BS: Question re: moderators

25 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM (#1727081)
Subject: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,Number 6

Why aren't the identities of the moderators, clones, spooks, elders or whatever one calls them known here to the rest of the Mudcat members. Keeping it secret is a bit 'Orwellian', plus I feel it tends to polarize the community.

sIx

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM (#1727086)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: MMario

Many - if not most- forums the moderators are anonymous. And the identities of most of Mudcat's "Joe-clones" isn't really a big secret, either. However, they are not *required* to identify themselves.

I can see that some people have *tried* to make this an issue; but except for those few (and I mean VERY few) I don't see complaints about this.

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM (#1727089)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Jack the Sailor

This is just my opinion, but I think that if the moderators are members they should be anon. It keeps personal differences from getting in the way of the moderating. Its like refereeing in sports it should be done according to the rulebook.

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:16 PM (#1727095)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: John MacKenzie

Quite right Jack, just look at the vendetta The Shambles is conducting against Joe Offer, that's what can happen when a moderator is known.
Giok

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM (#1727097)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,number 6

Good points ... one other forum I go to the moderators id's are known. I should also point out that it is a very regulated forum.

Personally I still find keeping them a secret is a bit too much. But then again, I am not a person to hold grudges, and keep personal differences aside. I would rather know who they are, then to have this little secret organization, kept behind the curtain. This I feel breeds an element of distrust. Imagine if the individual names of you local police force were, kept a secret.

sIx

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:20 PM (#1727098)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Rapparee

I don't know the names of everyone on the PD...don't really care, either. But then, I know and like the Chief and his Dept. heads.

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM (#1727108)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

I do not how many of the anonymous moderators publicly post to call me names.

I do know that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and some of the known ones do this and set the example that this is now acceptable on our forum.

And at least two of these known moderators have publicly made it known that their wish is for me to be banned from our forum.

Under such circumstances is it really possible for me or anyone else to accept that I will ever be able receive the same treatment as other posters or feel that I will be treated with the required objectivity by our moderators or accept that any editing action taken against my posts will not be personally motivated?

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM (#1727114)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: katlaughing

On some of those other forums, sIx, you may know them by a certain name, but they probably have different names if they participate as regular posters.

Being known has only made some of us targets for a few malcontents. Had I to do over, I would have stayed anon. or used a different name. In the old days, before we clones, we had the Mudcat Elves who were folks who actually worked at Max's former dot com, OnStage Media. we didn't know much about them,;we knew the first names of a couple who appeared on Mudcat Radio, but for the most part they were anon and there was no question of what they did.

Also, things have changed a lot since we clones came into being. At first we were needed, mostly, for fixing html mistakes, adding linebreaks, deleting duplicate postings, etc. Then came the great upgrade where a lot of those things became easier or automatic. As the site grew, we've added more moderating in the form of watching for attacks, etc. With more people the pot seems to get stirred more and more.

kat

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM (#1727127)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

Why do you think I should be banned kat?

And in what role are you posting the view that I should?

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM (#1727135)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Bee-dubya-ell

And this is just my opinion...

I think since moderators are simply members wearing different hats, they should have separate member log-ins and moderator log-ins. The moderator names should be made public, but which moderator name corresponds to which member name should be kept secret. I further think edits, deletions and closures should be "signed" by the mod who does them using his/her moderator name. Whether or not moderators would choose to accept PMs sent to them under their moderator names would be strictly up to them.

This would go a long way toward eliminating some of the "Orwellian" overtones of total moderator anonymity while providing enough anonymity to allow the moderators to do their jobs without being continually assaulted by irate PMs.

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM (#1727136)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Ebbie

IMO, if the clones were 'outed', there are those among us who would list their names every time s/he/they were unhappy about an editing decision, ad nauseam. Some people appear to have no sense of making a point and then stopping. Never heard of 'shaking the dust off one's feet and leaving town' if the populace is unreceptive, I guess.

---

25 Apr 06 - 01:58 PM (#1727157)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: katlaughing

BWL, that's the best thing I've read concerning this in forever!

Roger, out of your 10,653 posts I have only deleted ONE, ever. I make it a habit when I am being a clone, of bending over backwards to NOT edit or make any changes to a post by people whom I do not get along with as a regular member. I refer them to someone else.

