 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:46 PM Tried that and he follows people around and pollutes their threads with his paranoid parrot droppings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 06 - 02:52 PM Yes, but this place ain't what it used to be, and never was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:05 PM What is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 19 Sep 06 - 03:07 PM Exactly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 19 Sep 06 - 06:17 PM This place is more like it is now than it ever was before. besides, Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:13 AM Well I, and many others like its is, and yes occasionally threads are deleted, but by what I have seen moderating it is good,- I could post that from what I have seen rock chick looks like a blond, 19 year-old supermodel.....But as from what I have seen I have no way of knowing this to be the case - what would be the point of such a post? Such opinions and judgements made about the current system of censorship on our forum by any poster may be honestly intended but are uninformed. As posters have no way of knowing what the true nature and current level of imposed censorship is. rock chick - like most of the rest of our forum will not be aware that yesterday an entire thread was deleted. If they are going to be allowed and encouraged by our 'modertors' and are interested enough to post in support of theses measures - perhaps it is only fair that all poster are made aware of what they are, and when and where they are imposed? Which is why I suggest the following. In order to protect all parties - can I again request that all posters be seen to be treated equally and openly on our forum by those who would feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on us? And that all editing comments are seen to be limited to where some form of imposed censorship has actually taken place and that an editing comment is ALWAYS provided to indicate where, why and when such action has been judged necessary? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 02:31 AM Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem You may or may not be interested to know that an entire thread was deleted yesterday. Our forum has no idea what the justification would have been given for this action. Or who was supposed to be protected by it. Or who was responsible for this action. As this action is imposed in our name and in order to protect us - perhaps we should be informed when and why any form of imposed censorship takes place? And perhaps we should not be expected to or be seen to publicly support such actions - until we are informed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 04:07 AM Warning Missing Messages |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 10:12 AM A BS thread (called Do you support the status quo?) was deleted yesterday, for reasons unknown and by persons unknown. Today - the title of a clearly titled music thread Do you support the Status Quo? has been changed without the originator's permission for some reason to In favour of/ Do you support the Status Quo - and has now been relegated to the BS section by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread. The following editing comment was inserted into an existing post which did not refresh the thread. Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread. -Joe Offer- And who (conventionally) posted the following: Subject: RE: BS: In favour of /Do you support the Status Qu From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 20 Sep 06 - 06:02 AM The first thread was stupid, but I don't think that constitutes a reason for deleting it. I undeleted the messages from the previous deleted thread and combined them with this one. But I think the "discussion" fits best into the "BS" category, where the original thread was located. I'll admit that's an arbitrary decision, but I had to pick one or the other. -Joe Offer- As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has judged (amongst other things) that there was no justification for some other anonymous 'moderator' to delete the first thread – perhaps the better option would have been to return this thread to the BS section and to leave the other one alone, to remain as posted in the music section? But rather than feeling they 'have' to be seen to be doing something – perhaps it is better that our 'moderators' do nothing and let our forum decide? It certainly would be better if before they decide to impose any action – that they are at least seen to communicate with each other first and prefably first consult with the thread's originator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM BS In favour of/Do you support the Status Quo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:10 AM I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job. I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job. Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT. There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest! Giok Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles* http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823 I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love. Giok The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals. If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures. If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Manitas_at_home Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:15 AM "He has also seen fit to combine the deleted BS thread with this Music thread." Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread. An entirely different matter. Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing. Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 11:26 AM Quite obviously he has seen fit to combine the deleted music thread (obviously started to deliberately cause confusion with the BS thread and not very on-topic for a blues and folk forum) with this BS thread. Paul you have obviously decided that I am the Anti-Christ and seemingly nothing I say will change that judgement. However I will make the effort. The simple fact was that when I started the 'Status Quo' thread on the music section - the entire 'status quo' thread (with it music-related posts) had been deleted. This without any editing comment of explanation. That thread was gone and history and there was nothing for it to be confused with - until the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team decided to overule the anonymous moderator's decision (was it you?), combine the dead thread with the Music one and send it to the BS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 12:59 PM I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job. I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job. Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT. There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest! Giok Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles* http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823 I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love. Giok The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals. If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures. If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM "Are you going to accept the site owner's invitation to go or stay and accept the way it is run?" The site owner can block Shambles' ability to post. The site owner doesn't. If you do not like what Shambles has to say, stop reading what Shambles has to say. There are about ten people who can't let Shambles be. Get a grip. Keep saying what you have to say, Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:51 PM And those ten are conspicuous by their absence on the SERIAL BULLY thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:57 PM Why is Shambles allowed to rant in both this thread and the one on mederated groups? I thought that he was limited to one per day? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:00 PM Don't fuck about, Roger, you did it to deliberately provoke the moderators and I will accept to weasel words of excuse. I may not be a mind-reader but I know what you are doing. Paul - this remains a discussion forum and it is supposed to be fun. As there is no way that one poster can ever know what another's motivation may be - it is perhaps better for us not to follow the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'. That they now to use our forum as a means to judge the worth of their fellow posters and publicly make all manner of assumpions about aspects of named individual posters that they can have no real knowledge of - does not mean that you have to follow this example. And what this sort of thing has to do with 'moderation' - is not clear. I cannot delete posts or close threads - I can only post and I need to make no excuse to you for what I choose to post. So what is the point of you speculating publicly that I may have 'provoked' our 'moderators' by what I choose to post. The day I tell you what you can post - is the day you can tell me. What you may choose to post is none of my business. But the you have the chronology wrong. Before that thread was closed - posters there were not provoking anyone, just having fun. Perhaps any provocation was on the part of the anonymous 'moderator' who subjected the thread to imposed closure? Perhaps you would also like to speculate publicly and make assumptions about their motivations for this provocation? Not in just trying to post - but in taking active steps to prevent others from posting. If it matters, I started the Status Quo thread on the music section to enable posters to continue discussion on that subject. It may well have partly been in reaction to that thread's closure - for which I am for once in perfect agreement with the views expressed by current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - if not his actions. If anyone is to blame for confusing anyone - it is the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team for re-opening the closed thread, combining the two threads and then relegating it to the BS section and not the music section where is clearly belongs. Perhaps you will be taking this up with him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM I shall not sit around silent while some little obsessed wimp in Weymouth or thereabouts conducts a campaign of hatred against people who do a difficult job. I am not one of your mealy mouthed, wishy washy, sit on the fence liberals, who goes out of their way to make excuses for axe murderers and the like. I call it like I see it, and I am as determined to stop Shambles as he is to stop Joe doing his job. Yes I have a problem, I have a problem with people like Shambles being allowed to spoil this site for other people, for his being allowed to post his repetitive rubbish in thread after thread, in other words, I want him OUT. There now, I bet that came as a total surprise to you guest! Giok Some posters may be surprised after reading the following: *Smiles* http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823 I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love. Giok The only 'hatred' I see is that now encouraged to be displayed in many of your postings and actions. I have no hatred for anyone posting here and I do not question the good intentions of our 'moderators'. Sadly any suggestions made about how our forum is best 'moderated' now seem to be taken and defended as if they were all personally motivated attacks on the individuals. If our 'moderators' want personal conflict on our forum to continue and get even worse - then don't learn from any past lessons and just carry on setting the example of publicly indulging in this conflict and the secrecy and division that goes alongside. But if this is the choice - please don't complain that you have been unable to impose the peace you require, blame everyone else, take no responsibility but just plough on with the same but increased failed measures. If our 'moderators' feel that they have nothing to hide - then why not show our forum that this is the case by making all imposed editing actions open so they can be seen to be fair? Perhaps it is this - the appearance of 