 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jacqui.c Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM 1.) "Those of us who do consider our forum is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion, who like our forum and who don't see merits in a change to members only forum, may be disapointed and confused about the current and future direction of our forum. " Granted. Is there anyone else out there who may be confused? I would ask that anonymous guests do not reply to my question because it would be very easy to make acccusations that those replies are coming from one person. If you are a MEMBER of this forum, do you agree with Shambles statement that you don't see merits in a change to members only forum? Personally, I would welcome a change to members only forum. I AGREE WITH YOU RON. - It would be refreshing to KNOW who is making statements and might just lead to less nastiness from those who, whilst they may be members, are too chicken to post unpleasantness under their own names. 2)"They may question if the 'best efforts' of our 'moderators' are really being made to continue to make Max's posting policy work, or to show that it cannot - in order to serve their own, quite different agenda." Does anyone feel that the moderators should not be participating? Personally, I think they should continue to be involved as much as they wish. I don't think that there is a problem here. I AGREE WITH YOU RON - I have never had a problem with any of the moderators and, when they have altered my thread titles I have seen the logic in the change. 3)"Especially as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made the following (for the record) statement and despite its lack of implementation since then - is still publicly posting about these changes being his required solution to the sad situation he describes (but will not solve for himself, and other, by going elsewhere)." Does anyone feel that Joe is causing a problem? Personally, I don't feel that there is any problem and Shambles is taking this out of context. I AGREE WITH YOU RON - Joe does an excellent job, given the work he does on the site as a whole. I, personally, have no beef with what he does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:45 PM I prefer a Members Only scenario, as it would then be easier to stop spammers, and to exclude those who's interests don't coincide with those of this forum. The Secret Santa thing could be run on the Help Forum as it is presently constituted, because one can post there without logging on. This would make it possible to make the whole main site members only. All the clones would really need to worry about spam wise would be the help forum then. It is difficult or well nigh impossible to ban a poster using his IP address only, as some of our posters already know, so membership would make mavericks easier to detect. It might be possible to register 2 identities as a member if they wanted to, one for normal posts, and one for SS or anonymous posts, the people who run the site would still know who was who, and thus control could be maintained Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:38 PM Personally, I would welcome a change to members only forum. Care to explain why our forum should be changed to suit your requirements and why you and others who feel this way, cannot find an existing one to suit these requirements? Personally, I think they should continue to be involved as much as they wish. I don't think that there is a problem here. Why do you think that? Can our forum really be expected to accept that any 'moderator' with such an agenda, to provide their best efforts to make the current policy work? Personally, I don't feel that there is any problem and Shambles is taking this out of context. Why do you not see this as problem? My view that it was bad enough that a few posters were shaping our forum to their requirements - but when the (for the record) statement was made and it was clear that this agenda would be pushed by these few until Max felt he had little choice. And it was in trying to inform our forum of this and trying to enable it to be discussed (when others were trying to ensure that it was not) that has resulted in the restrictions being imposed on my posting. No it is very much in context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM Okay, this is very good. You broke down the BS and made some logical statements. There are actually three points to your last post that COULD be open to discussion. 1.) "Those of us who do consider our forum is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion, who like our forum and who don't see merits in a change to members only forum, may be disapointed and confused about the current and future direction of our forum. " Granted. Is there anyone else out there who may be confused? I would ask that anonymous guests do not reply to my question because it would be very easy to make acccusations that those replies are coming from one person. If you are a MEMBER of this forum, do you agree with Shambles statement that you don't see merits in a change to members only forum? Personally, I would welcome a change to members only forum. 