I never post under anything but my name katlaughing and as such it is as a MEMBER.

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:10 PM (#1727167)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Jack the Sailor

Kat,

He's been posting a quote where you said he should be banned. I took what you said as a joke. Apparently he is trying to use that joke as a hammer.

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:11 PM (#1727170)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: MMario

so - bee-dubya-ell; you are asking that a "volunteer" moderator ***, in additon to whatever else he/she must do in order to moderate; also have to logout as their own identity, login as a different identity and then reverse the procedure to be themselves.

As far as "signing" their work;

Do you want notices put if links are corrected?

Or URL spellng is fixed?

Or spam deleted?

duplicate messages removed?

Or if links are converted from absolute to relative so that they work regardless of the servername?

or when related links are inserted ?

Or a midi posted?

Or a midi linked to song page and /or thread?

Should they have to sign their work when removeing outdated or inappropriat posts to perma-threads?

Lyrics formatted so they are legible?

ABC files formatted so they are playable?

html errors corrected?

Those are a few of the tasks I've noticed that occur. I'm sure there are more that I haven't thought of; nor noticed.

The fact that someone has an edit button certainly isn't a factor in whether or not *I* wish to emulate them. I doubt if it is much of a factor in anyone elses conduct.




***according to a conversation I had with Max last fall - at least up until that time - all the "volunteers" could more correctly be called "conscripts" - as per Max *HE* approached each to become a moderator rather then the reverse.

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:17 PM (#1727182)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,Me

For goodness sake can you lot not leave these things alone? Concentrate on your own shortcomings and get a life! If ya dont like it get out of it!

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM (#1727208)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: MMario

Shambles - you have said repeatedly that you have no desire to influence the way Max runs his site. why then, do you constantly attempt to do so?

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM (#1727209)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: jacqui.c

Roger - it is not ALL about you, strange as that may seem.

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM (#1727210)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

MMario

'Do you want notices put if'

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
And YES

Why not?

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM (#1727213)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: John MacKenzie

Ah Roger don't you understand, rhetorical questions don't require answers.
G..

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM (#1727214)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,and You

Guest,Me ... we should do lunch some time.

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM (#1727217)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST

Asking why his post was deleted is very reasonable. I am sure she remembers.

---

25 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM (#1727224)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Joe Offer

The general idea is that anonymity of editing gives a spirit of unanimity to the editing team. If there is a reason to question an editorial action, you may contact the Mudcat Troika, Max, Jeff, or me. I'm the one who handles day-to-day editing, Jeff handles tech stuff, and Max is the Owner Of Mudcat.
If we attributed editing actions to individuals, it would allow people to pit one volunteer against another. All editing is done under my authority, so I'm the one to blame - and if you don't want to blame me, then the ultimate blame goes to Max.
I prefer to be contacted privately, rather than having a thread started every time somebody questions an action. It's much easier for me to be both honest and diplomatic in private - and it's easier for me to fix things without hurting somebody.
-Joe Offer-

---

25 Apr 06 - 03:01 PM (#1727227)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: MMario

shambles - because such notice is both needless and uneccessary. (Which is a redundant statement - but since you seem to like repeating things, why not be redundant?)

---

25 Apr 06 - 03:09 PM (#1727232)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: katlaughing

Exactly, MMario.

Roger, take it to PMs.

---

25 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM (#1727236)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,Number 6

Thanks for the post Joe.

"All editing is done under my authority" ... I can agree to that.

sIx

---

25 Apr 06 - 03:13 PM (#1727237)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

You can reply there if you wish.

---

25 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM (#1727243)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: greg stephens

I've just taken a look at this thread. It has reminded me why I normally avoid them. All a bit sad, isn't it? I admire those who put up with being moderators.

---

25 Apr 06 - 03:24 PM (#1727248)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: John MacKenzie

Being both honest and diplomatic in private Joe???
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. ☺
G..

---

25 Apr 06 - 04:24 PM (#1727279)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: number 6

Greg Stephens .... This thread is not a complaint against the moderators, clones or whatever ... I was trying to make sense of the reason these inidividuals are not known to the general populace of the Mudcat. I also expressed my feelings on this code of secrecy. Anything wrong with this. After all, you did read this thread, and you did spend the energy on posting to it.

