 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 16 Dec 06 - 05:38 PM It looks as if yet another thread has been 'silently deleted'. The following from Snitchers Corner. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3454&messages=4 Did this one meet the reqired criteria? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 06 - 02:25 AM Who knows? Most people don't have the time to keep track of it all like you do, Roger...let alone the inclination. (very big yawn) That was my only post today. Feel free to delete it if you want to, because it's not of any great importance anyway. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Dec 06 - 02:51 AM Who knows? Most people don't have the time to keep track of it all like you do, Roger...let alone the inclination. (very big yawn) Yes it is a thankless task and those of us volunteers who do to undertake this service do not get paid but we are doing our best - so give us a break? But it is clear that the poster in Snitchers Corner was not so in need of sleep as you and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team appear would claim to be (when you were both obviously not too tired, bored or disinterested to take the time to post)- did have the inclination to at least ask the question. I feel that that is an encouraging sign? Don't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Dec 06 - 02:57 AM But it is clear that the poster in Snitchers Corner was not so in need of sleep as you and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team appear would claim to be (when you were both obviously not too tired, bored or disinterested to take the time to post)- did have the inclination to at least ask the question. And this was the answer. Subject: RE: Humor/humourless thread gone? From: Joe Offer Date: 16-Dec-06 - 05:56 PM It was taken over by anonymous trolls posting nasty things, and I received a request to delete it. Another good reason to go members-only, hey? -Joe Offer- I think not - but it is something that could be discussed in this thread. Along with the now familiar double standards being displayed - do you see a (not very-well) hidden agenda here in these actions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Dec 06 - 05:08 AM Ah but, was the anonymous poster in what you in your condescending, and sarcastic fashion, like to call Snitchers Corner you Roger? It is a known ploy on this site to post anonymously to back yourself up, I've even seen it done to contradict oneself in an effort to start an argument. Not that I'm accusing you of trying to start an argument Roger; perish the thought! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Dec 06 - 05:35 AM Ah but, was the anonymous poster in what you in your condescending, and sarcastic fashion, like to call Snitchers Corner you Roger? It is a known ploy on this site to post anonymously to back yourself up, I've even seen it done to contradict oneself in an effort to start an argument. Not that I'm accusing you of trying to start an argument Roger; perish the thought! Giok No. Perhaps you should not make the assumption that any questionable course of action that you may judge to be acceptable would even occur to other posters? Subject: Humor/humourless thread gone? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16-Dec-06 - 03:06 PM "This thread has been deleted." Why on earth? It seemed a perfectly innocuous thread about a potentially interesting subject. Then someone pulled the plug on it. Something going on? I had thought that the excuse of throwing out the bathwater in order for our 'moderators' to be seen to throw out the baby with it to further shape our forum to their requirements - was a thing of the past. That the 'silent deletion' of entire threads and all of the posts contained in it was something our forum had seen the last of. That it had been accepted that if 'silent deletion' was ever to be judged necessary - that it would be imposed and limited to only on the offending posts? It would appear that I was wrong? But being seen to only be taking action against the few ofending posts - would be a more proportionate approach and a more logical course for our 'moderators to ask and expect posters to support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Dec 06 - 06:02 AM "It would appear that I was wrong?" Surely not Roger? You're never wrong are you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 06 - 10:41 AM Is he responsible for this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 06 - 02:45 PM I'm not disinterested, Roger, I am uninterested. There's a difference. It is only idle curiosity that causes me to check this thread now and then. It's like glancing at a nasty auto accident as I drive by, I just can't help but take a quick look. Then I realize there's nothing I can do about it, the ambulance is already there, and I move on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 17 Dec 06 - 05:48 PM It's like glancing at a nasty auto accident as I drive by, I just can't help but take a quick look. (Yawn.) Help! All this tiredness must be catching. I just hope you don't drive when you are obviously so tired. You could cause accidents - rather than simply finding crash scenes and viewing the plight of their victims so compulsive. But as you have taken the time and trouble to post - instead of just posting yet more unhelpful and pointless judgements to this thread - you could have addressed the issues being discussed - if you are not too tired. For this thread is hardly short of such posts. Or you could even now follow the example encouraged to be shown by certain favoured posters and post only some more of the scatological insults and names that are so loved by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.. I am sure you would be allowed and encouraged to indulge in this also. But I had forgotten you claim to be uninterested. How