2)"They may question if the 'best efforts' of our 'moderators' are really being made to continue to make Max's posting policy work, or to show that it cannot - in order to serve their own, quite different agenda." Does anyone feel that the moderators should not be participating? Personally, I think they should continue to be involved as much as they wish. I don't think that there is a problem here. 3)"Especially as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made the following (for the record) statement and despite its lack of implementation since then - is still publicly posting about these changes being his required solution to the sad situation he describes (but will not solve for himself, and other, by going elsewhere)." Does anyone feel that Joe is causing a problem? Personally, I don't feel that there is any problem and Shambles is taking this out of context. Now, without all the hyperbole and comments directed at Shambles I would suggest that people give LOGICAL answers to the very direct questions that he has posed. Perhaps a REAL discussion will indeed put this issue to rest. I also caution that Mudcat members respond. While guests are free to post their comments, it is impossible for those of us who are reading this to figure out if it is one person who is "stuffing the ballot box" when you sign in as a guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM "It is a fact that in the time since this (for the record) statement/complaint was made on forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, the site's owner, our host Max has not seen fit to implement the only suggestion contained in this statement." So then what is the problem? Well Ron - since you ask. Those of us who do consider our forum is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion, who like our forum and who don't see merits in a change to members only forum, may be disapointed and confused about the current and future direction of our forum. They may question if the 'best efforts' of our 'moderators' are really being made to continue to make Max's posting policy work, or to show that it cannot - in order to serve their own, quite different agenda. Especially as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made the following (for the record) statement and despite its lack of implementation since then - is still publicly posting about these changes being his required solution to the sad situation he describes (but will not solve for himself, and other, by going elsewhere). And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that? So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Please Delete Spam From: Joe Offer Date: 17-Sep-06 - 03:21 AM Sorry, but I can't sift out all the Guest posts from the others, without messing with a thread more than I feel comfortable doing. I agree that the conspiracy-theory posts add nothing to the thread, and tend to stifle real discussion. guess that's a good reason for blocking Guest posts in the non-music section. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:08 AM No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages. -Joe Offer- Is anyone still buying this double standard? Who is it that deletes these 'direct attacks on people' when these post are seen to be from our 'moderators', from the favoured few (who none of these 'rules' apply to) or are seen to be attacking and name-calling certain easy targets? As for 'stalking' posts being deleted - again it rather depends on who is doing the 'stalking' and who is being stalked. If the following is the case: "And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion." Would this be any surprise - given the example set by some of our 'moderators' and if they really think this of our forum - why do they stay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 30 Oct 06 - 04:16 AM Some good advice following - from a guest poster to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. In the meantime: if you don't like a forum or the way it is run, just don't visit it. No Shambles - that was a message to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:58 AM "And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion." Some good advice following - from a guest poster to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. In the meantime: if you don't like a forum or the way it is run, just don't visit it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 30 Oct 06 - 01:52 AM As for discussing the (for the record) statement - the following post indicates some of the difficulties caused by it. Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Ebbie - PM Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM "And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion." Oh. I get it. If I report that in my opinion the Mudcat is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off and have a good discussion then I'm disagreeing with Joe Offer, which makes Joe a liar and therefore he must go. Am I right? Posters will free to repeatedly post here to repeatedly judge me and my posting of repetition and and of being the cause of every ill known to mankind. To post jokes recipes, jokes and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will litter this thread with spam - but due to the division now actively encouraged on our forum - no one appears to feel free to post either agree or disagree with this statement and its suggested solution or to actually discuss it at all. Some - rather than simply not discuss it, will even post at length to discuss all the good reasons why it does not need to be discussed. You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing thread (where no editing action had been imposed) and did not refresh the thread. No, nothing you've posted has been deleted. It takes quite a bit to warrant deletion - direct attacks on people, racism, stalking, or frequent multiple posts of the same messages. -Joe Offer- This of course despite my request that all editing comments are limited to only where same form of action has been judged to be required and that editing comments are always used to indicate where this has occured. And of course had this simple suggestion been adopted - there would have been no need for any poster to worry or inquire publicly if any of their posts had been 'silently deleted', nor for the reply to made in an inserted editing comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ignore CT & DP From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:39 PM I don't think it is right to start a "boycott" unless there is a specific reason. The tone of the above post is that we should avoid talking to Shambles just to piss him off. I don't care to be a part of that. IF there were a reasonable attempt to discuss issues, or ideas, then I am all for it. Unless there is something to add, I won't post to the thread - but I reserve the right to post in any thread that the moderators and owner of the site will allow me to - provided I obey their policies and if I feel that I can make a contribution to the discussion. If you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything. If you legitimatly want to converse, then converse. If you want to engage in a pissing contest with another Mudcatter - you know where to find the thread. |