To everyone else ... I appreciate your responses.It has provided me some insight to the structure of the Mudcat ... If i hadn't asked, I would never have known.

sIx

---

25 Apr 06 - 04:27 PM (#1727282)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: MMario

sIx - as you may have noticed;it's a "hot button" for some.

---

25 Apr 06 - 04:30 PM (#1727285)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: number 6

Well MMario ... there are a lotta 'hot buttons' these days here in the Mudcat. I feel it shouldn't prevent ones from asking. I'm certainly not one around here that shakes, rattles and rolls the old Cat to the point of tipping.

sIx

---

25 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM (#1727287)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: artbrooks

...or for one.

---

25 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM (#1727329)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Georgiansilver

Why do so many people feel so insecure about there being some sort of authority over which they have no control? Just listen to yourselves! What on earth do you come here for? Music, BS, a place to complain, an open forum, an unrestricted place where you can criticise the people who run it? C'mon folks, get a grip. GUEST Me seemed to have the right idea. Get a life and get on with it! Look to yourself and your own faults. Let's all make the Cat a sharing, caring, wonderful place to be......or go under trying. Give your opinions on subjects...not people and the place will grow into a mature and acceptable forum.
Love and Best wishes to you all, Mike.

---

25 Apr 06 - 05:15 PM (#1727330)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Bee-dubya-ell

No, Mmario, nobody'd need to log in or out to act as a mod under a system like I outlined above. Just log in using different browsers that don't share cookies. Use Firefox as a member, Opera as a moderator.

And, no, I don't think anyone (besides Roger) would expect all the minutiae to be documented. Just the big stuff like closing threads.

---

25 Apr 06 - 05:26 PM (#1727342)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Joe Offer

The other reason we don't identify editorial actions, is that we delete problem posts because we want to eliminate or limit the harm they can do. If Katlaughing deletes a post about so-and-so who has sex with horses, and kat has to post a notice that she deleted a post about so-and-so having sex with horses and is that OK with everybody - doesn't that just duplicate the harm that was done?
So, if there's a problem or question, contact me. And yes, it's much easier for me to be fair and honest and diplomatic if you contact me in private and don't make every editorial action into a reason for a kangaroo court. It's also much easier for me to reverse an editorial action if a request is made privately.
-Joe-

---

25 Apr 06 - 05:34 PM (#1727355)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Georgiansilver

Sorry to even have to say this but JOE you should not have to justify your actions. Everyone here whether registered or Guest is a visitor and should remember that, They are not the heart and soul of Mudcat or the reason it exists. It is here for people to enjoy! When the enjoyment bubbles over into something else, then the moderators step in. That's life folks/folkies. Let's just get on with it eh? Best wishes, Mike.

---

25 Apr 06 - 05:36 PM (#1727356)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: bobad

"deletes a post about so-and-so who has sex with horses, "

Some may feel that is being judgemental there Joe.

---

25 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM (#1727377)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

You may have missed the following as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

And Kat reported the deletion to me, and I reviewed it and undeleted the message because I disagreed, and there was no big deal about it - so I think that means our system works. If you disagree with the undeletion, Shambles, let me know.
-Joe Offer-

It is difficult for me to know if I disagree or not – as I still have no idea what the nature of the offending post could possibly have been. As for this being evidence that the system works - I think this is more Mudlogic.

How can I or any other poster know or really accept that these editing actions are not personally motivated?

When one of the moderators concerned has joined another and just publicly posted that in her view I should be banned and the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has just publicly posted his latest personal attack on me and called me a buffoon - because he considers that I am unfair on this editing 'system'.

The first question should surely be if the editing is now always consistent and seen to be fair on the posters? And should any poster now be subject to abusive personal attacks like this from any of our moderators - known or unknown? Or see subsequent attempts to justify, minmise of defend these attacks from those whose supposed role is to protect us from personal attacks?

Which ever side you may fall - the point is that you are being asked to take sides every time these attempted explanations justifications are publicly made and all this IS causing yet division on our forum that really MUST be ended.

---

25 Apr 06 - 06:09 PM (#1727381)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: John MacKenzie

Is there a mote in your eye Roger?
G.

---

25 Apr 06 - 06:23 PM (#1727394)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: jacqui.c

Here we go again!

