|
24 Apr 06 - 05:30 PM (#1726330) Subject: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Received this from another forum which was just formed, recently. Makes a lot of good gd sense to me and I'd like to see some, if not all of it adopted for Mudcat. I don't want to see anymore good people run off by sniping, attacks, etc. as has happened over the past 2-3 years. Seems to me the following would take care of a lot of the problems. I have removed the name of the forum from which I received this. I wouldn't feel comfortable if we used it verbatim without their permission; and, of course, we could rewrite it. Any emphasis is mine: Enter your personal information below. Your email address will be used to confirm your feedback and comments. Your comments and feedback will be posted after you reply to our confirming email. Your name, occupation/affiliation, and location will be added as a personal signature to any comment you add to the forum and therefore public information. Our philosophy for public discourse is that individuals need to put their name and reputation behind their comment, just as in any other public venue. Other personal information, such as your email address, will be held confidential as described in our Terms of Use. NOTE: This is a user moderated forum. BLANK is not responsible for the content of any material posted by users. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT The success of your forum is dependent on the individuals who participate. A collaborative, respectful exchange of ideas is encouraged. Simple principles: 1. No personal attacks. Stay focused on the issues. 2. No foul language. (Might have to define this!:-) 3. If someone has already stated your position -- rate it or amplify on it, don't repeat it. 4. When you have a new idea to contribute, keep it brief and clear. This part would need some tweaking. The forum it is written for has a rating system for each discussion/idea/concept posited. I don't think we need that for Mudcat, BUT the idea behind it is good and I like the way they requested courteous postings. BLANK is user moderated. We do not edit or censor -- you do. By rating respectful, insightful, well-spoken comments as "important", you make them more likely to be seen. By rating disrespectful, off-point, run-off-at-the-mouth comments as "unimportant" or even "inappropriate", you help them fall to the bottom of the list where they are seldom seen. BLANK is designed to have the good drive out the bad, rather than the bad driving out the good. BLANK asks that users observe the same common courtesies that they would observe at any face to face gatherings. Users should avoid ad hominem attacks (criticisms that are aimed at the person rather than at the ideas being espoused). BLANK reminds users that, because tone of voice and facial expressions do not easily travel over the Internet, the intent of a message can easily be misinterpreted by others. BLANK asks that users make the effort to type those extra few words that can change what would otherwise be a rude message into a polite, but vigorous questioning of an idea or concept. Thanks, kat |
|
24 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM (#1726364) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor Kat, You are right, it looks as though the rating system would be difficult to impliment form a software perpective as would the "self moderating" aspects. But without that, is there anything new here? Aren't you a moderator now? Are you saying that banning Ad Hominim would be a new thing? Isn't that what Joe means by "personal attacks" in the FAQ? |
|
24 Apr 06 - 07:08 PM (#1726428) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing I am NOT saying it's going to be any way, JtS. I am only suggesting ALL of the other parts but the rating part. As to ad hominem attacks (criticisms that are aimed at the person rather than at the ideas being espoused seems to me to be akin to personal attacks, yes. kat |
|
24 Apr 06 - 07:23 PM (#1726440) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor I guess you are talking about the "electronic signatures" I'm all for that. Would you suggest that this be available to all or would it be kept on file to curb bad behavior? |
|
24 Apr 06 - 07:38 PM (#1726452) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Good question. I like that we can choose nicknames, BUT I also admire those of us who post under their real names, i.e. Art Thieme, Rick Fielding, etc. I think I would favour having a confirmation email to establish an identity, but let a person choose a consistent nickname, at least for the BS section. For the music section, the above suggestions about "being nice" and the messages being vetted before posting makes sense to me, if they are as a Guest. kat |
|
24 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM (#1726458) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor The current policy seems to be to let some attacks stand if they are part of a discussion but it seems that that is just making it hard for you guys. The lines are to hard to draw and to other people looking on the lines seem arbitrary. My suggestion would be to delete all personal attacts from everyone then tighten things up to the point where people learn where the boundries are and they learn not to mix attacks with discussion, then to loosen thing up from there. But I don't guess you moderators have enough manpower for that. |
|