|
Subject: BS: Ignore CT & DP From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:31 PM Let's try to ignore Closed Threads and Deleted Posts again. It was so much fun seeing Shambles panic a short time ago when no one would answer his desperate attempts to get attention. Post here instead of giving Shambles what he wants. It should be a lot of fun seeing how he reacts this time. Andy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:27 PM I'll but that. I'm outta here. See ya.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:08 PM Good decision Ron. It would be great if everyone stopped posting to this thread like what happened a short time ago. It sure was fun to watch Shambles do a daily posting looking for attention. Why don't we try it again. I'm signing off now. Maybe eveyone else would be willing to do that. Great idead lightnix about prescreening someone's posting. If a poster is obnoxious he/she deserves to be edited out. Good bye to this thread...forever. Soon goodbye to Shambles...forever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:42 PM "Ron, You've become a glutton for punishment. ... Give it up guy!" You are right. I apologize for wasting more time and space. At least I feel good that I made my points coherent, thought about the issues, and came to what I feel was a reasonable point of view. Shambles has some legitimate gripes, but it won't go anywhere. It is not worth repeating the same points over and over again, and to be goaded into doing that. That is a tactic of Shambles that is very rude, yet it is something he won't acknowledge. There are no new points being made, and it is obvious that some people refuse to listen and really think the issues through. It just isn't worth it. Over a website? Please!! Have fun everybody! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM The last comers disappeared in the church and the sound of singing came faintly to Jehiels ears. Although he was the sexton he rarely was in church for the service, using his duties as an excuse for absence. He felt that it was not for him to take part in prayer and thanksgiving. As a boy he had prayed for the one thing he wanted, and what had it come to? If it doesnt let him promptly heave a ZUG after it; the two together canhardly fail to bung the hole; but if, by a miracle, they SHOULD fail, let His uncle had grown very pale during this speech, and at the last words he recoiled with an exclamation of horror. There was a silence in which he looked at his nephew with the wide eyes of a man who sees a spectre. Then he turned away into the furnace-room, and picking up his lunch-box brought it back. Here, you, he said, roughly, part of whats troublin you is that you aint had any breakfast. You eat this and youll feel better. Ill be back in a minute. He looked up at the lofty crown of the pine tree, through which shone one or two of the brightest stars, and felt a new comradeship with it. It was a great tree, he thought, and they had grown up together. He laid his hardened palm on it, and fancied that he caught a throb of the silent vitality under the bark. How many kinds of life there were! Under its white shroud, how all the valley lived. The tree stretching up its head to the stars, the river preparing to throw off the icy armor which compressed its heart -- they were all awakening in their own way. The river had been restless, like himself, the tree had been tranquil, but they passed together through the resurrection into quiet life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,lightnix Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:11 PM The system is being upgraded now... Perhaps in the spare time that you will have after you are banned from Mudcat... Ooo, does this mean you'll be getting some "real" forum software - that'll help. I moderated on a forum that used Invision, it was great. We operated a "three strikes system", after which an offending member would be placed under "pre-moderation" i.e. they could still post, but their posts would remain invisible until approved by a moderator; any posts which didn't make the grade were binned with no further warning, notice or explanation. If pre-mod didn't work then we could either suspend them (can log in but not post) or ban the IP address (can't even lurk). OK - an IP ban is bypassable, but your prose style will always give you away eventually. In the meantime, the best thing to do with Shambles and his ilk is just ignore them. It's hard sometimes, but remember: every time you respond to his/their trolling and baiting, all you do is give them the attention they so desperately crave, because they are sad and lonely people with no lives. People like Shambles have few, if any real points to make, all they want is a reaction and every time you answer their posts, you give it to them. In the meantime: if you don't like a forum or the way it is run, just don't visit it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: autolycus Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:23 PM Joe:- I'm trying to be helpful at this point. Can you tell me if anything I've posted has been edited out? As far as I can tell, nothing has. If I'm right about that, there may be something for posters to learn. Again IF I'm right, all that's required is to post sensibly (?!),interestingly (?!), vaguely to the point, without pointless abuse, or libel. If that is all that it takes to steer clear of being edited out, then this ginormous , for want of a better word, discussion just might evaporate. Ivor