'moderators' being at war with our forum's posters - that is making their role more difficult than it should be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:28 AM Threads combined. Messages above had been deleted, but I could see no justification for the deletions. Messages below are from a new thread. -Joe Offer- This is the true nature and current level of what you are asked to support as 'moderation'. One day a still anonymous 'moderator' decides to delete an entire thread. When this action is brought to the attention of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's attention the next day - this imposed action is judged to have had no justification. End of story. But is anything learned from this? Is our forum given any apology? What happens now to prevent such sillyness from happening again? Nothing. Such things have occured time and time again and nothing happens or changes to prevent it. When such things are pointed out and suggestions made to prevent it - the accusation is taken-up that the same questions are being asked again and again. We have a system in the UK that is supposed to prevent speeding. Cameras are run by private companies and are self-financing - by the money obtained from speeding fines. So it does not take a genius to work out that such companies do not have any real interest in preventing speeding - as if they ever succeeded - they would put themselves out of a job. No - an unmoderated forum is not a silly idea. It is at least some ideal to aim for and any 'moderation' seen only a means to this end. But to some it would appear that this form of open-ended, divisive and secret 'moderation' - is an end in itself. Posting restrictions are publicly announced against named posters for the 'crime' only of starting threads and posting. But anonymous 'moderators' who prevent 'reasonable discussion' by deleting an entire thread with no justification - remain anonymous and a 'moderator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Sep 06 - 10:18 AM As there was never anything controversial about it - perhaps the following thread can now be moved back to the music section, where it may get some more contributions? And perhaps it could be given back its original title? Do you support the Status Quo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Sep 06 - 12:38 PM There is no bad faith in evidence. There is no evidence to enable any poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. If there is no bad faith - what is the problem in our 'moderators' being open in this? Bad faith does not need to be a factor in our forum's judgement - for incompetence, over-zealousness can still be factors even when well-intentioned. The question for our forum's judgement is if this imposition is really proportionate or has in in fact now become counter-productive? That perhaps if (some of) our 'moderators' were not so busy- 'waging war for peace' - peace may actually be perfectly possible without such drastic measures and their results. If all editing comments were limited to only where some form of imposed censorship was judged to have been necessary and editing comments were always supplied on these occasions - our forum would for the first time be able to make an informed judgement about whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship was really proportionate. For example - currently it can be claimed that any post of mine (or yours) that is silently deleted - was not and it non-apperance was due to a mistake by the poster or due to some technical glitch. It can also be claimed (or implied) that it contained much more offensive material than it in fact did - in order justify the imposition to our forum. As the evidence will have been 'silently deleted'. Without being open about this - no poster is ever seen to be protected from abuse and no 'moderator' is ever seen to be safe from accusations that they have imposed judgement disproportionatly and abused their privilege. There is one way to end this conflict once and for all - so why not introduce it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:24 PM I do have to limit him to one thread at a time, so the rest of us can actually carry on reasonable discussions. Joe Offer Do yuo really? Perhaps the best way to do this is for our 'moderators' to just to allow reasonable discussion to take place on our forum? Rather than making our forum look like a poor school-boy joke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 21 Sep 06 - 02:34 PM I can't believe this shamblesshit is still pilling up...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 21 Sep 06 - 04:53 PM Perhaps a better way to do this Shambles is to block you from posting to any thread in the same way that Martin Gibson was blocked. You are just as annoying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 21 Sep 06 - 06:47 PM Someone forcing you to read this thread? Gun to your head? Need a 911 or 999 call on your behalf? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Ennui 1st Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:32 AM First They Came for the Jews First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 06 - 04:39 AM Rather than making our forum look like a poor school-boy joke. You have a point there. The restriction has been in place for a while and it its achieved little other than giving you something else to complain about. I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Sep 06 - 06:29 AM There is no bad faith in evidence. There is no evidence to enable any poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum. If there is no bad faith - what is the problem in our 'moderators' being open in this? Bad faith does not need to be a factor in our forum's judgement - for incompetence, over-zealousness can still be factors even when well-intentioned. The question for our forum's judgement is if this imposition is really proportionate or has in in fact now become counter-productive? That perhaps if (some of) our 'moderators' were not so busy- 'waging war for peace' - peace may actually be perfectly possible without such drastic measures and