24 Apr 06 - 08:14 PM (#1726477) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Well, I don't have any manpower, JtS.:-) It'd be nice if folks would just take the above as a suggestion and try it. It's pretty much what Mudcat used to be...a nice place and I believe we can get back to that. |
|
24 Apr 06 - 08:20 PM (#1726479) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Jack the Sailor I'm still not sure what you want folks to do. It looks like that forum is deleting all the posts that don't meet their standards. Is that what you want? |
|
24 Apr 06 - 08:24 PM (#1726486) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing I mostly would like for folks to take this to heart: " BLANK asks that users observe the same common courtesies that they would observe at any face to face gatherings. Users should avoid ad hominem attacks (criticisms that are aimed at the person rather than at the ideas being espoused). BLANK reminds users that, because tone of voice and facial expressions do not easily travel over the Internet, the intent of a message can easily be misinterpreted by others. BLANK asks that users make the effort to type those extra few words that can change what would otherwise be a rude message into a polite, but vigorous questioning of an idea or concept." I hope that is clear enough. |
|
24 Apr 06 - 08:30 PM (#1726490) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Our forum managed to be a fine place without any such rules. It is just the creeping in of more and more restrictions over the years that have almost ruined it. Such things are fine - at the start-up of any such forum. It looks to me that this example is going to be a fine one for you and all of those who do not like and can only accept our forum on their their terms, which they feel they have some right to impose on everyone else. And also feel they have some right - as you to do to publicly suggest that other posters be banned. Had such rules been in force at the start-up of our forum and posters always contributed on that basis - fine. But to introduce such things - or impose any further posting restrictions at any later period is to move the goal posts. |
|
24 Apr 06 - 08:47 PM (#1726501) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: katlaughing - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:20 PM YOU need to be banned, Roger. |
|
25 Apr 06 - 12:21 AM (#1726622) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: michaelr The goal posts need moving because the punters have begun using corked bats, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. Shambles being one. I'm all for making everyone post under their real names and e-mail addresses, as is practice on the Cittern forum I frequent. Keeps it all nice and polite. Rating each other's posts, however, seems childish to me. Cheers, Michael |
|
25 Apr 06 - 02:54 AM (#1726655) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Rating each other's posts, however, seems childish to me. Who are the Mudcat icons? |
|
25 Apr 06 - 03:05 AM (#1726660) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: autolycus I suugested 2 strategies on another thread. 1). The best response to horrible, antagonistic etc.etc. posts, is for everyone else to ignore them 100 %. 2). Post to the best sort of standards you adhere to. And encourage, praise and support anyone who does likewise. Ivor |
|
25 Apr 06 - 03:29 AM (#1726666) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles My God Ivor! - you will get some flack for that suggestion.... Subversives like you are considered dangerous around these here parts.... *Smiles* |
|
25 Apr 06 - 09:38 PM (#1727514) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: kendall Katlaughing, if those rules were adopted here we would end up with nothing but articulate adults who don't need a mouthful of 4 letter words. Shambles, what has driven some people away is not rule changes, it is nasty personal attacks and flat out stalking by cowards who like to pick on women. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM (#1727617) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Jeez, Kendal, ya think? Wouldn't that be loverly! Thanksdarlin'...kat |
|
26 Apr 06 - 02:04 AM (#1727635) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Sorcha I hope you look good in blue, kat, because I don't...I'm not holding my breath...this is basically a Member Only proposition...and it ain't gonna happen. I seriously doubt the Hold on Guest stuff will happen either, but it's a good idea. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 07:10 AM (#1727744) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Pistols at dawn? |
|
26 Apr 06 - 07:23 AM (#1727747) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: bobad Chlorpromazine would be better. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 07:43 AM (#1727759) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie "Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM Perhaps the 'no rules' thing worked fine when Mudcat was a small site, but then like Topsy it growed, and it became necessary to try for some semblence of order, it's called evolution Roger, you should try it on your arguments. Never mind, if many more members old, new, or would be, are driven away by your constant bickering perhaps the old rules will fit the newly reduced Mudcat? Or maybe this pond is just too big for a small fish like you? Giok" I think this older post is cogent in this discussion. Giok |
|