---

25 Apr 06 - 06:33 PM (#1727402)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

Sorry to even have to say this but JOE you should not have to justify your actions. Everyone here whether registered or Guest is a visitor and should remember that, They are not the heart and soul of Mudcat or the reason it exists. It is here for people to enjoy.

That is exactly why threads like this one will most likely exceed 200 posts (including one or two from me - unless reasons are found for these to be censored).

Posters ENJOY posting about these aspects. It is the ONE thing that every poster has in common so why would they not ENJOY having their say about how things should be....?

Some of our 'moderators' do not seem to ENJOY it quite so much however and would rather everyone else did not talk about aspects which they seem to like to feel are their private preserve.

---

25 Apr 06 - 07:07 PM (#1727416)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Joe Offer

Big stuff like closing threads is always reported to and reviewed by me - and I think it's proper for the Mudcat Troika to have a chance to review and change a decision before it's opened to public discussion. Volunteers are allowed to close threads only in the most obvious of situations, where there's a real and immediate problem. When they overstep that authority, they hear about it.

I'm the one who had the authority to confirm or reverse the decision to close or delete, so I'm the one to contact. Jeff also has that authority, of course - but I'm the one who usually handles it. Max is the one who handles appeals of actions done by Jeff and Joe.

I don't know about who might have suggested that Shambles should be banned. I've talked with some Clones about him, and we agreed that Mudcat just wouldn't be the same without Shambles, and I have to say I've always liked him - even though he aggravates the hell outa me sometimes. I suppose that I aggravate the hell outa him sometimes, too.

-Joe Offer-

---

25 Apr 06 - 07:51 PM (#1727437)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Bill D

wow...a Mutual Aggravation Society! Next step, symbiosis!

---

25 Apr 06 - 08:23 PM (#1727457)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Bert

...symbiosis...

Isn't that what all of these censorship threads are?

---

25 Apr 06 - 08:34 PM (#1727465)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Once Famous

moderators are biased.

---

25 Apr 06 - 09:19 PM (#1727502)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Joe Offer

People are biased.
They have opinions.
What else is new?
-Joe Offer-

---

25 Apr 06 - 09:32 PM (#1727509)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Alba

Don't want to be taking that word " Clones " literally now Folks ~~
Gives me an image of Joe in his DNA Lab growing new batches..
Next thing we know we shall have Katpaw and Jerrilaughing and Big Joe and Mike Offer and Jefax...where will it end!!!!!..:)

Jude

---

25 Apr 06 - 09:42 PM (#1727518)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Alba

ROFL...you see how dodgy this tamepring with DNA is...who in the name of the wee man is Mike Offer!
I think it was meant to be Mick Offer...
Ah see ethical questions arising already or just a mad Scotswoman making a typing error. I'll go with the latter:)

---

25 Apr 06 - 09:57 PM (#1727528)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: number 6

Not all people are biased Joe.

If one is a moderator they should try to look beyond personal differences as much as possible ... if they can't, they they should not be a moderator.

Much like a good manager, or a coach. If you are biased you will one lousy boss, coach, cheif or whatever.

Again not critizing anyone here or the Mudcat ... just making a statement, presenting my opinions. This is what forums are all about, just reminding those who will jump onto this with some negative idea that I'm slamming the cat and all that.

sIx

---

25 Apr 06 - 10:12 PM (#1727542)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,.gargoyle

If you have been around awhile the clones'/personality/preferences/biases/profiles/ are better known than the posters themselves.....run a log. (the backdoor is BASIC)

We know them .... better than they know themselves

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

---

25 Apr 06 - 11:30 PM (#1727603)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: heric

Seattle P-I ran a story about someone who had sex with a horse and their web hits rocketed sky high. Far, far more than any other news article they had ever run. Point to consider.

---

26 Apr 06 - 01:55 AM (#1727631)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Joe Offer

No, Number Six, perhaps it's just semantics, but I do think all people are biased, that it's a natural thing for us to have opinions and preferences. What's important is for us to realize our biases and to adjust for them, so that we can be fair and just in our dealings with people.

-Joe-

---

26 Apr 06 - 02:08 AM (#1727636)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: michaelr

If "biased" means "not objective", then Joe is right (IMO). I don't believe it's possible for humans to be "objective".

In light of that, being "fair and just" will always come down to a human quality that can't be understood objectively.