come it does not come over that your post was motivated by lack of interest? It (and the online yawning) could look a lot more like if it was following the example set and motivated by a poster wishing to be seen to be 'sucking-up' to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Subject: RE: BS: Washing snotty handkerchifs From: Jenny O Date: 23 Sep 06 - 03:17 AM It always amazes me, the people who come onto threads where the subject can be very clearly seen without opening them, just to read them and criticise us poor little plebs for wasting our lives on them. Obviously they don't mind wasting THEIR lives to do that. I may have thought that those posters - who unlike me are still fortumate enough to remain free from special posting restrictions would make more positive use of their freedom to post what and where they wish - especially when they are so very tired and claim to be uninterested. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 06 - 09:46 PM Joe, Just out of curiosity, if Mudcat was able to ban Martin Gibson why doesn't it have the ability to ban Shambles?
[grin] -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 02:13 AM Just out of curiosity, if Mudcat was able to ban Martin Gibson why doesn't it have the ability to ban Shambles? I am sure that Max has the ability. The question is why would he feel he had to ban a valued long-term posters and one of his and our forum's biggest supporters? For anyone with even half a brain can see that what is at the core of this is two posters who both consider they have our forum's best interests at heart - but who have totally different views on how this is best achieved and one who thinks that being seen to abuse his editing powers to win this dispute at any cost - is acceptable. That this personal difference has become the public battle that is now evidenced - is regrettable. For important issues are being overlooked and posters confused and inhibited in the process. As far as this personal dispute goes - the question is how and why did one of our forum's biggest supporters become labelled as the current 'public enemy number one' be seen to be subjected to and encouraged to be subjected to abusive personal attacks by our 'moderators' and certain favoured posters and what does this say about our forum? How can our forum ensure that all posters are seen to be treated openly and equally - that they are encouraged to post and not inhibited from posting in any way and that any 'moderators' are not seen to place the interests of all on our forum secondary and abuse their powers in personally motivated but publicly conducted witch-hunts against individual named posters? Simply banning (or talking about banning) individual posters who do not agree with the views of the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and are not prepared to be forced into agreement with him - will not address any of the above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Ebbie Date: 18 Dec 06 - 02:58 AM "For anyone with even half a brain can see that what is at the core of this is two posters who both consider they have our forum's best interests at heart - but who have totally different views on how this is best achieved and one who thinks that being seen to abuse his editing powers to win this dispute at any cost - is acceptable." RG Note, Sham, that although you may both be posters albeit with "totally different views on how this is best achieved", one of you has power and position, the other has none. You are NOT equal, no matter how you spin it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 04:36 AM Note, Sham, that although you may both be posters albeit with "totally different views on how this is best achieved", one of you has power and position, the other has none. Thanks for hammering home a point that I thought I had already made. And for posting but totally ignoring the point that the actions currently being demonstrated to our forum - by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - is only confirming the abuse of that power and position. For until I am driven out, banned or seen to post only agreement of this abuse - I will be seen by our forum to be subjected to special restrictions, posts containing only personal abuse and spam that is intentionally posted to threads on our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. All this in pursuit of his personal disagreements with certain named posters and despite the divisive effect the public display of all this unfairness is having on our forum. Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship. So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 06 - 05:08 AM I am sure that Max has the ability. Well as far as I can see it, to stop a person from posting under there membership name is easy but to prevent a person from posting at all is difficult and perhaps impossible. I can't think of a method that could not be worked around on a forum as open to guests as this one. As far as I understand it here, the debate is whether it is worthwhile blocking a person who is likely to be determined enough to find a way back in. Also, there is the concern that a poster who did find ways back might seek revenge for being blocked. This problem could, sadly IMO, end up as playing a part in the forum becoming member only. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Dec 06 - 05:41 AM "The question is why would he feel he had to ban a valued long-term posters and one of his and our forum's biggest supporters?" I'm reminded of the joke about the guy who said, something like. "I drive a truck, and they don't call me truck driver" "I write a hundred songs, but they don't call me song writer" "I screw just one sheep!! This monomaniacal 6 year campaign is your 'sheep' Roger. It's what you will be remembered for, and all of your other posts will be as chaff in the wind. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 05:54 AM Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 16 Dec 06 - 05:16 PM [yawn] 199 You're right, Shambles. You do get special treatment. We put up with you, and we shouldn't have to. With the way you've Spammed this forum with the same old thing (oftentimes multiple copies of the exact same thing) for six years, the fair and equitable thing would be to bar you from Mudcat for life - but we don't have the ability to do that to you just yet. So, we restrict your complaints to one active thread at a time, and allow you to say almost anything you like as long as you keep it in that one thread. If you want to post complaints in another thread, you have to stop posting in this thread and wait until tomorrow - and if you do, you can expect that this thread will be closed. Most people post what they have to say just once, and then go on and say something else. Why can't you do that? At first glance the above may seem some justification for these imposed actions. But a closer look at the accusation will show that such a response is simply not proportionate and would strongly suggest that some other factor is at work. You're right, Shambles. You do get special treatment. We put up with you, and we shouldn't have to. Should our forum have to put up with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and what he will allow? The first question must who is the 'we' referred to? When used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - this divisive use of the words 'we' or 'us' never makes clear who it refers to but the only thing our forum can be sure of - is that it no longer refers to all of the posters to our forum. Perhap it means the same noisy few posters who complain to him about what other posters choose to post in order to get editing action imposed on these contributions? For these are not seen to be dismissed by him as 'complaints' but are referred to as 'requests' and are often implemented at speed. Unlike the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team , many posters do not judge my posts to be 'obnoxious' and appear to be perfectly happy to put up with me. And even those who do not - unlike the current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - would probably accept that - as they accept that other posters 'should' put up with seeing their posts - they in turn 'should' have to put up with seeing the reasonably expressed posts of others. With the way you've Spammed this forum with the same old thing (oftentimes multiple copies of the exact same thing) for six years, the fair and equitable thing would be to bar you from Mudcat for life - but we don't have the ability to do that to you just yet. No evidence is provided to support this accusation. Unlike the Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who has intentionally posted spam posts on our forum - I have not posted any spam to our forum - just my honest views. And even if such an exagerated accusation had any truth in it - would the 'fair and equitable thing' really be to bar me 'from the Mudcat for life' for such a 'crime'? Seeing a post with views you may not have agreed being posted subsequently in different threads - may be slightly irritating to some and not make anyone who had, any more inclined to agree with it - but I would suggest that a proportionate response for such posting 'crimes' would not be to bar the poster from the Mudcat for life. And had not so many threads been routinely closed and deleted by our 'moderators' - there would not have even been a need for them to be posted or pasted again. For this is tool to be used on our forum - it is not a 'crime' and perhaps should not be inhibited - just because our 'moderators' may not like to see certain views posted? Especially when certain posters and 'moderators are seen to be free from any censure and are now seen to be encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to follow their example in posting only abusive personal attacks and name-calling and the targeting of certain posters? So, we restrict your complaints to one active thread at a time, and allow you to say almost anything you like as long as you keep it in that one thread. If you want to post complaints in another thread, you have to stop posting in this thread and wait until tomorrow - and if you do, you can expect that this thread will be closed. Yes - out of all the posters on our forum - you have been seen to impose these special restrictions on my posting. And from the evidence in this thread alone - still this punishment is plainly seen by our forum to be not punishment enough for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.......... Most people post what they have to say just once, and then go on and say something else. Why can't you do that? Mainly because our forum is constantly being given assurances by our 'moderators' that are not honoured. So until all editing actions are recorded to enable our forum to know for the first time - the true nature and current level of 'silent deletion' and all other imposed actions - I will continue to do my best to try and bring this to its attention. Of course another way the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team could ensure that he does not see similar posts appearing - is to actually implement some of these suggestions - rather than getting his knickers twisted and spending his energy in attempts to prevent these from reappearing? For just as it unlikely that a poster may like seeing a view posted again that they did not agree with the first time - it follows that if the poster considers it to be a good idea - they will judge it no less good, the more attempts are seen to be made to prevent other posters from seeing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST,lox Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:45 AM You are clearly