26 Apr 06 - 10:26 AM (#1727872) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Shambles, what has driven some people away is not rule changes, it is nasty personal attacks and flat out stalking by cowards who like to pick on women. Kendall I may not think capital punishment acts as a deterrent to murder but that does not mean that I think murder to be a good thing. Just as pointing out the fact that the constant restrictions imposed on our forum to shape it to the taste of a few (who still are not satisfied), has done little or nothing to protect anyone from nasty personal attacks, stalking or bullying, does not mean that I think nasty persoanal attacks, stalking and bullying to be good thing. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 10:33 AM (#1727879) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Nor yet is constant repetition a good thing. G |
|
26 Apr 06 - 10:41 AM (#1727885) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Nor yet is constant repetition a good thing. You have said that before. Is stalking a good thing? Oh I forgot - when you are doing it for the greater good etc etc. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 10:42 AM (#1727886) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie It's a far better thing that I do! G. [That's been said before too] |
|
26 Apr 06 - 12:16 PM (#1727982) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Grab Ruined it how, Roger? If the requests are to avoid personal attacks, duplicate posts saying the same thing, or threads created purely to continue an argument/discussion/whatever that started on another thread, why is that unreasonable? Quoth the FAQ: 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. Seems clear enough. In other words, your posts/threads *will* be deleted if you repeat yourself on the same subject without saying anything new. I presume you disagree with this? Checking the last week's history, I notice the following threads started by yourself: Some similarity in the content of those threads, no? Note that this is just threads, and just from posts last week - I'm too lazy to look back for the last couple of months, or to check all posts you've written. Graham. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM (#1728012) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Seems clear enough. In other words, your posts/threads *will* be deleted if you repeat yourself on the same subject without saying anything new. I presume you disagree with this? If you find a pub session and you like it - you will most probably stay. You find some where folk just get on with the music, have fun, respect each other and practically anythings goes even (playing the same things more than once). You find others where seats are reserved, the music seems to play second fiddle to persoanal ego trips, it is a serious business and there are very strict limitations on what is played etc. I tend to like and stay in the former but there are those who prefer the latter. Either are fine to participate in as long as you accept their defferent nature from the start. What has happened over time on our forum is that it was like the the former and the participants were busy making the music and having their fun in the usual fashion and before they knew it - it had been changed into the latter. Any rules need to be understood and accepted before you start playing and not introduced and heavlily enforced halfway through. Even so reserving the right to do these things is something I suspect that all the early particpants would have accepted. But reserving such rights are not the same as enforcing them on the slightest excuse in order to shape proceedings to the tastes of a few individuals. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM (#1728023) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Wesley S Roger - The people who are showing up for the "session" have changed. So new guidelines are needed. In my opinion. You may disagree. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM (#1728033) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: MMario The analogy has to be stretched and warped to fit the situation here. first and foremost being that the sessions are held in a public space. But the mudcat forum is hosted in a PRIVATE space. secondly - Shambles keeps refering to "recent" changes. I haven't noticed any change in policy in approximately four years, I believe, possibly more. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 02:04 PM (#1728078) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Grab Most sessions I go to aren't total free-for-alls that just happened. Someone went to the trouble of getting the landlord onside; and someone (maybe the same someone) decides whether we're doing two songs each, or one song each, or 10 minutes each, or whatever; and someone (maybe the same someone) says "and now John/Jill's turn..." And if someone has a three-song slot, and plays the same thing three times running, then someone else is likely to say "look, stop mucking about". No? Graham. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM (#1728100) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles But the mudcat forum is hosted in a PRIVATE space. The next intention of a few may be to change it to exclude the public but at the moment the analogy of a session taking place and hosted in a privatly owned 'public house' remains perfectly sound. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM (#1728105) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Sod excluding the public, I'd settle for excluding Roger! G.. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM (#1728106) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: MMario No, your analogy is not perfectly sound. The analogy should be to a session in a PRIVATE HOME, and therein lies the difference. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM (#1728127) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles The analogy should be to a session in a PRIVATE HOME, and therein lies the difference. MMario you should come over and try and argue this to our Government on licensing legislation.......... |
