|
14 Jul 08 - 07:50 AM (#2388294) Subject: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: the lemonade lady I tried a search but it was taking too long. This may have been around before. If guests come in here, spit and snarl and then bugger off, why not just ban guests altogher. Why is there that facility anyway? Is it so that someone can decide to say something unpleasant and not be PM'ed? Sal |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:05 AM (#2388307) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH The purpose of the forum is an adjunct to the folk music collection known as the Digital Tradition. Ban guest posting, and you defeat the purpose of having a forum for guests to post queries about the Digital Tradition collection, or something they have not been able to find in it or the forum threads through the antiquated search engine. If you play in the BS threads--even in the music section--expect to get burned every now and then by both guests and members. Shit happens. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:07 AM (#2388310) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: theleveller I can't say I've noticed that happening a lot since one particular Guest got slapped - maybe I'm not looking in the right places. It's nice to see guests like Eliza Carthy and Phil Beer dropping in - and they were emminently sensible. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:15 AM (#2388316) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: The Fooles Troupe I now introduce that great song by ABBA "Mamma mia, here we go again"... |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:23 AM (#2388322) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Peace "The purpose of the forum is an adjunct to the folk music collection known as the Digital Tradition. Ban guest posting, and you defeat the purpose of having a forum for guests to post queries about the Digital Tradition collection, or something they have not been able to find in it or the forum threads through the antiquated search engine." That's been the bullshit excuse forever. Policy means 'Gee, I don't have to think'. Why not just ban the fuckers who do get nasty? "I can't say I've noticed that happening a lot since one particular Guest got slapped - maybe I'm not looking in the right places" Maybe you're not. Of course the Brits seem not to be able to talk about music without fighting, so perhaps they simply chose a chicken-shit way out and slapped the esaiest Guest. There were and are three other Brits who deserved the same treatment, but for political reasons, they didn't get slapped. I think your remark is uncalled for and cheap; closer to brown-nosing than common sense. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:29 AM (#2388328) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Spitandsnarlandbuggeroff If a guest annoys you, ignore him. Simple. Anyway, it is easy to sign up and say the same thing as a guest. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:37 AM (#2388334) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,GUEST,spitandslobber More bullshit. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:38 AM (#2388336) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Peace See how easy that was? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:49 AM (#2388343) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: frogprince I would bet a fair amount that any forum that allows guests gets a substantial number of visits from folks who come out of honest interest, but who are just dipping their toes nervously into the on-line experience. There are also people who are just a little slow to officially join anything; they attend the church for a while, then they join. I would also bet that a number of respectable Mudcat members started by dropping in as guests. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 08:54 AM (#2388351) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Sandra in Sydney I think Mudcat was around before the Digital Tradition was hosted here. I know the DT is a lot older than Mudcat, but as far as I remember from history threads Max invited Dick & Susan to add the DT to his site. sandra (Guest for a few posts before joining) |
|
14 Jul 08 - 09:14 AM (#2388368) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: artbrooks Well, it seems to me that Joe and the Clones manage Guests ok. The new rule of requiring a consistent username seems to have mitigated the flame wars somewhat, although I wish that the unmentionable lady in Minneapolis would pay more attention to it. I could do without the obvious bigots, BNP, ultra-nationalist and otherwise - and they get squashed pretty fast - but I suppose that is the price one pays for an open Forum. Some of the threads degenerate pretty quickly into yet another "yes they did - no they didn't" discussion between the usual suspects, which is a waste of bandwidth, but that almost always involves two (the same two) members with the occasional Guest contribution. All in all, it isn't perfect, but it is folkie. And what is folk music after all, if it can't include different opinions and the occasional dissonance? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 09:15 AM (#2388370) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: artbrooks OH yeah...and banning Guests is a lot like banning bodhrans. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM (#2388372) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Bobert I like GUESTs myself except, of course, when I don't... But that isn't that often... I think we have in place ways of dealing with abuse and would agree that sometimes that sytem tends to be abusive but, all in all, if the most abusive stuff gets deleted, I can live with that but deletions should be the last option and not the first... But most GUESTs are not abusive and just want to maintaion some level of privacy... I understand that... Alot of members are also practicing musicans and its almost impossible to discuss music and events without one's identity being known so why not become a member??? B~ |
|
14 Jul 08 - 09:26 AM (#2388380) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Mr Red That old chestnut. I have to say there are Festival organisers who persist in posting as guests which I can understand - they would have to field PMs from angry punters and the abused therefrom. BUT I do detect a certain flaming from them, and in one or two cases posing as people in their pay. My response to that would be j'accuse. But then as a folkie I have to be tolerant of "opinion". How would my opinions be tolerated, else? But Guest postings are a minefield. It emboldens the arrogant. Even if it diminishes their chosen endeavours. There is such a thing as negative publicity. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 09:27 AM (#2388384) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Tweed I've had a blues forum since 2000 and used to allow anyone to post, but due to spammers screwing it up several times, I was forced to make a sign up/password format to keep them out. I've never understood how the folks who run this place manage to do that. I mean, sure there's some nasty guests who drop by here and ruffle feathers, but you never see viagra ads or brittany pics trashing the place. Whatever y'all do, you do good at it and I give you the Tweed Salute of Admiration!! Anyhow, my point was to say that in making my Fieldhollars forum exclusive, I lost a whole lot of people, artists etc. who found it interesting enough to drop a line or story on it if they didn't have to go through the whole secret handshake thing. Still plenty of hardcore members hanging in there but it was good for all of us when there'd be surprise input from the odd unexpected source. I say, and this carries no weight whatsomever obv corse, that if the Joe Offers and Clones can keep this place as tidy as it has been kept and don't mind doing it, then change nothing. I didn't want to change my forum's security system, but I just didn't have the time to police it 24-7. Tweed |
|
