgements of my worth? I make no claims for perfection but my posting record is certainly better that many of those who would feel themselves qualified to post only judge me. Do you consider then that all other parties are perfect?

I could respond here with a similar public judgement of what I judged your short-commings and speculate on your mental health - but what would be the point?

The point remains that all that is important is what is said - not who may be saying it, where, when or how poorly you may judge it to be expressed or its spelling and grammar. It is only important to be able to agree to disagree and it not honourable to try and find noble sounding excuses to restrict or prevent any other named poster from posting what they may wish to.

No one is being forced to read or respond to my views or the views of any other poster-are they? And is none of your or my business what we may think of another poster's worth or posting actions and so what is the point, by the example currently set, of encouraging our forum to be littered with such posts?

If you really want to make personal comments and suggestions to me or another poster - there are PMs for this purpose where they do not have to be inflicted on our forum. And in the case of non-members, where this is not available - perhaps the best option is possible to just move on?

Non posting of judgements week

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:35 AM

hahhahahhahahhahahha

I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. I suppose that since this is "his" topic, this will become "his" thread, and I'll have to close the other one. I'll wait and see what he does.
Joe Offer

I am glad that someone seems to find the concept of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team silently deleting posts and closing threads in order to enable reasonable discussion - to be as funny as I would do - if the implications of accepting such perfect nonsense did not present such a real threat to the long history of free and open discussion on our forum.

It is clear to me how the actions taken and restrictions imposed on my posts by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will prevent reasonable and free discussion on our forum.

It is not at all clear how the posting of my moderately espressed views are preventing (as claimed) any other posters from carrying on with reasonable discussion on our forum. Can someone explain why my postings (only) should be HAVE to be restricted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for this reason?

Perhaps these restrictions can now be removed and all posters be seen to treated equally?

Subject: RE: A return to only one section?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 08:50 AM

In this case, it is hard to find any particular sin or crime to justify banning....being terminally tedious is sort of a different matter.

Does a poster being judged to be 'teminally tedious' justify any form of selective posting to be imposed? If so perhaps quite a few posters should now be concerned?

I suggest that being judged to be tedious, repetitious, or boring - no matter how irritating some may find this - is not justification for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to impose any form of imposed censorship action.

Perhaps you would agree that these restrictions should now be lifted?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 09:39 AM

Don't blame the moderators, they merely came in AFTER the fire started.

If what you state were true - whether they get blamed would rather depend on what these 'moderator's' actions were after a fire started.

If their actions were not to extinguish them but only to fan the flames and encourage the fire (even unintentionally) - I suggest that the blame for the house burning house down would be all theirs.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in particular is quick to blame anyone and everyone for not being able to impose on our forum the peace he requires. But having admitted this failure does not seem to see that the example set by his double standards have played any part in this or now be prepared to take any personal responsibility for it. Doing exactly as he pleases but speaking for other 'moderators' by claiming this to be 'we'.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now appears to see the only option open to him is to plough on with the same counter-productive imposition. At least until our forum can excude free contributions from the public and become the members only posting forum that he already treats it as.

Seemingly the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team sees 'moderation' on our forum, as some form of game - where he alone makes the rules up for others to adhere to and be judged by (referred by him to as Mudcat Policy) but which he does not think should apply to him. And where to cause totally confusion and even in the same post or editing comment - he will jump from the role of ordinary poster - expressing their views to that of 'Head Honcho' - imposing them.

Jeri, I suppose there's an interesting challenge in "playing the game" with Shambles, but it gets to be a problem when it's too widespread - especially when it spreads into threads on other topics, or prevents discussion of matters that we really do need to talk about. Thus the need to restrict Shambles to a degree.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps the one requiring restriction on our forum - is not me but those who are now activly preventing, restricting and inhibiting reasonable discussion by 'silent deletion' and thread closures?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:32 AM

Should anyone wonder why this matters to me to the extent it does - it is because (as the following public statement from Max explains) I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place. It certainly was not introduced at my bidding and no matter how well-intioned it may have been - the idea that members would anonymously be imposing censorship on the contributions of their fellow members is one that was guaranteed to only cause division and conflict. It is not too late to change this.

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing.

To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:44 AM

"I feel partly responsible for this current for of censorship being imposed on our forum in the first place."

Don't worry about it.   There is no such thing as "censorship" in a forum like this. It is privately owned, the users are subject to the discretion of managment. 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.   Forums like these are not "public" - they are subject to editing - AS THEY SHOULD BE.

Some people refuse to understand that and will continue to hold their breathe and stomp their feet. Sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 10:59 AM

If you don't wish to encourage the poster, stop responding. People repeat what others have said before then wonder why the thread keeps appearing and continuing. It's a no-brainer. Now it's become the Ron and Shambles Show.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:05 AM

There is a difference between a discussion and venting.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:09 AM

The result is the same. The thread continues.

You got a window. Open it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:17 AM

I see nothing wrong with the thread continuing if positive discussion is taking place. My window is open, the fresh air feels good.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:23 AM

Say that to Shambles and stop being the fortieth in on a gang rape.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:30 AM

Shame on you guest.   Everything I am saying here is read by Shambles. Why don't you use your real identity if you wish to attack someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 06 - 11:50 AM

Why do you continue to fan the flame?

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:45 PM

No - I spoke too soon.

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: 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: 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,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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 13 Sep 06 - 09:08 PM

If it makes you happy it makes me happy.

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,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: 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: 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.