|
26 Apr 06 - 03:16 PM (#1728130) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: MMario ??are you saying there is no differnece between a session in a private home and a session in a pub? Because if you are basing your agrument on that you are basing it on a false premise. there is a huge difference. and your analogy made no reference to licensing - so I don't see how that applies |
|
26 Apr 06 - 04:48 PM (#1728227) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles The analogy should be to a session in a PRIVATE HOME, and therein lies the difference. Private home or a public house - WHEN the public are invited in to freely participate - there is NO difference. The host of both can throw you out but your fellow guests cannot. And if you do not like your fellow guests - the only course open to you is for you to leave. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM (#1728229) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST,Martin Gibson blah, blah, blah. How to be uptight about a web forum. or why a web forum should not be the dominant part of your life. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 04:53 PM (#1728230) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: jeffp If your host hires or selects volunteer security people, they certainly can throw you out. As can any bouncer at any bar. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM (#1728242) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST,Martin gibson Give them guns anbd they will leave peacefully. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 05:39 PM (#1728268) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: jacqui.c Good point jeffp. |
|
26 Apr 06 - 05:41 PM (#1728269) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST,Martin "If your host hires or selects volunteer security people, they certainly can throw you out. As can any bouncer at any bar." Didn't Hitler do that? |
|
26 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM (#1728294) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Dave (the ancient mariner) The military use of the Rules of Engagement is almost always followed by the addendum Levels of Force. During the years I have been using the Mudcat Cafe I have never seen Joe or Max exceed or abuse their position of ultimate arbiter on this site. If anything they have remained neutral and forgiving. We are all guests, and should not try to run the site to our own dictates. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
27 Apr 06 - 02:05 AM (#1728544) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles We are all guests, and should not try to run the site to our own dictates Including any bouncers. I make it a point of of never entering any place where their are bouncers on the door. Had there been any bouncers on the door of our forum - I would not have started contributing here - perhaps others feel the same? |
|
27 Apr 06 - 02:56 AM (#1728553) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: catspaw49 So the place where you are going to regularly grows some and the owner decides to hire bouncers......What do you do? Spaw |
|
27 Apr 06 - 03:12 AM (#1728559) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles I ask him to re-consider. Which I have and which I will continue to do. Do I have that right? What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether? |
|
27 Apr 06 - 03:23 AM (#1728566) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie Really chaps you must catch up, they are called 'Door Stewards' now, nothing so vulgar or threatening as bouncers. JOCDS rules OK? G.. |
|
27 Apr 06 - 03:24 AM (#1728568) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Not that is was my request - but I do feel a little personaly responsible for my part in the imposition of what has become bouncers to the rest of our forum. I will continue to say what I can to try and put that right. User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99 I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing. To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it. |
|
27 Apr 06 - 03:27 AM (#1728569) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Manitas_at_home "I ask him to re-consider. Which I have and which I will continue to do. Do I have that right?" You do. But he hasn't. So why keep banging your head against a brick wall and annoying the neighbours on the other side of the partition? |
|
27 Apr 06 - 04:40 AM (#1728595) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles What would you do when bouncers decide that the only way they can impose the peace they require is to exclude the public altogether? It would appear the answer to be that for some posters - is as they don't exclude me (and I can ensure that by always being seen to be in agreement with whatever they suggest)- then bugger the public........... |
|
27 Apr 06 - 05:11 AM (#1728600) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: John MacKenzie That's only legal in private so far Roger!! G.☻ |
|