14 Jul 08 - 10:13 AM (#2388414) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Stu "Of course the Brits seem not to be able to talk about music without fighting, so perhaps they simply chose a chicken-shit way out and slapped the esaiest Guest. There were and are three other Brits who deserved the same treatment, but for political reasons, they didn't get slapped." Why do you say this? Why single out 'Brits'? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 10:27 AM (#2388421) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Amos The reason we do not ban Guests, I think, is that we want to encourage folks to come in and feel welcome to converse without (as Twe3ed calls it) a secret handshake thing. It is a homey, friendly courteous attitude on the part of Max and Joe. Now, sometimes folks come in who aren't used to nice places and friendly people and have a lot of bitterness and have to act it out by posting crapulous invective on one button or another. Should we let the unbridled aberration of a few dictate our policy? Be ruled, again, by the lowest common denominator? Why not --instead-- decide we want to have a certain standard of affection for friends we haven't yet met, and cleave to that, and handle what we have to handle on a case by case basis? I think Guests (as a class) should be welcome. Individuals (registered or otherwise) who generate misery should be dealt with and (if nothing else works) ousted. A |
|
14 Jul 08 - 10:54 AM (#2388448) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: kendall "Whatever it is, I'm against it." |
|
14 Jul 08 - 10:55 AM (#2388449) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC On the subject of spammers, the guitar forum I own and administer has something called a "post flood safety check" that makes it so that people can't post more than one post per minute (except the admin and moderators). We never have problems with the kind of spamming that can clog up a forum. We only get about one piece of spam every few months, and it's always from someone who is promoting either their own music or someone else's music. We only allow members to post in the guitar forum, but that's not because of spammers. If Tweedsblues had something like that, it might not be necessary to require membership for posting. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM (#2388457) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Ruth Archer "Maybe you're not. Of course the Brits seem not to be able to talk about music without fighting, so perhaps they simply chose a chicken-shit way out and slapped the esaiest Guest." Well, that's certainly the Guest's take on things. But does that go for all the websites who have banned her? "There were and are three other Brits who deserved the same treatment, but for political reasons, they didn't get slapped." If the reasons are "political" and "chicken shit", why not name and shame, Bruce? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM (#2388473) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: katlaughing I think we should ban guests in the BS section only. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:34 AM (#2388505) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Wesley S I'm with Kat on this one. If you want to sling BS you should be a member. And use one name. ALL of the time. No exceptions - and no characters either. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:40 AM (#2388517) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,number 6 I find many similarities with this ongoing 'guest' debate with the illegal alien / undocummenteded immigrant argument one constantly hears on the U.S. News networks .... you know, all crime and terrorist activity is the result of these people who have snuck across the border. biLL (who would prefer not to carry 'i.d. papers' with me all the time) |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:44 AM (#2388524) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: The Fooles Troupe The reason this is called a Forum is because some are Agin'em and some are Forum! |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:45 AM (#2388526) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel If you do ban guests you will lose some people who are annonymous because they are civil servants, elected officials, celebrities, reporters, District Attorneys, Judges and others who must depend on annonimity. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The few tolls who seek refuge as Guests are a small price to pay. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:48 AM (#2388532) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,number 6 Donuel .... good one .... you can't ban guests because ya gotta have someone to blame. biLL |
|
14 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM (#2388541) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Near where I live last friday ICE and police went into a paint factory and hauled away hundreds of employees. Some were legal immigrants, some were not. Some had legal US citiaens as a spouse and some did not. PEOPLE, They are taking people away, they are taking half of your wealth in property value and dollar value and fuel costs... Why should this tiny forum act just like the goverment? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:02 PM (#2388553) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Amos This issue comes up over and over and over. The problem Mudcat has is not Guests, it's assholes. Some assholes are registered reg'lars, and some are chicken-shit anonymous whingers, and some are both. But not all Guests are assholes, and not all assholes are Guests, so get the target correct before you fire away, Gridley. A |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:06 PM (#2388558) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC I also think that banning guests ignores the real problem. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:12 PM (#2388562) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH Amos has it right. Carol, what is "the real problem" in your opinion? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM (#2388569) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In Your Humble Opinion What IS "the real problem" Carol? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:19 PM (#2388570) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH I meant to add the DT isn't separated from the forum when someone who has no inkling of the existence of either uses search engines to find a song/tune/info on same. The forum is what comes up. Many, many people will not do the "secret handshake" thing to get information. Members here tend to want to make the forum the thing--small picture paradigm re: Mudcat. But the DT resource is the thing that brings outsiders here--the big picture paradigm re: Mudcat. Those who wish to ban guests are looking to play popularity games in their own private clubhouse, be it in the music or BS section. But private clubhouses can be created anywhere online, and anti-guest members could play their high school "ban so-and-so" games to their heart's content. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:22 PM (#2388577) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH Humble Opinion, I wasn't being nasty, it was a genuine question. I am interested in Carol's opinions and not just on this subject. I am wondering if she feels the moderation here is the real problem. I would agree. Favorites get played here all the time, as Peace already pointed out. Contrary to popular belief here, no one can be permanently locked out of this forum tech wise. There are too many back door tech ways to get around blocked IPs these days. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:26 PM (#2388581) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC I think the real problem is selective enforcement of the rules. We are told that personal attacks are not allowed, but in practice some people are allowed to make personal attacks (both members as well as guests, especially if they are being made against people who have been designated as legitimate targets). We are also told that people are only allowed to post under one user name, and some people are outed if they post under more than one user name, and some appear to have their posting blocked. But in practice, some people are able to post repeatedly under multiple usernames without being outed, and without having their posts blocked. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM (#2388595) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel kudos to you Carol, however with a substantial number of personal blocks on my posts already why do any posts which are not illegal be blocked? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:40 PM (#2388602) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Times are bad and getting worse. People are pissed and not in good humour. Kevetching about Guests are but a symptom of the times. I plan to financial support this site no matter what the mood of the crowd may be. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:45 PM (#2388610) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In Your Humble Opinion I you feel so stongly about this issue (a none issue if ever I saw one), pony up some cash and help support Mudcat. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:46 PM (#2388611) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Bobert Ummmm, unless I either missed somethin' or am thick skinned I really haven't seen too much in the way of abusive posters since the Martin Gibson days... Now he set the bar and no one that I've read has come close to his attacks... Okay, Fantz, made a run at MG but even she didn't come anywhere close to to him... And, yeah, what the Tweezer said... I think the cops are doing a purdy good job considering how much stuff goes on here... I also miss some of the folks who used to visit "FieldHollars" but at least we don't have green gorillas jumpin' out of the pudder chasing us around the house anymore... That was scariest night of my life... B~ |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:49 PM (#2388615) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Bobert/aka Martin of course you would feel that way ;>{ |
|
14 Jul 08 - 12:54 PM (#2388620) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC I used to send money to the Mudcat (and I put stuff in the auction), but I stopped when I saw how the rules were being enforced. I don't see any reason to send money while the policies are being enforced selectively. Especially since I am a target of a lot of the selective enforcement. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:00 PM (#2388634) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel We are still coming off a fascist binge of calling certain people unpatriotic. It is only natural for some things to still be out of whack. But throwing the medium out without contribution will not strengthen your assertion. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:01 PM (#2388635) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,number 6 whew ... with the price of petro these days ... I really can't afford to give charitable $bucks$ for mudact .... not much to spare after giving to the real life charities in my community. biLL |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:02 PM (#2388638) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST If guests come in here, spit and snarl and then bugger off, why not just ban guests altogher. That's not the only way things happen. Consider the following scenario: 1) A debate starts but becomes polarised and controversial; 2) A guest makes a perfectly reasonable point; 3) A member, who should know better, spits and snarls; 4) Other members jump in to condemn the guest as a troll; 5) A general call goes out for guests to be banned. It's not always the guest's fault. DC |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:08 PM (#2388648) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Doug Chadwick Oops! Didn't mean to be an anonymous guest. Just forgot to log in. DC |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:12 PM (#2388653) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Blathering and Slobbering no we don't and no it's not. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:17 PM (#2388659) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: the lemonade lady "...lose some people who are annonymous because they are civil servants, elected officials, celebrities, reporters, District Attorneys, Judges and others who must depend on annonimity." But one can call oneself anything one likes. Just join up. Why NOT join up? It costs nothing to be a member of Mudcat so why not just join? Sal |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:22 PM (#2388665) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel good point. Paranoia I guess. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:22 PM (#2388666) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH You didn't read all the posts, did you Miss Lemnon? The answer is: because then people with a legitimate question about folk music won't use this site. Is that your intention? To lock out people who try and come to Mudcat to use the Digital Tradition & forum support for it? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM (#2388667) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Big Mick The problem isn't GUESTS, per se. It is the people who use the anonymity to simply take shots at folks, stir up problems, and be downright mean. Then the passionate folks that inhabit folk forums (I count myself among these) take umbrage and start responding in kind. For a very long time we tried to be selective in how we deleted, just sticking to the troublemakers. The problem with that is that our mod's were acting on their own perceptions, and that wasn't always consistent. So we made the decision that we would lay out some very simple guidelines. One of those is that one must post with a consistent ID. We will still let the unattributed GUEST post stand when it is clear it is just a person cruising in to get some information, but we will ask them to adopt an ID in the future. We are not perfect on this yet, but we are getting better. Personal attacks are simply not allowed. I can tell you from being here since very near the beginning that we are all susceptible to this. It would not be hard to find attack posts from me that I am not proud of. The fluid nature of what Max envisions here certainly allows that, but in the near past we have made the decision that we simply are not going to allow that. But members need to understand that there is a difference between a personal attack, and an attack on one's position. Administration of this isn't an exact science, but we are getting better. Bottom line, friends, is that we are attempting to maintain the essential nature of Mudcat, and yet deal with the fact that it is not the little village it was all those years ago when many of us came here. Not an easy task, and those of us in charge of trying to keep it going appreciate that you all care about it too. All the best, Mick another Forum Moderator |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM (#2388679) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH The problem isn't anonymity, either. As Amos said, the problem is bad behavior by jerks, and Mudcat moderators have, at times, been every bit as guilty of that as "Martin Gibson" (and I don't profess to know what Mudcat member's alter ego that was). The Mudcat moderators, in their attempts to be consistent, have at times exacerbated problems in the forum when targeting individuals they all personally dislike, by provoking and antagonizing them, publicly shaming and humiliating them, etc. The classic example of this was the way Shambles and Jon were treated. Carol is another person the moderators targeted and bullied. I agree with Donuel. The pendulum will likely swing away from Joe Offer's Homeland Security Big Stick approach eventually. Maybe. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM (#2388681) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Amos I need names. Who are the true ass holes and who merely have one. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:35 PM (#2388683) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion I predict that this thread will be shut down before to long (though watch'em keep it open just to prove me wrong)simply because of the content. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:41 PM (#2388690) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Amos Besides--there are no gods here, guys. There are hooman beinks. If a rule is promulgated as a guideline for decent behavior, do you seruiously think that means some divine power will snake through the threads vaporizing violations to the rule? Do you think there is an army of small white Caspar-shaped beings staring at monitors all day, catching every violation, reading every post? I assure you there is no such deus in the machina. There are a small handful of moderators who do the best they can to clean up spam and dampen down fires that spring up. They are volunteers, mostly motivated out of a respect for what the Mudcat can be when it is at its best. A |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:41 PM (#2388692) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Bee-dubya-ell A technical issue: Some of our members post from computers at work or libraries. It's often not possible to log in from those computers because they're set up not to accept cookies. That means that even members must post as GUESTs from those machines. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM (#2388694) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH In my not so humble opinion, this forum has quite a few MEMBERS who are really mean, ugly, love to fight dirty, stir the pot, etc. Yet, they remain. No, that isn't the standard operating here. Carol is right when she says justice is not fairly administered here. It is meted out selectively, based upon whether the moderators personally like & get along with you. Also, if in a heated discussion, you make the moderators look bad or somehow embarrass them or damage their fragile egos--watch out! |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:48 PM (#2388704) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: MMario I have to laugh at people who complain about moderation on this site. There is so *little* done here in comparision with many, many, many sites on the web that any complaints are laughable. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:51 PM (#2388708) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Mario you got that right. I have been banned from 28 sites. Editorial cartoons about Bush were tantamount to sedition, in their day. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM (#2388711) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC It's not accidental that the rules are enforced selectively. It's just the accepted practice here. As has been pointed out, some of the moderators are some of the worst offenders, like the moderator who changed the spelling of words within one member's post in order to ridicule that person. I can't think of a more outrageous abuse of a moderator's powers than that, but that moderator doesn't seem to have suffered any consequences whatever, and it wasn't until the poster and several other people complained about it repeatedly over a period of several days that the the worst of the changes was changed back. And an anonymous moderator (presumably the same one) applied an arbitrary rule to a member that had nothing whatever to do with personal attacks, even without the knowledge of the chief moderator. Some of the people who are known to be moderators regularly make personal attacks on people with impunity. In practice the Mudcat has a tiered structure, in which some members have different rules applied to them than others. Some are allowed to make personal attacks, which they do quite regularly with no consequences, and some are punished even if they don't make personal attacks. When this is no longer the case, I will consider sending money to the Mudcat. I thought things were getting better for a while a few months ago, and I was already thinking it might be time to start sending money again, but then they got even worse than they were before, and now there's no way I would consider sending any money. I don't pay people to treat me as a third class citizen. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM (#2388712) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion Over half of what's allowed on Mudcat would get you booted so far, you'd never find your way back, on many forums. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM (#2388713) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: the lemonade lady Well Mr... GUEST,OTOH You are unpleasant, rude, use offensive language and obviously enjoy winding people up. This proves my point about anyone being able to get at you with a PM. This is the main reason why people like you should be asked to join so that you don't insult someone from the protection of your screen. Would you talk to me like that face to face? Do you treat everyone around you like that? And why is 'Peace' being so bad mouthed...? 'That's been the bullshit excuse forever...' and 'Why not just ban the fuckers who do get nasty?' I asked an innocent question and when I came back a couple of hours later I see that a lot of people have got very wound up, why? What's the matter with you guys? Sal |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:54 PM (#2388714) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Wesley S I don't want to make this sound like I'm saying "Mudcat - Love it or leave it" - but why on earth would anyone want to post to a site where they are treated unfairly on a regular basis? If it were me I'd just move on. Life is too short. People are just as happy as they want to be. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:54 PM (#2388715) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Those who think the moderation is small compared to other sites clearly haven't experienced having rules selectively applied to them. If they did, they would see things differently. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:55 PM (#2388716) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L These threads always fascinate me folk are like an auld dug we had whit wid sit buy the fire till is furr wis smoulderin growling aboot the heat. As me mither used tae say "If ye dinny like ma company ye ken whaur the door is" |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:55 PM (#2388717) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Celtaddict I first heard of the Mudcat from a friend who obtained some lyrics for me. I first visited, as a GUEST, when I was seeking a particular song, with far too few clues (no title, no first line, no chorus, just a line or two in the middle and the name of the singer) and received the song lyrics with name of album and publisher, in about six minutes. I was hooked. I have been a member for years now, and I do support the site, bit by bit along with many others. I have learned much, have helped musician friends find words to many songs, have spent many glad hours. Had I been banned from experiencing that first taste, I would not have become a member. Rudeness and flaming happen; did you ever read the sickening postings that turn up under news articles online? If someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk; we more civilized individuals can preserve the dignity of debate and let the Max and the people he has entrusted to manage his domain, including the generally affable, interested, and hardworking Joe, manage as they will. Yes, there are members who are at times abrasive. It seems remarkably difficult for some other members to simply ignore an abrasive remark. This is unfortunate as it has caused the demise of many an interesting discussion. Surely most of us have at least some experience in ignoring or working around individuals we do not get on with? I am all for (1) being guest-friendly (2) encouraging guests who are interested in the music to become members (3) ignoring those who deserve to be ignored and (4) acting decently to all. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 01:57 PM (#2388720) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC I still post here for two reasons. I have good friends here, and I hate running from bullies. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:00 PM (#2388725) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: The Sandman is there any proof that if the forum was members only people would behave more reasonably? I believe people would behave more reasonably,but I cant prove it,then we have the problem that banned people,can come back as a member under a different name. personally , I dont think Shambles or Lizzie should have been banned,but its not my forum. I think the best thing about mudcat,are the threads where someone asaks for help,with an instrument, and gets it. I look occasionally at www .session org,and someone might ask, can anybody recommend a good fiddle tutor book,and some ass hole comes in,and says you shouldnt ever learn irish music from a tutor or from the dots. all that happens is another potential member gets frightened away,there question unanswered,and they feel totally intimidated. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM (#2388736) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer I don't sign up for things on the internet unless I completely trust the site and intend to be a continuing participant. If Mudcat had required registration, I probably would never have posted here. There are many people who use Mudcat who are not regular participants. They stop in to request lyrics for a song their parents taught them 50 years ago, or they have some other musical question. Sometimes, we get well-known musicians who stop in to tell a story or clarify a point on an issue. I think that many of those people wouldn't post if they had to register first. Then we have people who just can't get cookies to work - if we prohibited Guest posting, there are times when Art Thieme, Sandy Paton, Frank Hamilton, Barry Finn, and Jean Ritchie wouldn't have been able to post. That being said, the suggestion that the BS section be members-only is one topic that has been seriously discussed and presented to Max. Another is to have moderators review Guest posts before they are made visible on the Forum. No action has been taken on these proposals. I've noticed that one continuing problem we have, is the origination of threads by what I call "drive-by posters" - some of whom seem to be thinly-veiled bigots. This 'free speech' thread and the one about Poles in England are good examples. So, I've thought of just prohibiting BS threads that are started by Guests who are not well-known to the community. We haven't discussed this among the volunteers yet, so it's just an idea. What do people think of it? But there's another side to the issue. I know that Brits are all up in arms about the BNP (neo-Nazis), and many would like to see all BNP posts deleted. Well, as an American, I have to say that I've learned quite a bit from the BNP posts. I had the impression that we Americans were the only ones who had a problem with racism. The BNP posts and responses, however distasteful, have given me an insight into the issue. And as for the charge of "selective enforcement," let me explain our editing policy. We do not allow personal attacks and racism. However, we do not monitor all posts and we do not intend to begin monitoring all posts. We have a responsive style of moderation, rather than moderation by "pre-emptive strike." When a problem arises, we deal with it. If the target of a personal attack complains to me about a specific message, I deal with it. If a thread gets chaotic, I close it or (in extreme circumstances) delete it. When there are several people waxing nasty in a thread, I don't bother to read the whole damn thing and decide who's right and who's wrong - I just close or delete the thread and let the discussion start again - hopefully with a more civil tone. So, in general, our policy is that we don't edit to punish anybody - we edit to keep the peace. There are many posts that could be considered personal attacks - but if the target of the attack responds with restraint, the attack usually dies. Why should I bother deleting something that has already been handled? If the target of the attack responds by escalating the conflict - well, the escalator may find the moderator response to be unsatisfactory. What can I say? Long ago, Max said he expected this community to be primarily self-moderating. He said that moderators should not be expected to be babysitters. Another early idea was that our moderation should be unobtrustive and nearly invisible. We've tried to stick with this idea. It hasn't worked perfectly, but it has worked pretty well. I'm tempted to close this thread right now because we don't usually allow threads discussing Mudcat policy (because they almost always turn nasty), but I'll let it go on for a while. -Joe Offer- |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:18 PM (#2388739) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Celtaddict Thank you, Joe. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM (#2388742) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Some respond with restraint to repeated and regular personal attacks for years, but eventually they get tired of them and they decide it's time to respond. Since the rule is "no personal attacks", why should those who are abiding by the rules be the only ones who suffer consequences (in the form of repeated and regular personal attacks against them)? That's not keeping the peace by any definition. It's condoning abuse out of a lack of will to enforce the actual rules. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:26 PM (#2388746) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Carol, I can't give an answer that would satisfy you. All I can say is that I try to treat you equitably. -Joe Offer- |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:31 PM (#2388754) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Azizi Big Mick you wrote that "Personal attacks are simply not allowed... But members need to understand that there is a difference between a personal attack, and an attack on one's position." Imo, one problem with that statement is that individuals may have different takes on what is "a personal attack" and what is "an attack on one's position". I could name a recent thread in which I was the object of a personal attack. The thread starter-a guest btw-even posted the comment that "I hate to be minatory, but I'd be grateful if we could stop the personal attacks and stick to the point, if people wouldn't mind." But, in my opinion, those comments that I consider personal attacks continued. To my knowledge, only one post to that thread appears to be deleted {as a subsequent comment alludes to it}, and the thread was not closed. And, before someone asks, no I didn't complain to any moderator. Some moderators posted to that thread, and one of them-you Big Mick- along with other members spoke out in support of me and you, Big Mick out attempted to re-direct one of the posters {all of whom are members of this forum} who had targeted me. My way of dealing with that situation was to leave that thread. Though I wouldn't wish that experience on anybody, I do believe that there could be some educational value in threads like that-for instance, in off-line classes or online & off-line discussions about group dynamics. Part of me is glad that those posts weren't deleted or that thread wasn't closed. In my opinion, it shows a non-sanitized aspect of Mudcat which is as real as the informative, supportive, positive threads that I think are much more numerous than the other kind. However, based on that experience, and based on other threads that I have read where it appeared to me that other people were unfairly targeted by members, my sense is that in some instances some members can be just as problematic as some guests. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:32 PM (#2388756) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity When I go to my search engine, and Mudcat Cafe, comes up, there is a warning above the area which is where you register, saying that there is a risk, of a potentially harmful virus, (with an exclamation mark), that comes up on my screen. whether is a virus, or unneeded spyware, or a keylogger, I don't know...but being as I have original material, both copyrighted, and not, on my computer..well, that's deterrent for me. Nor do I want my mail filled with spam. Perhaps the operators at Mudcat would care to look into that...and if you receive financial compensation for selling web addresses, to advertisers, perhaps you should inform us, before we make the choice, that could open us up, to be hacked. By the way, really enjoy the site, and have made friends on here, even the ones I disagree with......(you know who you are...smirk!)