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:08 PM Ron, You've become a glutton for punishment. You always have seemed to be the voice of reason. Stop trying to best Shambles at this game. No one will win because no one has the patience to ask the same thing over and over and then search for isolated sentences posted years ago that justify the point in question. As a matter of fact, there really is no point in question because Max can do whatever he wants irregardless of what anyone or everyone thinks about it. Just ignore Shambles because he will always find a way to weasel away from any logical discussion. A discussion may prove him wrong so he doesn't enter into one. Just accusation after accusation. Give it up guy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bill D Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM Well, Ron....after your heroic effort to be fair, reasonable and understanding with Shambles, I see you now asking him the same questions I and others did 2-3-4 years ago....and I see him baiting and evading you with rhetorical and repetitive replies as he has done in response to others for those several years. He 'seems' to be saying that it would be fine if NO ONE replied, and left him to post away, unnoticed, forever....but I suspect that a few months of NO ONE opening his threads/posts would not satisfy him at all. After 5-6 years of following this, I'll confess, I have lost the point of the original complaint...though I can name several current ones that branched off FROM the ongoing complex of responses. It's funny...if any of this took place in a room at a live gathering, I'll wager it would be much easier to either debate or ignore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:13 PM According to Max "Trust me, this matter will be dealt with in time. Trust me, we working as hard as we can to make this happen as soon as we can." That's about you leaving. The system is being upgraded now. Your days of repeating the same inane comments will soon come to an end. Goodbye and good riddance. Perhaps in the spare time that you will have after you are banned from Mudcat you should consider taking a course in debate. A debate includes listening to the other side...not just repeating the same comments over and over again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:57 PM " I don't, but why do you insist on responding to points that you see no reason to respond to?" I'm responding to QUESTIONS that you have asked. That is how a discussion usually works. "Your opinion is that this (for the record) statement is of no account - no one is asking you to repeat your opinion - so why do you do it?" No fair, I asked you first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:57 PM OCD alert. OCD alert. OCD alert. I know I won't refer to him by name and then my obsession will appear to be abating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Big Mick Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:54 PM OK Ron, this is another of the tactics that has been going on for 6 to 8 years. This person continues to bait, and troll, and throw out as much data as he can to elicit a response, then turns the argument to "Why do you respond?". When folks do a concerted effort to not respond, such as was done a month or so ago, he then complains that people are ganging up on him and not responding. See how it works? Lunacy...... Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:45 PM Why do you wish everyont to repeat their statments? I don't, but why do you insist on responding to points that you see no reason to respond to? Why do you keep on opening the thread and posting to the effect that there is nothing to discuss? If you do not wish to discuss this issue - who is forcing you or anyone else to do this? Your opinion is that this (for the record) statement is of no account - no one is asking you to repeat your opinion - so why do you do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: number 6 Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:25 PM I'm very concerned on how Taylor guitars are being slammed dunked (unfairly I may add) up in the current 'Taylor' guitar thread. "And THAT'S the way it is," biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:02 PM "It is a fact that in the time since this (for the record) statement/complaint was made on forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, the site's owner, our host Max has not seen fit to implement the only suggestion contained in this statement." So then what is the problem? "So how do you equate that as the site's owner's support for this (for the record) statement and the wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made it?" I think you read too much into that. You make it sound like Joe's suggestion was some sort of set-in-stone, take-it-or-leave-it, dealbreaker. Most people have discourse and move on. Seems like Joe & Max have that. Nothing much to discuss here. "Perhaps you need to explain this to the poster/'moderator' who made the following (for the record) request? For he appears to think that our host will change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two." Not much to discuss or explain