their results. If all editing comments were limited to only where some form of imposed censorship was judged to have been necessary and editing comments were always supplied on these occasions - our forum would for the first time be able to make an informed judgement about whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship was really proportionate. For example - currently it can be claimed that any post of mine (or yours) that is silently deleted - was not and it non-apperance was due to a mistake by the poster or due to some technical glitch. It can also be claimed (or implied) that it contained much more offensive material than it in fact did - in order justify the imposition to our forum. As the evidence will have been 'silently deleted'. Without being open about this - no poster is ever seen to be protected from abuse and no 'moderator' is ever seen to be safe from accusations that they have imposed judgement disproportionatly and abused their privilege. There is one way to end this conflict once and for all - so why not introduce it? Perhaps there can be and end to selective restrictions that are now seen to be imposed on my posts in this thread and eleswhere (and supported by many posters it would appear)? This makes reasoable discussion impossible but is imposed upon our forum on the the grounds that 'silently delteting posts and moving posts containing only reasonable discussion is somehow enabling reasonable discussion. A concept that George Orwell would recognise as 'Doublespeak'. Whatever your personal judgement of my worth or the worth of any other poster may be encouraged to be - perhaps you will agree that an end to this witch-hunt - will enable this subject to be seen to be sensibly and openly discussed on our forum like any other subject? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:28 AM I think it would be better for them to decide whether to allow you to post with no restrictions or to prevent you from posting at all than carrying on with this farce. Now that is gratitude for you. There are no real grounds to justfy this current silliness - let alone grounds to ban me. As a long-term poster who has always used a name and only ever tried to post my honest views. Who does not post to indulge in abisive personal attacks, does not respond in kind to the many I am allowed and encouraged to be subjected to. And who despite being publicly encouraged by (some of) oue 'moderators' to be seen as public ememy number one - has done nothing but post attempts at reasonable discussion and tried my best to avoid posting any personal judgements of my fellow posters. I hardly think it 'fair' (to use the word favoured by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) that I am to be judged by those who wish to reamain anonymous - be they anonymous guest or anonymous 'moderator'. Especially the latter - who now appear to think that reasonable discussion is achieved on our forum by them selectively closing and deleting entire threads, 'silently deleting', moving and by generally judging, interfering and restricting posts containing only reasonable discussion. I have tirelessly supported (and still do) the continued unrestricted posting from the public on our forum - but now - one of these unnamed guests posts with the suggestion that I be banned. And with added irony that I be banned by those who judge themselves qualifed to deny others the rights that they take for granted - but who openly post their preference for them (the public, guests non-members) to be restricted. The only 'crime' I have commited is to try to reasonably discuss a subject that (some of) our 'moderators' would rather obviously prefer not have discussed on our forum. If Max considers this to be grounds to ban a poster then he will do so. I hope that he will not feel himself pressured into such an action but will find others ways of finally resolving this conflict. One that does not attempt to prevent reasonable discussion by drastic means that CAN only inhibit reasonable discussion and make our forum look foolish. And that he can do this in ways that do not define reasonable discussion as views only that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team agrees with - but defines it as free and open discussion, where the poster' words remain as posted (wherever this is possible). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 06 - 07:51 AM As a long-term poster you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:05 AM Bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Sep 06 - 10:37 AM you have been treated with more tolerance than would have been granted a "newbe". [Is that you Joe?] If that were to be the case - then it just as well for any 'newbe' that I am not just content (like far too many others) to just watch and say 'I'm alright Jack'. For then any 'newbe' and guest would have been tolerated less and treated even less well than you claim they are. If I have been treated differently to any other posters - it is not my wish or made at my request. My request is that ALL posters are seen to be treated equally. And are able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship action, to enable our forum for the first time to be able to express an informed judgement on whether all this imposed in their name - is really proportiate. Anyone trusting enough who wishes to sign blank cheques - is welcome to send them to me......... I have done nothing but try for many years to post my moderately expressed and honest views on our forum for the purpose of reasonable discussion - but which no other poster is being forced to read or respond to. Many completly bogus accusations have been encouraged to be made and many attempts made to justify the selective prevention, alterations, moves and restrictions on my posts and the deletions and imposed closures of many threads in which these posts appear. With various and ammusing attempts at justification, to make such closures sound noble. All of these methods of inhibiting reasonable discussion are now attempted to be justified to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, as somehow enabling reasonable discussion to take place. Quite how this is supposed to work - where there is room for all - has yet to be explained. But it is just the latest and inevitable result of a system of so-called 'moderation' that publicly encourages other posters to indulge in conflict and where (some) 'moderators' are seen to activly indulge in open conflict and witch-hunts mounted against named individual posters, to try to prevent their honest and moderatly expressed views from appearing or remaining (as posted) on our forum.