very intelligent Roger, and with 6 years of practice you have fine honed a pretty compelling argument. If I were to concentrate on the issue as you suggest, I would find your logic very persuasive. What's more, I would possibly find the serious tone of your words and your eloquence, to be inspirational in comfirming the importance of the point you're making. However, I understand the importance of perspective and the ability to remove oneself from a discussion so as to evaluate it from a new pespective. When I do, I see it as being equivalent to a campaign of letters to a parish newsletter complaining about how the annual christmas panto is organized. Poor old Father Max ;') |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Dec 06 - 10:08 AM You should be able to note by the length of my rather infrequent posts here, Roger, just how deeply interested I am in addressing those "issues"... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 06 - 11:22 AM "Yes - out of all the posters on our forum - you have been seen to impose these special restrictions on my posting." Shambles, You really know how to turn things totally around. YOU are not limited to posting in only one thread. YOU can post anywhere that you want. You are only allowed to POST YOUR COMPLAINTS in one thread rather then in every thread on the Mudcat. That really is not much of an imposition for someone who complains as much as you do. In any other forum your threads would be totally eliminated and you would eventually be banned. At least here you are allowed to express your whines and complaints in one place and not have them eliminated. I don't call that very harsh treatment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM I don't call that very harsh treatment. Perhaps the best ones to judge the extent of any harsh treatment are the victims of it - rather that those (in this case an anonymous guest) who are not subject (currently anyway) to any special posting restrictions? However, I don't think it has been claimed that this special treatment is harsh - but I suggest that it is foolish, pointless and most importantly - it is counter-productive. For in all truth (apart form all fuss made and maintained in public about its imposition) - it would be hard for our forum to detect any change from the treatment my posting has been subject to - in the 6 years during which our forum was assured by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that there was no personally motivated restrictions on my posting. It is clear that all the forms of editing action that continue to be imposed are seen to be as eagerly imposed and justified on my posting now (and not on others) as they were before. When all this time our forum was assured by the current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that all posters were treated equally. The only difference is that after years of maintaining this to be the case - and of asking our forum to support this as being the case - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team now feels brave enough to publicly admit what has always been obvious - that all the special treatment reserved for my posting only - was personally motivated. As I have always maintained and evidenced that it was - and which evidence our forum was encouraged to ridicule and for which my so-called 'crime' in persisting with - instead of being bullied into silence or being driven away - these special posting restrictions are claimed to be imposed for. No it is not the harshness of this special treatment that is seen to damage the credibilty of our forum and its 'moderation' - it is its dishonesty and the hypocritical double standards that are exposed by who this editing action it is seen to be imposed on - who it is not seen to be imposed on - and the real reasons for this display of unfair treatment by our 'moderators'. If our 'moderators' and their certain favoured posters wish to be seen to indulge in online bullying and others wish to support this (if only by not being seen to challenge it) - that may be OK - but let our forum not continue the pretence that this is something other than it plainly has always been seen to be. It is my view that our forum deserves better than both this bullying and this pretence. A pretence that seems to include our forum now being expected to forget that for over 6 years our 'moderators' claimed that they were there to protect posters from posts containing only abusive personal attacks and name-calling. And expected to forget that our 'moderators' have not only set the example of being seen to indulge in such posts but are now seen to actively encourage certain favoured posters to indulge only in such posts and inflict them on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 02:21 PM You should be able to note by the length of my rather infrequent posts here, Roger, just how deeply interested I am in addressing those "issues"... ;-) I will be even more convinced of your lack of interest when you don't post feel compelled to post this thread at all. *Smiles* But should you be unfortunate to ever find yourself in a similar situation to the one you find me it - you can rely on the fact that I will not be as uninterested as you often post only to claim to be. please rely on the fact that I will always be prepared to do what I can to help and be willing to challenge any unfairness you may be seen to be subjected to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 02:46 PM However, I understand the importance of perspective and the ability to remove oneself from a discussion so as to evaluate it from a new pespective. You could also apply that to viewing a victim of broken leg. From the perspective of the one who is not suffering the pain - you may judge the victim to be making too much of it. If you are the one suffering from the broken leg - no matter how important you may judge the ability you suggest, to be - you rather obviously lack the ability to move yourself to any other perspective from that of the one on whom the pain and suffering has been inflicted upon. In this case - it would perhaps be more positive for you to evaluate the discussion to the perspective of those set on intentionally being seen to inflict the pain? Who could also perhaps be expected to view the discussion from a new perspective and one other than their own rather narrow perspective? If you were to be fair - you may accept that my perspective is not in fact only limited to my own special and unfair treatment, which is used mainly to evidence to my concerns for the larger issues and our forum in general? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM Shambles, This is such a stupid issue to argue over for 6 years. You are acting like you were accused of some crime. People are suffering from incurable diseases, losing loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting poverty, etc. and you are complaining because some lousy comments that you write get deleted and that you are only allowed to whine on one thread but can still post to every other thread on Mudcat. You truly are an ingrate and have a lot of nerve to complain so much about something so trivial. You live in a free country, have a roof over your head, eat three meals every day. If this is the only thing that you can get passionate about then you have a very serious problem. Why don't you spend the time that you write all of this nonsense doing something that will make the world a better place. Volunteer to work for a non-profit agency that helps people, do some work at a senior citizens home, work in a food kitchen. I wish that I had the free time that you obviously have so that I could do some good things and make some people smile. Assuming that Max and the moderators have a complete change of heart and do everything that you ask (not a very likely situation). What will you have accomplished? You'll be able to write nonsense anywhere that you want and make sure that others are forced to read it. Big deal. 6 years and that is all that you can accomplish. I was always taught to help other people and to give back things to the world. Maybe you would feel better inside and have a sense of accomplishment if you could bring a smile to the face of even one unfortunate person every few days. Give up this stupidity and put the time to good use. The people whose lives you touch will certainly appreciate you more then anyone on Mudcat will do for fighting for absolutely nonthing meaningful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:34 PM I see. ;-) Okay, Roger, how much are you willing to pay me monthly to resist amusing myself by making the occasional humorous (at least to me) post on this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:49 PM Okay, Roger, how much are you willing to pay me monthly to resist amusing myself by making the occasional humorous (at least to me) post on this thread? Pay you not to 'hyjack' a thread? I should not need to do that - are not our 'moderators' supposed to place special posting restrictions on any poster who is seen to do this? Except of course for certain few favoured posters who are permitted and now actively encourged to do this and also our 'moderators' who are not only seen to indulge themselves in deliberate attempts to 'hyjack' threads - some of our 'moderators' intentionally litter threads with the spam posts that other 'moderators' are under the impression they are supposed to delete from our forum. LH - I doubt if your attempts at humourous posts could be any funnier than this sad reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM The answer is very simple. Those who don't like Roger's posts on this thread are free to ignore those posts--and this entire thread. Roger, I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and an excellent New Year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Dec 06 - 07:06 PM And for that matter, Roger is free to ignore all the other posts on this thread as well! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you Peace.....and let me send an additional Sloppy Easter Eggs. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Peace Date: 18 Dec 06 - 07:11 PM And to you, too, Spaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:25 PM Roger, I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and an excellent New Year. Thank you. Wishing a Merry Chistmas a Happy New Year and peace to you, the world and all our regular readers. Let us hope that all the divisive efforts devoted over the past 6 years to try to prevent free and open discussion of these issues on our forum can be devoted to actually addressing them and finally putting them to bed. Then our forum will be all the better for it and some of us will not have to keep trying to discuss and some of us will not have to try to avoid discussing the same old issues over and over for the next 6 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: number 6 Date: 18 Dec 06 - 11:21 PM "Roger is free to ignore all the other posts on this thread as well" If the Shambles did ignore all these posts ... then this thread wouldn't exist ... and we would be deprived of reading and posting to this thread which continues to exist because it is prove that we are free to post and exercise our freedom of expression (regardless of others opinions). Happy Holidays and a prosperous and Healthy New Year to all !! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Dec 06 - 02:23 AM If the Shambles did ignore all these posts ... then this thread wouldn't exist ... and we would be deprived of reading and posting to this thread which continues to exist because it is prove that we are free to post and exercise our freedom of expression (regardless of others opinions). I would agree that this one thread does just about still demonstrates this. The fact that it littered with various attempts to prevent discussion of its subject - and is only limited to this one thread demonstrates how close our forum is becoming to having this right of freedom of expression taken away from us all by a very few short-sighted posters. And how much effort must be put in to ensuring that those few posters - who are seen to be prepared to use just about every means and attempt any justification to take this right away from posters and for the very slightest of reasons - never succeed on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 06 - 04:24 AM I don't hyjack threads! I hijack them. Let's get that clear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Dec 06 - 04:33 AM That's alright then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Lox Date: 19 Dec 06 - 09:23 AM Hy LH ;') |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 19 Dec 06 - 09:38 AM If the Shambles did ignore all these posts ... then this thread wouldn't exist ... That is untrue. Shambles has had periods of being alone on this thread and he still posted to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 19 Dec 06 - 10:15 AM Alone like for 3 hours ... there is always someone who will post to this thread. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Dec 06 - 11:58 AM Alone like for 3 hours ... there is always someone who will post to this thread. Our forum is about encouraging posters to post. It is not about finding ways to inhibit posting. Inhibiting posting can be safely left to our 'moderators' - for I will accept that they are now doing a very good job of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST,KB Date: 19 Dec 06 - 12:11 PM If a thread existed in a forum and nobody posted to it, would it make a noise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 06 - 01:11 PM Well, I think it's a real shame that various people on this forum are consumed by the apparent need to tell other people what they can and cannot post. For instance, there has been quite a bit of resistance here to threads on Kirkology, and Kirkology is a very worthy subject. Then there's the word "n*gger", which you cannot even type out properly or say ANYWHERE these days in ANY context whatsoever, not even a historical treatise on the past use of the word when it was considered normal in certain quarters, not EVEN in order to show other people that it IS now an officially very BAD word and that THIS is how it's spelled, so then if they see it they'll know what they're bloody well seeing! (Because someone might think you really meant it...EEEEEEYYYYYAUUUUGHHHH!!!) But I may be going off at a tangent here... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: GUEST Date: 19 Dec 06 - 01:16 PM "Alone like for 3 hours". No. As an example, the shambles was the sole poster on part one of this thread between 28th Aug 2006 and 6th September 2006. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Lox Date: 19 Dec 06 - 02:13 PM I would say to Joe etc though, That if you don't want to engage shambles on this issue or you feel he shouldn't be included in Mudcat policy formation, then you should just ignore his posts on the subject. I don't see how attacks on him are helpful in any way other than to make this place look a bit uglier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Dec 06 - 03:21 PM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into the thread and did not refresh it. There was no need for this so-called editing comment to be inserted - for it was not to indicate where editing had been judged to be necesary - as no editing action was taken. Shambles is smarter than Martin Gibson...on some matters. [grin] -Joe Offer- It is claimed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that this is done to ensure that an answer is provided to where in a thread, a question was asked. Posters without edit buttons - who are not able to insert answers in this manner - do manage to do this perfectly well by copying the question and posting the answer. This answers the question, ensures that posters will not miss the answer - and it also refreshes the thread. So perhaps in future all editing comments can now be limited to where some form of imposed censorship action has been judged to be necessary and are always provided to indicate where and why any form of censorship action was judged to be necessary? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Dec 06 - 03:46 PM So perhaps in future all editing comments ... are always provided to indicate where and why any form of censorship action was judged to be necessary? Please, not. I see so many (and guess I only see a small fraction of them) spam and complete nonsense posts from GUESTs with a name I see here for the first time that I want these posts to be removed without any comment. Shambles' wish is in particular nonsensical in the many cases in which an old thread with no post in the last three or more years is refreshed by a spam mail. The present way to deal with that ensures that the spammed thread does not appear in the menue. I do not want to open a dozen threads (like a week or so ago) with no relevant new post to it. If the editing comments were inserted in the last relevant post in order not the refresh the thread, noone would see these comments. After 6 years, you should be able to come up with a better thought-out suggestion than that, Shambles. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Dec 06 - 04:32 PM After 6 years, you should be able to come up with a better thought-out suggestion than that, Shambles. My concern is not with the dirty bathwater but to ensure that the baby is not thrown out with it. Spam (when it is not intentionally posted to threads by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) is not usually a conventional contribution from a poster. Who will have feelings to be hurt and may also become angry (just like the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team). Most automatically generated spam is usually automatically deleted before most us see it. So what happens to the little spam that slips past - should perhaps not concern our forum to the extent that it is currently encouraged to be seen to? It should certainly not be used as an excuse and justification to treat invited contributions from posters as if they were also automatically generated. When any invited contributed is posted - I suggest that the poster should at least always be made aware in an editing comment that their post has been judged by our 'moderators' to require some form of imposed censorship. 'Silent deletion' is perhaps accepable for automatically generated spam and for conventional posts in the few very extreme cases. But I suggest that it is not perhaps the proportionate first and only response for all the other cases? Where is seems to be overlooked that such drastic treatment will result in (possibly an equally drastic) reaction? Any poster who cannot find their contribution - should perhaps know if the reason is that it has been subject to imposed censorship? For if posters do not see an editing comment to that effect - they will have no reason to become paranoid or defensive and can then consider other reasons for their post's non-appearance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: MMario Date: 19 Dec 06 - 04:54 PM My concern is not with the dirty bathwater but to ensure that the baby is not thrown out with it. My initial reaction to that would be - who are you trying to kid? Most automatically generated spam is usually automatically deleted before most us see it. So what happens to the little spam that slips past - should perhaps not concern our forum to the extent that it is currently encouraged to be seen to? How "little" do you think that is? I have to view "new posts since your last visit" frequently - and know that Mudcat sees a dozen or so spam messages a day that slip past the filters. Not a lot, seeing as some spambots send out thousands a minute, but on many forums even ONE piece of spam generates a big stink. It should certainly not be used as an excuse and justification to treat invited contributions from posters as if they were also automatically generated. What proof do you have that this occurs? I doubt that it does. When any invited contributed is posted - I suggest that the poster should at least always be made aware in an editing comment that their post has been judged by our 'moderators' to require some form of imposed censorship. Your suggestion has been refused, publicly. YOu have been notified that your sugfgestion has been refused. You have also been informed that if you dispute that judgement you need to take it up with the site owner in private communication. In addition to your suggestion being refused - it in inherent in posting to this site that the Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to delete, modify, move, edit etc any post. 'Silent deletion' is perhaps accepable for automatically generated spam and for conventional posts in the few very extreme cases. What you term "silent deletion" is standard practice on virtually the entire internet. Not only is explanation of editing not required or provided - in most cases questioning of such procedures is automatically deleted. But I suggest that it is not perhaps the proportionate first and only response for all the other cases? Why do you seem to always try to make your points absolute? And, again, what proof can you show that deletion is the "first and only" response"? Where is seems to be overlooked that such drastic treatment will result in (possibly an equally drastic) reaction? Possibly there will be a reaction- normally that reaction is the offending poster reforms their behaviour. Sometimes they leave the forum. Normaly if the offending poster does NOT reform their behaviour they get banned. Any poster who cannot find their contribution - should perhaps know if the reason is that it has been subject to imposed censorship? NO. Why? Any post to this site is potentially subject to deletion, editing, modification, etc. It is a given. For if posters do not see an editing comment to that effect - they will have no reason to become paranoid or defensive and can then consider other reasons for their post's non-appearance The above, I think, means that *IF* posters *saw* such a statement they would have no reason etc..... In general - your average poster does NOT get paranoid and defensive - if they have a post deleted most people assume there was a reason; whether or not they know what that reason is.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Dec 06 - 05:25 PM Heh! Everyone needs a hobby, right? But does everyone need an obsession? It's debatable. Let's launch a permathread about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: number 6 Date: 19 Dec 06 - 05:48 PM "YOu have been notified that your sugfgestion has been refused." ..... hmmmmmm, have you been nipping into the Christmas cheer MMario ?? ok ... I'm outta here. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: Jeri Date: 19 Dec 06 - 06:24 PM This is where it started - almost 4 years ago, not 6. And there are a few of the same folks in that first thread who continue to post the same stuff in reply to the same stuff from Roger, over and over. So, you see, it's not just Roger who doesn't know when it would be wise to stop. It's no wonder why the human race can't seem to evolve out of accepting war, world hunger, torture, poverty and all the other big problems, when this sort of inanity is so fascinating to average people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Dec 06 - 06:28 PM The original complaint about the altering of the thread title is older than that isn't it Jeri? G. |