there. You can interpret comments any way you choose, but actions speak louder than your words. IF something will happen, it will happen. If not, so be it. La dee da. "Or at the very least, some form of public (for the record) statement of its intended implementation would have be given to our forum?" No reason for anyone to respond to that. Your circular reasoning is getting you no where. Anyone who looks hard enough will come up with an answer to either make your case or disprove. The simple fact remains that while many of us see your points, by the lack of action no one seems to feel sufficiently moved to join you on your quest. You receive some sympathy, a few pats on the back, but what we witness by reading these threads is that no one is out there fighting the battle or even discussing what you consider to be the issue. You keep cutting and pasting a comment about this place not being fun anymore and then ask people to discuss it. A few people have stated why they don't agree with you, I have not seen anyone who supported the statement, and then you complain that no one wishes to discuss the issue. Your point was made, reasons against were offered - and that is the discussion. Why do you wish everyont to repeat their statments? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,Professor Lucullus Chinchover Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:22 PM My recent research has indicated that overuse of the word "perhaps" can lead to sterility and impotency as well as general mental and physical deterioration. This may be because "perhaps" is a word that refuses to commit itself definitely one way or another. Test subjects began to show symptoms of general debilitation when they used the word "perhaps" more than seven times in one hour or 85 times in one day, and they also began to ramble on in a fashion which could be amusing to some, confusing to others, and irritating to still others, depending on various different personality factors. The message is clear: restrict your use of the word "perhaps" to an absolute minimum in order to avoid ill effects! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:22 PM Boregasmic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM Boring |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM Boring |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM Boring |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: John MacKenzie Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:21 PM Boring |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:13 PM Nobody is going to change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two, especially once the total membership number has risen beyond a few tens / hundreds. Perhaps you need to explain this to the poster/'moderator' who made the following (for the record) request? For he appears to think that our host will change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that? So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:06 PM Apparently the support is there from the owner of this site. That is all that is needed. It is a fact that in the time since this (for the record) statement/complaint was made on forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, the site's owner, our host Max has not seen fit to implement the only suggestion contained in this statement. So how do you equate that as the site's owner's support for this (for the record) statement and the wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who made it? If Max was seen to be supporting this (for the record) statement - surely our forum would already had been changed to accomodate the wishes of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team? Or at the very least, some form of public (for the record) statement of its intended implementation would have be given to our forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST,lightnix Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM Shamble, I think you need to get over yourself. As a long term forum user and occasional moderator, I've developed the following view over the last few years... Nobody has a "right" to post anything, in any web forum, anywhere, other than the Adminstrators, to whom the site belongs. Web forums are not democracies, they are privately owned and run websites and if the owners don't want to see certain things in their websites then those things don't go in. Forums are not "services" in the strict sense of the word. They (and the various functions and facilities they offer) are merely courtesies extended by the voluntary administrators who run them, often at their own financial expense (especially in the short term) and their moderation team. As long as membership is free, nobody has the right to expect (let alone demand) any level of service of any kind, particularly one that is higher than that which the voluntary team who run a forum are prepared to provide. Nobody forces anybody to visit, register with, or post in any forum. The whole process is entirely voluntary and if a member doesn't like the way a forum is run, the best thing to do is not go there. Getting involved in the politics and starting fights, especially with moderators will get you precisely nowhere (except maybe a ban). Nobody is going to change the way they run their forum just to suit the wants and whims of an individual member or two, especially once the total membership number has risen beyond a few tens / hundreds. Moderators are not censors, they are closer to being newspaper sub-editors. When somebody makes a post to a forum, it is as though they are writing a letter or submitting copy to a newspaper and, as with a newspaper, the editor and sub-editors may go through that copy and edit (not censor) it, so that the message published in the paper is clear, concise and in line with the "profile" of the publication. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Bunnahabhain Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:15 AM Stop maoning shambles. We of the the Moab continuium have just lost about 7000 posts... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:11 AM "Your view is that I do not have a very good debating style. Perhaps you would accept other posters may feel that I do, that I am saying exacly what they may wish to and that they will watch while I take all the public 'stick' that seems to be the result of trying to discuss certain issues on our forum?" No, I don't see such evidence. There are people who agree with you, including me, but I see very few that agree with the level of importance that you place on it. " Such a view is possible? " Anything is possible, but is it probable? " Yours may be one view?" Well duh! Of course, my view could also be shared by hundreds, as could yours. Not that any of our views matter. " And where is the support here for the (for the record) statement? " Apparently the support is there from the owner of this site. That is all that is needed. "this the equivalent of the shop's manager complaining about the staff to the customers and to the customers about the staff and telling the shop's owner that they require the hairdressers shop to be changed into a chip shop. Such a statement does little to help the morale of the staff, very little to encourge the existing customers or any new ones who still turn up expecting their hair to be done ." So? The owner of the store can take the business in any way they choose. True, it may hurt the morale of the staff and customers, but the business decision is not theirs to make. "You will notice that I will not make any personal judgement of your worth, in my post but will continue try to discuss the issue." Seems like a statement like that just made a judgement about Jerry. It appears that you feel superior to Jerry by saying things like that. You don't have the option of controlling how people discuss issues. It is not your job to moderate and your suggestions are not being taken seriously because of the way you are supposedly "discussing" this issue. Shutting down other views and turning yourself into a martyr does not help your case. "But the other option is for those complainers to start one of their own." Let us know where you start one. I will be sure to visit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:11 AM Despite the best efforts of our Police, they have not eliminated crime. We should get rid of them all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:18 AM Thank you Jerry. You will notice that I will not make any personal judgement of your worth, in my post but will continue try to discuss the issue. You will acept that it is true that their are plenty of chip shops needing to be managed. Though quite how many owners would tolerate their managers being seen to constantly complain about their customers, their staff and their policy - is not sure. But the other option is for those complainers to start one of their own. But again I am not sure how many customers would be attracted to a shop with such a policy - but this would be a fair test and more honest approach than to try and dictate terms to and changing an established business to suit the manager's requirements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 29 Oct 06 - 08:47 AM Hey Shambles: Thanks for taking an extremely straighforward, actual occurence and making it into an incomprehensible analogy. Only you. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Oct 06 - 08:34 AM Rather than an analogy, I'll offer an actual event that happened with a person I knew. This person endlessly complained about a particular hair dresser in a beauty Salon that she went to. No matter how much the hair dresser tried to satisfy this person, she was always extremely critical after each visit. This person complained so endlessly that she finally succeeded in getting the hair dresser fired. There was so much upset in the beauty salon among the other hair dressers that the employer investigated the matter more thoroughly and discovered that the problem was the customer, not the hair dresser. The hair dresser that was fired was well-liked by her other customers. As an analogy - this story rather depends on who you are encouraged to see as the complainant and who you see as the customer and what is the aim. I cannot view the following as anything other that a complaint of the most fundamental kind, and this after a never-ending list of public complaints about posters, made by the same individual over many years. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. Joe Offer To go on from the hairdresser story - this the equivalent of the shop's manager complaining about the staff to the customers and to the customers about the staff and telling the shop's owner that they require the hairdressers shop to be changed into a chip shop. Such a statement does little to help the morale of the staff, very little to encourge the existing customers or any new ones who still turn up expecting their hair to be done . It may be some encouragement to those who like chips - but as has been pointed out many times - there are no shortage of chip shops eleswhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:45 AM There ya' go Ebbie. You have received right from the horse's ass a Shambolina Classic. Syntax and logic both are garbled and beyond recognition. The last "policy" Max had towards postings by the Piss&MoanMeister was a request he leave. Got a mirror Roger? I mean do you have one your wife will allow you to use without fear of breakage? If so, please look into it and say, "Geeziz, I am really an asshole." Repeat this one hundred times and then perhaps you will be able to read what Max has actually said and see that you are not his defender but his antagonist and your ass is about to get the boot as outlined for you previously. Do yourself a huge favor Roger and go back to your poems and songs and drop the vendetta. Just a suggestion mind you, but it's a good one. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:40 AM Shambles, if no one seems to be willing to discuss your point, perhaps you would accept that no one has any serious objections or they would be bringing up points to support yours? It is the most shocking thing the animals have ever seen. It goes against everything that they have been taught up to then. Just as it seems that someone might object, the sheep break into a deafening chorus of "Four legs bad, two legs better." Yours may be one view? The evidence would not support this. There are a number of poster who do have serious objections - they just make less noise, are not encouraged and are understandably reticent about posting anything that may look like supporting my views (especially in this thread). Your view is that I do not have a very good debating style. Perhaps you would accept other posters may feel that I do, that I am saying exacly what they may wish to and that they will watch while I take all the public 'stick' that seems to be the result of trying to discuss certain issues on our forum? Such a view is possible? Perhaps you would also accept that all the justifications provided to support the special restrictions are bogus? That it is what I try to say that is the real problem? And that this is clearly demonstrated in the fact that I and any other poster would still be free to say what a wonderful job our 'moderators' are doing in any thread (as they are doing) and be able to do this as often as they wished - without any accusations of hijacking? And that certain posters are encouraged to post spam, jokes, recipes in this thread - safe from any accusations of this hijacking? And that anyone who supports this - is seen to be supporting a double standard of posting behaviour on our forum? One where online bullying is now seen to be encouraged by the open participation and encouragement of some of our 'moderators'? And where is the support here for the (for the record) statement? Even the fellow poster who made it - seems reluctant to now discuss it or indicate to our forum if this view has changed in the period since it was made, or whether this is still their view. Although the poster cannot seem to be quite able to ignore this thread or resist posting to it but adding little to the discussion. One blessing is that these contributions are at least being posted conventionally and do refresh the thread - rather than being contained in editing comments, which do not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: The Shambles Date: 29 Oct 06 - 07:02 AM Am I right? Why have you posted but not told us what your opinion is. There is nothing to discuss - if you do not. So perhaps you could simply tell our forum what it is your opinion on this statement? Do you agree with it and the proposed solution to it - or not? Ebbie - perhaps you would accept that it is the public posting of this 'for the record' statement by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that is causing you and our forum the sort of problems and conclusions you refer to? All I am doing is asking for these problems to be discussed and addressed. For this is exactly the sort of division that I refer to. In all truth your opinion either supports this statement or it does not. So why should you feel you have to struggle to make your opinion fit with any 'semi-official' party line and feel you need to be seen to be on the right side? Especially a side that appears never to be satisfied......... In my view there has only been one side to take and that is to support our forum and the open invitation for the public to post and the continuation of Max's posting policy. To my mind, any poster who does not support this and requires it to be changed to better suit their requirements - has never been posting on the right forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: jeffp Date: 28 Oct 06 - 03:06 PM Of course, your presence here gives the lie to that statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM No Ebbie, you would be disagreeing with a moderator so you must go. Better yet, according to Shambles, your comment would be edited out and you would be permanently persecuted by the moderators and lynch mobs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: Ebbie Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM "And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion." Oh. I get it. If I report that in my opinion the Mudcat is still a pleasant place to hang out and goof off and have a good discussion then I'm disagreeing with Joe Offer, which makes Joe a liar and therefore he must go. Am I right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM But if one person says it one time and Shambles picks up on it then it must be the God's honest truth. After all, Shambles is the official speaker of what is best for Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:26 AM " The following is the important thing to be seen to publicly discuss. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion." Shambles, if no one seems to be willing to discuss your point, perhaps you would accept that no one has any serious objections or they would be bringing up points to support yours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts. From: wysiwyg Date: 28 Oct 06 - 06:13 AM The ancient incurious at the Ted Rachel gavin and ground of bugle the shadow warrens abstractly to resonating capasity in the villagers plus and minus to consecutive ~S~ |