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Sep 06 - 12:12 PM Mudcat is structured. Nicely so, IMO Our forum is certainly structured so that no poster is forced to read or respond to any post or open any thread that is not to their taste. It is structured so that all threads could (and should IMO) all remain open, without any affect of the technical running of our forum. So threads do not need to be closed or judged - as the only judgement required is for posters to lose interest when they cease to refresh them with new posts. The simple beauty and effective nature of this structure is all that is required for peace - but only when and if this is first recognised and applied equally to all. All posters need to be encouraged to do (in the form of moderation and by example) - is not post publicly only to make personal judgements of their fellow posters or to respond in kind. Posters do not need to be encouraged to post only to complain about what their fellow posters chose to post (especially in the Help Forum). And any changes introduced as a result of posters complaining about what their fellow posters may choose to post can be ignored and told to mind their own business. Such posters can be asked to concentrate on their own posts and that any editing changes will only be considered for their own contributions. Where ever possible - all post should be seen to reamain as worded and where posted and anyone else who may not like this can be told to mind their own business. Yes - our forum is well structured - so why is this structure ignored in favour of measures destined only to inhibit open discussion, divide our forum and involve it in constant and seemingly endless personal conflict? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Blowzabella Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:21 PM Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run? Sometimes in a converstaion, the following phrase is heard: Can we change the subject please? It is usually considered impolite, once a participant in the conversation has requested this, to continue to discuss the original topic. Numerous people have asked if the subject you seem to want to discuss might be dropped or changed. I think people might be more willing to return to considering this topic if you demonstrated your willingness to join and discuss other threads, which weren't seen as so negative towards a situation they don't see as a problem. ...I know i'm going to regret posting this, but i felt I had to have a go... (not as in 'have a go at someone' but as in 'give it a shot') People have often commented on my ability to show wisdom in strained situations - to pour oil on troubled waters - i can't see it working in this instance because I really don't think you want the perceived 'problem' to go away. I suspect strongly that, even if an announcement were made that From this day Forward, whenever a post is deleted or edited or a thread closed, an editing comment will be inserted etc ... you would still deny that this was being done ... I'm convinced. I don't think either that Max or anyone should go down that line, because, as has been said many many times, it is Max's forum and it runs as he sees fit. If you have a problem i strongly suggest that you ask Max via PM. If he doesn't respond by acquiescing to your request - I would accept that as being his answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:23 PM No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Blowzabella Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:29 PM No - I know - but we have also tried just ignoring threads and then he just gets cross at being ignored and starts posting off-topic on other ones! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:33 PM "No one is forcing anyone to read or respond to Shambles' thread or posts. " Not a good answer. No one is forcing Shambles to keep posting either after he made his point. As shown above, Shambles has refreshed his own thread to keep it visible. I would suspect that he may be posting as "guest", something that he has also accused others of doing. I know I should not feed into this thread either. It is interesting to see that before Clinton posted yesterday, there was at least 24 hours when Shambles was the only one adding to this thread. It seems telling that the only people that see any merit in this is Shambles and nameless Guest, who could very easily be one in the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:40 PM Strongly suspect Guest is a certain female person from Minneappolis MN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Pseudolus Date: 22 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM Once you've opened a thread where there is a Shamble Ramble, it just gets under your skin. This is the same argument with the same reasonings and mostly I get annoyed at myself for reading them at all. In the end what happens is I stop opening up Mudcat at all, sometimes for months at a time. I return, just long enough to get annoyed and then off I go again. And don't tell me that I should simply not open those threads because it's not always obvious that the thread was either started by him or hijacked by him. The complaint is the same, it never changes, and it won't. He will find a reason why he is being persecuted and that the moderators are out to get him and this post as well will be villified to be from a poster that just doesn't understand. I personally have only one complaint about the moderation of this forum and that is the length at which this current discussion has been allowed to continue. Having said that, I have no solution to offer, just sympathies to those who have to deal with it. You see, I can just leave as I have in the past, the moderators can not....God bless 'em. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:02 PM Wesley S came up with the following - he does not seem to think much of it now but I have yet to see it improved on. Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others. I'm convinced. Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said - as this will only confirm your already stated regret at having posted it. On top of all the other terrible things you feel I am responsible for - and I have no wish to disapoint you further. It would have been nice if you had concentrated on some attempt to solve the problem rather than making personal judgements and rehashing the same tired assumptions. For nothing you have said will change anything. It will only continue to personalise and identfy this issue as a problem only for one poster - and the idea that it is an issue that can be solved by action against this one poster. I will not respond in kind, except to say that when I post to tell you what to post - you can do the same to me. The main thing that is stopping posters from discussing this topic is that they are encouraged join in the witch-hunt and post personal judgements of certain easy targets instead. Plus the fact that - as it is known that I will not respond in kind - being seen to be playing to the crowd in this manner is not only encouraged to be thought to be fun - it is also thought to be safe. Do you need to be censored |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:10 PM Frankly I think the Mets have a great shot at going all the way this year. I'm hoping the Yankees are eliminated in the first round of playoffs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:14 PM No one is forcing anyone to read or respond on this thread. That means you too. I happen to enjoy Shambles' posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:15 PM I know I should not feed into this thread either. Then why do you do it? Are you forced to? Ron you are of course welcome to discuss the thread's subject when you can't resist posting to and both refreshing and moaning about this thread and your named fellow posters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:18 PM Thank you. I will have a second cup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:21 PM Shambles: there are some folks who seemingly wish to keep on your case. Ignore them. You speak for yourself, and you have done so for months in the face of people who love to gang up on others. Ignore them and keep about your task. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:32 PM Well you've got the underdog sympathy vote Roger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:33 PM Shambles - since you profess to want only to enter into reasonable discussions with other posters, why don't you start a thread on a subject which other people might want to discuss with you reasonably? Or is the only subject you actually want to talk about the way in which this forum is run? Right you did ask - so I will assume that you do want an answer. I will start off with a question for you. What do you you think started all of this? I was trying to to do just that and I still am. It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made. Here is an example of an attempt to start a thread song. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers From: The Shambles - PM Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix? This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first? Thank you. Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu. The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads. If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section. You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM "It became pretty obvious that it was not going to be possible for some posters and for me especially - to continue be able to do this unless some changes were made." How? From what you posted, Joe offered you choices. He even said "If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section." I thought your big complaint was that changes are made without informing anyone? Here Joe had the courtesy of telling you what would happen in public and you still find a reason to complain? Boy, there is no pleasing some people!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Blowzabella Date: 22 Sep 06 - 03:41 PM "Blowzabella - from reading your post I see you are so convinced that you should have some control over the postings of others that there is little point in me responding to the little you have said..." Nothing I said suggested that I should have or desire to have any control over anyone else's posts. I really do not see how anyone reading my post could interpret it in that way. I merely suggested that your present tactic is not working and that, by doing what you say you want to do - i.e. taking part in reasoned discussions - plural ie on more than one topic - you might find that you could return to this topic later in the conversation. It is how conversations work. Should you not wish to do so, I suggest you direct your request to the site owner. These are suggestions which do not in any way try to controll what you post or where you post - but may help you to resolve something which clearly takes up more of your day than can be healthy, in the long term. Even the most ardent campaigners have to use more than one tactic - especially when they can see that their preferred method is having little effect. Unless, that is, your campaign is having precisely the effect you desire - having no idea of what your true desires are, I cannot, obviously, make any comment on that. Howeve, God has granted me serenity to accept the things I cannot change - what a pity he hasn't done the same for you. Oh - and by the way - no-one is forcing you to read my post - nor did I force you to read the previous ones. They might even have been posted merely to refresh the thread - who knows? |