27 Apr 06 - 05:58 AM (#1728621) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles The best 'Rules of Engagement' already posted here, which follow on from the established principles of our forum and which do not require anything to be imposed upon us but only require the application of our own common sense - was posted by Wesley S. Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others. And yes - it does apply to me too. |
|
27 Apr 06 - 07:56 AM (#1728678) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Once Famous Lip Service |
|
27 Apr 06 - 12:38 PM (#1728867) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: sian, west wales To respond to the original proposition, kat, I might register my full name, affiliation and email in a professional or academic forum which was heavily moderated. I would not do so in a leisure-interest open forum; that would be contrary to the basic personal security guidelines that women (and men, for all I know) should follow when communicating on the internet. For that matter, I don't see that giving an email address has any value really; I saw some statistics recently that said that a significant percentage of people use hotmail/yahoo/etc in these situations so it provides you with no fall-back as far as I can see. It would seem that there's been more disagreement and unpleasantness somewhere in Mudcat. Interesting. I wasn't aware of it. But then, there are some threads that you just know are going to be full of upset so I avoid them. Presumably that's where all this is taking place. This thread seems to be moving in that direction, but I thought that if you, kat, feel you need feedback, I should at least state my opinion. my 2p. worth siân |
|
28 Apr 06 - 09:27 AM (#1729150) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles As far as posters are concerned I still think that Wesley S's quote is enough. The present editing 'system' was well-intentioned but it offers no protection to posters from inconsistent or personally motivated actions being imposed on certain targets. Just as importantly, it offers no protection for those imposing editing action, from any charges that imposed actions were inconsistent or personally motivated. Nor from their integrity from being compromised by the public actions of their fellow editors. Even more importantly - it seems to encourage division and an attitude where posters now seem to be more concerned with ways of preventing others from posting their views – than encouraging all of us all to post and concentrate on our own. Which are the only posts any of us have any real control over. One of the main problems is that some of those who would appear to be making, changing and enforcing the current 'rules' in order to shape our forum to their personal tastes – do not feel that they should be subject to the same 'rules' –or indeed to any 'rules'. I would like to propose the following changes to this 'system' which I think would help to solve many of these problems.. Could all proposed imposed censorship actions be referred to Max, limited to the offending post only, rather than the entire thread and every action subsequently agreed to, be clearly recorded in the thread in question? Could the ability to close any thread for any reason, be limited to Max and any requests for closure be made directly to him only? And could all threads (except) these – remain open? Could all other editing duties be limited to a few known posters who would always be acting as fellow posters unless it was clearly stated they were commenting in their editing duties? Could these editing duties be limited to: only privately referring any proposed candidates for imposed censorship to Max. only responding to any requested changes to a poster's own contributions and recording this in the thread. only changing anything with the poster's knowledge and prior agreement and recording this in the thread Could any poster, undertaking these duties, who is seen to exceed the above or sets any example like the posting of any abusive personal attacks or responding in kind to any they may receive, or be seen to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters – be relieved of their editing duties? |
|
28 Apr 06 - 01:49 PM (#1729317) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Joe Offer Like I said, Roger, it appears you are not capable of carrying on a direct discussion with somebody who gives a full, logical presentation of his thinking. You have to edit out all the parts that make a statement make sense and give it balance. Here are your proposed "rules," quoted in full, with my comment below each one:
Could the ability to close any thread for any reason, be limited to Max and any requests for closure be made directly to him only? And could all threads (except) these � remain open?
Could all other editing duties be limited to a few known posters who would always be acting as fellow posters unless it was clearly stated they were commenting in their editing duties?
Could editing duties be limited to: only privately referring any proposed candidates for imposed censorship to Max.
only responding to any requested changes to a poster's own contributions and recording this in the thread.
only changing anything with the poster's knowledge and prior agreement and recording this in the thread
Could any poster undertaking these duties who is seen to exceed the above or sets any example like the posting of any abusive personal attacks or responding in kind to any they may receive, or be seen to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters � be relieved of their editing duties?