Cheers,
Michael

---

26 Apr 06 - 02:16 AM (#1727639)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Joe Offer

...and some people feel comfortable living in the grey areas, and some have to have black and white. Our moderation policies tend to lie in the grey areas - I suppose that's a personal preference, but I think Max and most Mudcatters tend to be that way. Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic.
-Joe-

---

26 Apr 06 - 02:20 AM (#1727640)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: michaelr

It's Big Max Offer.

And I wanna know about the horse-fucking! Where is that link?

Cathy

---

26 Apr 06 - 03:20 AM (#1727663)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

This is what forums are all about, just reminding those who will jump onto this with some negative idea that I'm slamming the cat and all that.

Sadly along with all the other things that the introduction of our current 'moderators' has inhibited - like Birthday threads, song challenges, copycat threads, 100th postings etc - which should be left to every poster's personal tastes - there is a most important aspect that has been inhibited.

It is that to been see to not in agreement with many of these imposed restrictions or wishes to discuss aspect of how things should be on our forum in public - is now to be risked as being labelled as anti-Mudcat and subject to abusive personal attacks from those who only undertake their moderator roles in order to protect us from abusive persoanal attacks.

This is why any moderator should not be seen to have a personal view on anything other than enabling the forum to be shaped by the invited contributions of all our forum's posters.

For many of our moderators - who are among the chief combatants in conflict here to talking longingly of peace sounds incredible to me. For it is not peace they seem to require - but total victory.

The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has further polarised the camps by publicly posting that he had formally proposed to make the posting of BS members only - as without this he could not impose the peace he required.

So what side are you supposed to be seen to be on concerning this proposal (and the next one)? It often seems that the most important thing is for us to be seen to be nice and fair to our moderators. This is placing the cart before the horse.

And when our moderators are clearly seen to be not nice, very unfair and not to consider the rules they impose on others also apply to them - it is not their fault but somehow it is ours. No one is forcing anyone in to this kitchen and if they cannot stand the heat - they can always get out of the kitchen.

---

26 Apr 06 - 03:33 AM (#1727666)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

No, Number Six, perhaps it's just semantics, but I do think all people are biased, that it's a natural thing for us to have opinions and preferences. What's important is for us to realize our biases and to adjust for them, so that we can be fair and just in our dealings with people.
-Joe-

So that when someone considers you to have behaved unfairly and unjustly and politely and says so - this is justification for you as a so-called 'moderator' to call them names like buffoon, idiot and asshole - regardless of the example set by these abusive personal attacks from those who are supposed to be protecting us from such things?

Of course all of us are biased. And as fellow posters it is acceptable for us to be seen as such. It is not acceptable for those who would feel qualified to judge us to be seen to be biased and expect their judgements to be seen by others as objective or any better than anyone else's judgement.

---

26 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM (#1727736)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Alba

Yet another Thread hijacked for the resident 'cut n' paste anything anyone tries to discuss' Member aka Shambles !

What is the goal Shambles. To turn every Thread in the BS section into a Joe Offer attack! For someone that advocates our forum you sure take up a lot of space and threads (even other peoples) in the BS with your own personal obsession. In fact it is beginning to appear that this is ~~~ your Forum.

Your cookie would have got eaten faster than you could type censorship if I were a Moderator here.

I believe it is your sole purpose to ruin this section now.
I know you have spoiled it for me and a few others.
Fully expecting a cut n paste of one or two of my sentences (maybe even my whole post...gasp) but I won't be back on this Thread either.
Running out of Threads that don't deal with Shamble issues.
I do congratulate you however on being able to turn whatever the subject topic into something about you you you
I for one am getting thoroughly sick of it now.
Sorry Number 6. It was not my intention to detract from your question.
Jude

---

26 Apr 06 - 07:34 AM (#1727751)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: John MacKenzie

All moderators should operate under a pseudenym, then they can continue to post as themselves. How do you or I know whether the 'new independant' moderator that Max has appointed is not one of the old moderators in disguise?
The ones with """ tattooed on their forehead, AKA The Mark of Shambles, would then be able to have a skin graft to cover the mark of shame. Paid for by Shambles contributions towards the upkeep of the Mudcat of course!
Giok

---

26 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM (#1727763)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,JTS

...and some people feel comfortable living in the grey areas, and some have to have black and white. Our moderation policies tend to lie in the grey areas - I suppose that's a personal preference, but I think Max and most Mudcatters tend to be that way. Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic.
-Joe-

Black an white is not really so bad when one is talking about acceptable behavior.