-Joe Offer- |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:33 PM (#2388759) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: irishenglish One thing I have always wondered about. Other than Joe, and Big Mick, I suspect who some of the moderators are, but I'm not sure. If moderators do a lot of posting themselves, I think seeing that association next to their name would help keep threads from degenerating into nastiness, or way off topic. Why the mystery? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:52 PM (#2388780) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Celtaddict And in answer to Joe's question, what people would think about banning guests from initiating BS threads, I think that is reasonable. I don't go 'below the line' all that often, just when killing time; it seems to be a place for folks to hang out and chat about whatever they wish, which is all right, but is not necessarily appropriate for strangers to wander in. (We don't like strangers in our 'break room' at work either.) That might indeed help, but not cut visitors out from the primary networking and information sharing of the music related portions and the DT. Come to think of it, why would a non-member choose to start a non-music thread on a music site, other than to stir something up? It seems to me more reasonable to go to a site on whatever non-music topic they wish to bring up. I would hate to see guests banned altogether, both because of my first experience which I suspect is fairly typical, and because of work restrictions on cookies and the valuable visits of well-known musicians who drop in. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM (#2388789) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Im My Humble Opinion *If Mudcat had required registration, I probably would never have posted here.* Who was it who said "I wouldn't become a member of a club who would have me as a member"? |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:00 PM (#2388790) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity To answer your question, I'm a musician, sound engineer, screenplay author, and composed a soundtrack for a film, and when I originally stumbled upon this forum, which was by sheer happenstance, I found it extremely stimulating, and interesting. Being as I also am a marriage and family counselor, I was drawn into some of the discussions, with a certain passion, if you will. My post explains my reasons for remaining a 'Guest' In addition, I have personal information on here, that is highly confidential. Hope that answers your question. Re-read my last post, if you need clarification. Thank you. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:02 PM (#2388793) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Hi, Irishenglish. We get the question about the identity of moderators quite often. The names and access level and functions of the moderators vary, and we see no need to spell all that out. Some work only on songs - they have editing ability, but they don't usually deal with "problems." The names of most of the active moderators are generally known, but not officially published. We like to try to work with a unified identity. The general feeling is that if editors are officially identified, it's easier for some people to manipulate one moderator against another. Also, identifying moderators gives the impression of a heavier level of moderation than we want to have. Our moderators are present to help people, not to monitor the conduct of participants. In general, we have a laizzez-faire philosophy of moderation. And the general idea is that if you have a problem, you should go to the public contact person - namely, me. -Joe- |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM (#2388794) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Joe, thank you for your response. I will look into it...Regards |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:19 PM (#2388810) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: irishenglish Joe, thanks for the answer. Its not really an issue for me, I have taken care of any misunderstandings or cooled down through PM's, and yes, I have had a few dustups on here occasionally. But I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on your answer. Whatever "clearance" someone has is not as important in my opinion as seeing every 10 or 20 posts or what have you, the word moderator next to someones name. It might give people an impression that they might want to watch their step. This won't keep me off here, but I genuinely think the time might be right for an opinion poll, etc based on some of the things you wrote earlier today. In any case, on to another thread! |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:28 PM (#2388821) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Bert We could give moderators an ID that is not their Mudcat handle. Then Joe could ensure a more consistent policy. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:41 PM (#2388838) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: The Sandman Joe,I agree with Irish English,I think if someone sees that a moderator is posting on a thread they behave themselves better. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM (#2388840) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: artbrooks Personally, I have no interest in seeing "Moderator" next to somebody's name. If Big Mick (and I name him only because he regularly "outs" himself) or one of the other JCs wants to post, there is no reason why there should be some kind of mental dialog of "is he speaking for himself or just commenting so we all know a JC is watching?" among the others involved in a discussion. In fact, I kinda wish I didn't know the JCs I do know. BTW, there was a brief mention of a vote...I agree that it's time to decide the issue of guests being allowed to initiate BS threads. This is clearly not the place, and this isn't a democracy anyway, but perhaps Joe could begin a heavily moderated thread, with that the only issue, with only members being allowed to vote, and present the results to Max for his decision. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM (#2388846) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Lord Batman's Kitchener *Joe could begin a heavily moderated thread* some of the permanent threads are more actively moderated and edited, I believe. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM (#2388848) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Severn Consider: Not only do you have to consider a Guest from Sanity, you must consider guests from Santee and Sant-a for that matter. We're all reduced to playing Guests in the annual gift exchange. Or someone using a amusing Guest name in a humor post for making a point. Or lost or blown cookies or honest mistakes Or guesting in on a strange computer How would these harmless or inadvertant Guests get screened? Or the mere music browser, sticking a toe in the water? A total blanket ban would kill or at least delay a lot of good just to discourage a few cretinous scumbags. It would sound like what we condem the CIA or FBI for doing to our privacy, the FCC to our media etc. Some of the undesireables (to SOMEBODY's tastes) will always find someway in. It's up to the individual to know when to fight back, how to fight back and when not to do a knee jerk reaction to someone pushing your buttons to watch you jump just because they can. Sometimes you make a stand. Sometimes you just walk away. Sometimes you got to take it straight to Joe. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM (#2388850) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L Yeah just paint a target on their back and stick a placard round their neck saying "Kick me" I think I will start a new thread "BS: Why not just BAN JOE" after all lad if you wurny here tae pick oan ahm sure abody wid play nice. Meg ducks whatever it was Joe threw and heads for the door as fast as auld legs and a wlking stick will allow. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 03:59 PM (#2388861) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer Ah, Meg, when you talk that Scots stuff, I just melt. Even though I can't understand it, I think it's sexy as hell. What did you say???? -Joe- |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:01 PM (#2388865) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Wesley S Joe - I think that means -"Snatch my walking stick so that I'm helpless to escape your advances...." |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM (#2388870) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L even if he got the walking stick he wid hae tae avoid Dauvitt in the wheelchair :) |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM (#2388871) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel Let me get in the last word which I do not know the meaning. Solopsisim |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM (#2388874) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,A Word From Our Sponsors Insouciance |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:06 PM (#2388875) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer "Solipsism," he said to himself.... |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:08 PM (#2388878) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer "Soliloquy," he added.... |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:10 PM (#2388880) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Megan L Aw jings these days Solipism is definately no me:( |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:16 PM (#2388887) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Donuel For dyslexics only: Why not just NAB Guests? I suppose we could get their IP info, visit their house and video the ensuing rendition, stress position , sound thrashing, and water boarding. Then we could watch it on You Tube. But whats the point. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM (#2388896) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Liz the Squeak Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Im My Humble Opinion - PM Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM *If Mudcat had required registration, I probably would never have posted here.* Who was it who said "I wouldn't become a member of a club who would have me as a member"? One of the Marx Brothers, probably Groucho. LTS |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM (#2388898) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Helen This is one reason why we shouldn't ban Guests. Like all humans, they are all types of people. This one is very special: BS: Any Mudcatters in France:Albert/Pozières And I look at it as paying forward. There have been times when I have found info for Guests and they, too, like me, have been overwhelmed by the helpfulness and resources of Mudcat. But the link above shows that an Oz Mudcatter can be helped by a UK Guest on a trip to France to research war graves. Helen |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM (#2388913) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Amos It was Groucho, yes; but the humor hits deepest in those who wrestle with self-loathing. A |
|
14 Jul 08 - 04:53 PM (#2388936) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: akenaton In case anyone is in any doubt, the thread Azizi referred to was "Loyal Slaves" in which I called her up over her attempt to edit a post by another member to suit her agenda. Azizi immediately started to infer that I had called her a racist. I was then subjected to a personal attack from Mick, one of the Mudcat moderators, who suggested that I "have been a thinly disguised bigot, and the place would be better off without you." I was also attacked and portrayed as a racist by several others whom I wont bother naming Now, don't get me wrong, what these people think is of no consequence to me and I wouldn't think of complaining, but when newbies read this thread I want them to understand that a lot of the nasty language comes not from guests, but from the "old guard". I would also like to say that in my years here, to the best of my knowledge, I have never had a post purposely deleted for any reason and for the most part Joe is fair and more importantly, understands what the members are saying. I would hate to see the guests banned,as some of the most original and entertaining posts come from them...Ake |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM (#2388955) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: the lemonade lady is this the fastest thread to reach 100? I'm amazed at the response. Joe, I think a vote is on the cards here. sal |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM (#2388957) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: catspaw49 100 |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:11 PM (#2388969) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion Portraying someone as racist is a favourite pastime, especially when there is disagreement over a point. It's sad really, which is why when someone tells me "Oh I've been posting on such and such a thread for X number of years" I treat that statement with several grains of salt. To be honest I'm really not very interested in what the poster, let's call him Mr Y, has done in the past, I'm more interested in the here and now. Banning 'Guest' posting? (in any forum, not just this one) Not a very good idea, you're only feeding the 'old guard' and making the place somewhat exclusive. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM (#2388972) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: the lemonade lady And another thing, if you are a member you can use the mudchat. that is very useful if you are using a pc that doesn't have msn, like the Navy, eh Steve? oh i wonder if i should have said that. 8] tee hee Sal |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM (#2388973) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Azizi The record of that thread thread.cfm?threadid=112423#2378987 speaks for itself. I only posted to that thread two times: on 01 Jul 08 - 05:07 PM and on 02 Jul 08 - 08:19 AM. Therefore, Akenaton's statement is not accurate that after his comment about my suggested ammendment to another Mudcatter's post, "Azizi immediately started to infer that I had called her a racist". My reason for alluding to that thread was to address the point that one person may see something as an attack and another person may see the same thing as stating her or his position. Perhaps Akenaton's posts on that thread and here may serve as confirmation for this. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM (#2388999) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: akenaton "Finally, I want to thank those persons who posted comments on this thread that rejected the characterization of me as a racist. I very much appreciate your comments, not just my sake, but for the sake of visitors who may happen upon this thread and wonder not only am I a racist, but also wonder if the Mudcat community is accepting of personal attacks against its members." Evidence for the defense M'Lud........ |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:29 PM (#2389007) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion Just made some popcorn, am going to sit back and watch this and see how it pans out, it really quite funny. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:37 PM (#2389021) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Georgiansilver The problem as I see it is we are all Guests...on this site...and which Guest has more right to be here than any other??? I have a name..most guests have a name....some already named people publish as Guests....etc etc .....Just accept the Cat for what it is eh? Let's cut the griping.....Some Guests have a lot to contribute, Best wishes, Mike. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:47 PM (#2389038) Subject: RE: happy wayfaring stranger From: peregrina My mudcat name means foreigner or traveller. I have spent my adult life living in working in countries where I am not a citizen, sometimes for years, sometimes just months or weeks. I have often been deeply deeply touched by kindness and hospitality when I moved to a new place. People who extended open-hearted offers of friendship, or just strangers helping a stranger whose luggage was unmanageable. I had it easy with work permits, but in one country I befriended refugees and had a tiny glimpse of what it might mean to leave everything behind and then face unimaginable struggle. I have had people yell rude things because of my nationality, or extend a welcome because they thought I was related to their country. Welcome and kindness offered and accepted just because the other person is a human being are always the most precious.--I hope I have kept the great circle of this kindness going through small gestures, but my own hospitality can fail when I am threatened or fearful. It's not an accident that hospitality is a high value in many religions across the world, and in certain regions, among desert people, Indians, too, when sharing and trust were a matter of survival. I am deeply touched by kindness to strangers the same way I am deeply moved by some music. It's not so much that 'some have entertained angels unaware' or that Elijah needs a place (though that may be), but that openness and kindness are part of shared humanity, as opposed to the gang-clique us versus them mentality.--Our species started in Africa, we are a diasporic species and we are all guests and travellers on the planet. Rules: a place where the laws are enforced selectively is a tyranny. Even-handedness and consistency would make this a more hospitable place. I am point-blank horrified by the suggestion of banning guests and by guest-baiting: both bespeak a mob mentality. Disagree with ideological poison, yes, but then let it sink into silence. A forum was the place where citizens could speak publicly. If guests or anonymous posters bring provocation, why answer? See how fast the thread can fall off the page. Welcome here kind stranger. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 05:58 PM (#2389047) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH The problem I see with the moderation here is the sheer childishness of it all. There really is no reason to delete or alter ANY post. We are all adults here, and free to read or ignore anything posted here, just as we are anywhere on the web. The censorship here is really unfortunate. It is patronizing to think adults who participate here aren't allowed to judge what they read for themselves. The so-called "rules" are intentionally obtuse and confusing, because that allows those in power to create an illusion of necessity to censor. The only time I ever saw anything here that need moderation, is when spammers have attacked the forum. When the site itself is under attack, then something must be done, of course. But profanity and mean spirited posting is the sort of thing one tolerates, if they so choose, if they wish to participate on the web these days. Sure forums were nicer places to hang out in 1998. But they weren't without jerks back then either. At any rate, the time to prevent "old guardism" from taking over Mudcat is long since past. The best moderated forums have a highly visible short list of simple rules. The names and contact information of the moderators is also highly visible and available for all to see and use, and they usually aren't participating members in the forum (they become too prejudiced about certain people, and can't act fairly and objectively, which is certainly the case here). What adult can't take that sort of |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:01 PM (#2389048) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: peregrina Amen to the highly visible short list of rules. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:20 PM (#2389060) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Amos OTOH: Speaking as a veteran of the auld forum here, I suggest you may be mistaken; despite the fact that we are all adults, the sheer nastiness--and the hurt--that some people are capable of makes some constraints necessary. Because without them, the black smelly stuff gets higher and deeper, and the opportunity for interesting and lively conversation gets slimmer and slimmer. But the constraints are really and truly minimal. Use a consistent handle. Do not attack people personally. These are an outline of basic decency. Some folks in the past used their absence to act less than decent to their fellow human beings, with harsh, and ill-founded slurs, slanders, defamations, insults, and obscenities. I do not feel we need to put up with such stuff, because anyone who seriously wants to up braid someone else can do so without breaking the rules of basic dialogue, if they are articulate, and if they are not they need to work out how to become so. This is not a stage for any half-baked bean-bag to prance on naked, spewing vitriol and hatred. I have a great deal of respect for the balance and intelligence Joe Offer shows in doing the least amount necessary to maintain a fairly respectful environment. A |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:48 PM (#2389085) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC If I was being treated equitably by the management, there wouldn't be a rule (that applies only to me) that I am not allowed to address or refer to other posters in threads. As long as that rule applies to me, it cannot be said that I am being treated equitably by any member of the management. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:49 PM (#2389088) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Joe Offer, at the Women's Center The "short list of simple rules" is in the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), as is all necessary contact information. The FAQ, by the way, is just the first ten messages of the FAQ thread, up to the point where it says "The End." What follows is room for questions and discussion, which is cleaned up when I get around to it. OTOH, I have to say that the tone of your messages is downright unpleasant, perhaps even mean-spitited. People are going to start pressuring me to do something about you, so that then you can become the martyr you aspire to be. I realize that you proably have some sort of divine right to be nasty and unpleasant, so I'll let you go for a while and see if you get it out of your system or get bored and go away. So be nice, hey? -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:54 PM (#2389097) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC On the subject of moderators being identified - if all they do is fix posts, I can't see any reason why they should be identified. If they have any greater authority than that, it seems only fair for everyone to know who they must defer to. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:55 PM (#2389099) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,OTOH Thanks for proving our point, Joe. The FAQ "rules" are a confusing mess (which you ably demonstrated by qualifying it in your post by saying "...by the way, is just the first ten messages...". The names of all the moderators and their contact information are nowhere to be found here. You instead say "...all necessary contact information." Contact information YOU deem necessary, not the forum users. To users it is a secret society. Posts get disappeared, no explanations given, no names or moderator presence to respond to--that is what people in this very thread complain about, and you choose to ignore in order to suit your own paranoid agenda. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:56 PM (#2389102) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Was the 14 Jul 08 - 06:49 PM post addressed to me? If so, I would have to say that I am the only person in the Mudcat who is not allowed to be nasty and mean spirited. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 06:59 PM (#2389107) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: CarolC Ah, I see that OTOH is an abbreviation of someone's screen name. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 07:14 PM (#2389114) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: artbrooks I suppose that there are people who just have to argue and/or disagree, but this, from the FAQ, seems perfectly clear to me: "The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, Jeff/Pene Azul, and Joe Offer, or under their direction. We follow principles and common sense, and see no need to have everything spelled out in some sort of pseudo-legal code. We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks. We don't cater to chain letters or non-music advertising, and we expect people to use moderation when they advertise music-related things. We allow just about all sorts of discussion, but we draw the line when it's clear that an individual is flooding Mudcat with information - things like multiple "copycat" or interrelated threads, lengthy copy-paste messages of non-music articles from publications and Internet sources (one screen full of text is the limit - and remember that we encourage you to post the entire text of music-related information). If you regularly start more than one thread a day, you are quite probably starting too many. Please try to post to existing threads as much as possible, rather than splitting topics into a number of threads. I suppose there are a few other things we take action against, but I think this is a pretty good summary. When we encounter individuals who cause us continual problems, we may take action to temporarily or permanently bar them from posting at all, but this rarely happens. Most of these are people who post just because they like to cause trouble. They may become very self-righteous in defending their right to "free speech," but it's usually quite clear what they're up to. On the Internet, they're called "trolls." We deal with them as we see fit." |
|
14 Jul 08 - 07:25 PM (#2389123) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Joe Offer, Still at the Women's Center Hey, I couldn't have said that better myself.... |
|
14 Jul 08 - 07:29 PM (#2389126) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Trendy I can't agree that is clear, artbrooks, and it isn't a list. Clear is this: 1. Be civil. 2. If you post more than once, please use a consistent handle. 3. Do not cut and paste from other web sites. 4. If you have questions or concerns, please contact one of our moderaters: Joe@joeoffer.com BigMick@joeoffer.com YoMama@joeoffer.com |
|
14 Jul 08 - 07:39 PM (#2389130) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: artbrooks Did I say it was a list? BTW, the FAQ specifically allows cut'n'paste, as long as it is limited to one screen length. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 07:44 PM (#2389136) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: GUEST,Trendy Newsflash: no one reads the FAQ because it is obtuse, WAAAAAYYYYY too long, and has far too many exceptions to the rules. Like the one you just mentioned, artbrooks. |
|
14 Jul 08 - 07:45 PM (#2389137) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: artbrooks Whatever |
|
14 Jul 08 - 10:11 PM (#2389223) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Beer How about you members on this thread joining in on a more important issue. Go to this thread titled: "Open Mike has lost her home and contents". This is what is important. Guest are welcome to visit, join or participate. Beer (adrien) |
|
14 Jul 08 - 10:19 PM (#2389226) Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests? From: Joe Offer And with that, I think it's time to end this thread. We've found through long experience that open discussions of editing policy are not fruitful or pleasant. If you have questions or suggestions, contact me privately by personal message or e-mail. Oh, and we DO allow copy-paste of non-music items if they fill less than one screen. In addition, we ENCOURAGE copy-pasting of music information - links tend to die. Please be sure to cite the source of the information. Thread closed. -Joe Offer- joe@mudcat.org |