OK, so there you have it. You have posted your "rules" in half-a-dozen posts. I will respond in only one. If Shambles has any further discussion of this matter, I ask that he conduct it here, instead of taking it out of context and putting it in another thread. -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Apr 06 - 02:00 PM (#1729331) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Wesley S Roger - Remember when I said : Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others. Please note that I said "members and guests". The owner and his selected moderators are in charge and get to run this place as they see fit. |
|
28 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM (#1729334) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles OK, so there you have it. You have posted your "rules" in half-a-dozen posts. I will respond in only one. -Joe Offer- I have posted my suggestions for a CHANGE to the current rules - in only one other thread where they were both relevant to the discussion. |
|
28 Apr 06 - 02:42 PM (#1729370) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Thanks, Sian, I appreciate your posting. I don't particularly like the idea of having to give full name and affiliation, either; but, I DO like giving an email OR consistent name. Ah, well. Thanks, Joe, for the concise posting, too, answering Shambles. |
|
28 Apr 06 - 04:49 PM (#1729447) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles In response to a requested suggestion - an explanation and defence of the status quo really makes little sense coming from the poster of the following list of complaints about the status quo - where they admit its failure and ask for suggestions to bring peace...... But that's good old Mudlogic for you. Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS? From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:59 AM Well, I actually get more flak about what what we don't delete, than about what we do delete. Generally we follow the same guidelines we've always followed - we delete personal attacks, threats, racism, and Spam - but we do our best to allow people to express their thoughts and opinions freely. I suppose some of those opinions are objectionable, but if they're not outright hateful, we usually don't delete them - much to the chagrin of some Mudcatters. For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that? So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Apr 06 - 05:34 PM (#1729493) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Joe Offer Well, yeah, I think the "status quo" of the Mudcat editing functions is pretty good. If I didn't think that, why would I continue doing things that way? After all, most of the complaints about our work come from only one person.
The "status quo" follows a reasonably logical pattern, and we try to do a pretty good job. Certainly, we make mistakes and some of our remedies don't work - but that's the state of the human condition. Shambles seems to imply that the Mudcat Editing Team is horribly corrupt and biased in its actions against certain individuals, but I don't see any evidence to support that. The Editing Team members are good, honest people who have earned the trust of the vast majority of Mudcatters - and, despite implications from Shambles to the contrary, they are well known to our community and overwhelmingly respected. I can't even figure out what reason the Team would have for being as corrupt as Shambles implies them to be. What good would it do them? Is it perhaps that since Shambles carries on vendettas for years, he thinks that everybody else does the same? -Joe Offer- |
|
28 Apr 06 - 08:50 PM (#1729605) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles I make no mention of anyone being horribly corrupt. I addressed the 'system'. You publicy asked for suggestions - if this personal attack on me is going to be your reaction to any suggestions that are made - no wonder I appear to be the only one brave enough or stupid enough to express a view different to yours. What I said was. The present editing 'system' was well-intentioned but it offers no protection to posters from inconsistent or personally motivated actions being imposed on certain targets. Just as importantly, it offers no protection for those imposing editing action, from any charges that imposed actions were inconsistent or personally motivated. Nor from their integrity from being compromised by the public actions of their fellow editors. But if the status quo is so good - why is it you who is constantly complaining about it and wishing to impose yet more not very well-thought out changes and further restrictions on others, that do not apply to you? |
|
28 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM (#1729617) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Censorship and attitude rolled into one |
|
28 Apr 06 - 09:15 PM (#1729626) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: katlaughing Jeez, Joe, do I hafta tell you who had sex with a horse??!!! **BIG GRIN*** ***Just Joking*** Shambles, if you cut and paste this anywhere, I request that you include the ENTIRE posting!! |
|
28 Apr 06 - 10:24 PM (#1729679) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST,Joe Offer, at the Women's Center Hmmmm. It appears that the definition of "Personal Attack" has been broadened, to include challenging another person's logic and disagreeing with another person's point of view. Good thing the Clones don't include such things as deletable "personal attacks." And I reiterate, there is no evidence that there is or ever has been "inconsistent or personally motivated actions being imposed on certain targets" by the forum moderation volunteers. The volunteers have no reason to do such a thing and there is no evidence that they have done anything like that - so why should there be a complex system set up to prevent such a thing? Reminds me of when I worked for the U.S. Government and the Reagan Administration wanted to make federal employees a "drug-free workplace." They picked my 700-employee agency as the example of their program, and tried to reoganize our workdays around a drug testing schedule - even though there had never been any evidence of drug abuse among our employees, and the most hazardous thing we did on the job was drive a car. We sued the government, and won. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 06 - 05:40 AM (#1729798) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles How can our forum ever be expected to accept that any censorship you impose upon my contributions is objective and only for the reasons you state and not because you have publicly posted to personally judge me to be an idiot, an asshole and many other such things? Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM >snip< Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM (#1729818) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Suggested Rules of Engagement? Brief synopsis...don't do so much useless complaining, and you won't have any sharp words directed at you. Bill D That would seem to sum-up what some of our commonest and most regular complainers consider the current Rules of Engagement to now be. Seemingly in order to justify the current unfriendly and negative attitude now encouraged to be displayed by certain posters on our forum. Who feel that they have some right to prevent others from posting what they choose to post - rather than simply ignoring things that are not to their taste. But again even these Rules of Engagement do not seem to apply to our Chief complainer. Who still will not accept the realities of a forum that is freely open to the public. And who now sets the leading example in publicly complaining about the conduct of others but does not appear to appreciate his own conduct being the subject of any disatisfaction. Even when this is received and detected in a direct response to his invitation for suggestions after his admission of the failure of the status quo to impose the peace on our forum that he requires. And still the suggestions come flooding in.....*Smiles* |
|
29 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM (#1730055) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Once Famous Joe, you weren't wearing a bra and panties at the Womens's Center, were you?
-Joe- |
|
29 Apr 06 - 04:39 PM (#1730112) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST, heric Jeezis effen criste on a crutch I have been deleted!!! JOE has been deleted!! All I did was make reference to a news article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer! Anyone who said the word HORSE has been deleted except for kat. And SHE is talking about SEX with horses!! I suppose a "discussion" had ensued on horses (though I wasn't following it) and therefore the rule that discussions will, er will not (?) be deleted was followed or abolished or something? Shambles what are the rules around here??? |
|
29 Apr 06 - 04:46 PM (#1730119) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Don't ask me. First there are rules and then there are no rules and then there are rules that are not rules. The only rule that appears to always be in force - is that whatever each moderator may think the rules are to be imposes on others - none of these rules ever apply to them. Subject: RE: BS: why all the closed threads? From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM Yes, there have been a number of threads closed or deleted lately. Things have been unusually nasty around here this last week. Somebody suggested it might be the full moon that made Mudcatters crazier than usual. Mick did a pretty good summary of the way we do things. They aren't rules, but they are the general procedures we follow. The general principle is that moderators will use a variety of moderation techniques to keep the peace, but that moderation techniques are to be used sparingly. When things are in an uproar, we moderate more strictly. When things are calm, we moderate hardly at all. Personal attacks, racism, and Spam are deleted when we find them, and we consider blank messages to be Spam. Multiples of ongoing threads are usually combined with the earlier thread by moving messages, or closed and redirected to the earlier thread. Here's what Mick said about our procedures: All, with the exception of the trollers and flamers, have pretty well accepted that reasonable moderation is necessary. As I understand the rules, it goes something like this. As a rule, if two threads are talking about essentially the same thing, the messages are transferred and one is closed. If a thread is nothing more than a personal attack, it is generally closed. If a post is an attempt to hijack a thread, it can be deleted. Copycat threads are looked at carefully, and if they add nothing to the discussion, they can be deleted. This is generally the call of Joe and Jeff. |
|
01 May 06 - 04:38 PM (#1731447) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles PM] Max No BS: The Mudcat Is Shutting Down (72* d) No BS: The Mudcat Is Shutting Down 02 Nov 01 >snip< I do not want another thread of Thank You's like always happens when I post one of these updates and pep talks. Don't tell me, show me. I don't need cheered up, I don't need to feel appreciated, I need to look upon the Mudcat pages and see beautiful people being happy, because that is why I do this. It's not my work that makes this such a great place (though it don't hurt), its all of you. I feel like I am rising to a challenge right now, with this move, and now I challenge you. We are a group, a whole. We are together because we share at least some common interest. We may not all see eye to eye on everything, but the Mudcat IS the sum of all its parts. I challenge you to make it work. Get your attention? Good. |
|
02 May 06 - 04:52 AM (#1731891) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Keep those suggestions rolling in........ Censorship and Attitude rolled into one |
|
02 May 06 - 05:32 AM (#1731903) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM Hmmmm. Name-calling? As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name. -------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM >snip< Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- |
|
03 May 06 - 04:42 AM (#1732703) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Censorship and Attitude rolled into one Is now closed. So just keep all those suggestions flowing in to this thread - while you still can. |
|
03 May 06 - 05:59 AM (#1732727) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST Maybe there should be a breathalyser attached to the edit buttons? Are we really to believe that the pure farce that was brought to light in the thread shambles has linked to below was down to someone over imbibing? |
|
03 May 06 - 08:56 AM (#1732812) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Big Mick I considered deleting that last post, as it is an attack style. But I decided to leave it because it shows your true motives. In that thread we spoke about why certain posts were deleted. You choose to raise the specter of alchohol abuse. This demonstrates to everyone that you intent is simply to disrupt. |
|
03 May 06 - 09:00 AM (#1732815) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST Wrong again mick. A member actually mentioned that as a possibility in a post somewhere over the last two days. It struck me as odd at the time. I could trawl through to copy and paste it for you. But if you are in doubt you can do the work or not as you choose. |
|
03 May 06 - 09:07 AM (#1732820) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: GUEST Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one From: Bert Date: 02 May 06 - 12:03 AM Or maybe it's just a moderator who needs to moderate their alcohol intake. Now THAT I can forgive. There you go mick. Oh dear looks like another one of the moderators. So are you saying his 'intention' is purely to 'disrupt?' |
|
03 May 06 - 12:32 PM (#1732935) Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: The Shambles Subject: RE: BS: Suggestion for Rules of Engagement From: Big Mick - PM Date: 03 May 06 - 08:56 AM I considered deleting that last post, as it is an attack style. But I decided to leave it because it shows your true motives. In that thread we spoke about why certain posts were deleted. You choose to raise the specter of alchohol abuse. This demonstrates to everyone that you intent is simply to disrupt. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you really surprised if the example you set - is followed? Do you really think you can claim any credibilty for the objectivity of any of your 'editing' actions? Especially those based on what you may now judge to be 'attack style'......A style of posting that you have 'written the book on'. As the following - rather mild - example shows. User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Big Mick BS: Are all bigots male? (141* d) RE: BS: Are all bigots male? 26 Feb 06 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No, Roger. You are confusing intolerance with bigotry. It is not a male thing, but you knew that when you set the bait in this thread. And intolerance is not always a bad thing, where bigotry is always bad, IMHO. For example: I am very intolerant of your manipulative, whiney, pathetic need to be abused and abusive. I am intolerant of your need to cry, piss and moan that you don't get the respect that you seem to think you deserve in spite of your penchant for disabusing anyone who doesn't agree with you. You give no respect, yet you demand it. In short, I am intolerant of you and wish you would seek counseling and leave this place. All of this does not make me a bigot. It makes me dislike you and all of your posts. By the way, folks, I believe motor city mama lives in Florida if that helps you any. Mick Censorship and Attitude rolled ito TWO |