"No personal attacks", is a pretty good rule which really doesn't contain much gray area. But when you add the "implied unlesses" which some of the moderators appear to add, it does seem problematic.

No personal attacks unless the person being attack disagrees with the attacker.

No personal attacks if they are part of a discussion.

No personal attacks unless the attack has been answered.

and the Newest one brought to us on a recent thread...

No personal attacks unless they are an opinion.

It seems to me that these "unlesses" open the door to a lot of unnecessary bias. Also some as Shambles has pointed out once in a while among a mountain of ... stuff, some moderators' tendency to engage in name calling as a part of their effort to discourage it, tends to open up some unnecessary gray.

---

26 Apr 06 - 08:03 AM (#1727771)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Once Famous

acceptable behavior.

Please define what that means.

acceptable perhaps to a biased perception?

or in other words, "what the fuck?"

---

26 Apr 06 - 08:14 AM (#1727777)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: kendall

I think it's pretty sad when so called adults don't know where the line is regarding acceptable behavior. One may accept that in children, not in grown ups.

---

26 Apr 06 - 10:37 AM (#1727881)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic.
-Joe-

Given a choice - I will settle for legalistic rather than mob rule.

A very few but consistently enforced rules would protect posters and moderator alike (if we have to have the latter).

---

26 Apr 06 - 11:07 AM (#1727916)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Wesley S

Roger - with all due respect - Mob Rule ? There are a few moderators chosen by the site owner. How does that constitute mob rule ? Can you please explain why you chose that phrase ?

---

26 Apr 06 - 11:11 AM (#1727919)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: John MacKenzie

Paranoia?

---

26 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM (#1727953)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Wesley S

John - I'm sure he has a good reason for using that phrase. I'd love to hear it.

---

26 Apr 06 - 11:36 AM (#1727956)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: jacqui.c

Roger wasn't chosen to be a moderator?

---

26 Apr 06 - 04:56 PM (#1728233)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Wesley S

No - not yet. But it's an idea.

---

26 Apr 06 - 05:01 PM (#1728238)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,Martin gibson not logged in.

Kendall, who drew the line? You? who appointed you to draw lines?

Did anyone ever think how many enjoy Mudcat as pure organized chaos?

---

26 Apr 06 - 05:48 PM (#1728278)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,JTS

Yes Kendall, Very sad, very sad indeed.

---

26 Apr 06 - 06:01 PM (#1728290)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: GUEST,Martin gibson

Yep, it's sad.

Sad that you grw up to be about as fun as your grammar school principal. Sad that you lost the child in yourself. Sad that you need to justify that you are an adult. Sad that you are just so boring.

---

27 Apr 06 - 03:41 AM (#1728576)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

Roger - with all due respect - Mob Rule ? There are a few moderators chosen by the site owner. How does that constitute mob rule ? Can you please explain why you chose that phrase ?

If you look in any of the recent threads on the subject of aspects our forum and what posters want for it. You will see a familiar pattern.

For attempts for posters to have their say in these threads - are permitted to be filled by other posts intentionally inciting others to follow what ever 'fun game' or others subject and equally determined that other posters do not have their say on the thread's subject.

Despite the fact that one of our moderators had only recently and publicly stated that what he referred to as the 'hi-jacking' of threads would receive his editing attentions - and these attempts were described in one of the threads as 'officially hi-jacking' that thread.

There is plainly now one rule for one - and a different set for others. That is as close to mob rule as one can get.

---

27 Apr 06 - 03:43 AM (#1728579)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

Music posts by Guests to be reviewed (2)

---

29 Apr 06 - 07:01 AM (#1729822)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

Requiring black-and-white rules seems legalistic.
-Joe-

---------------------------------------------------------------

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.>Snip<

---

29 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM (#1730149)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Sorcha

And, just WHO was THAT from, Roger????

---

29 Apr 06 - 05:23 PM (#1730165)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Alba

What does < snip > mean?

---

29 Apr 06 - 05:27 PM (#1730168)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Alba

Ah I get it...>snip< just means one has cut and pasted a section from something, not the whole article..gotcha.

---

29 Apr 06 - 06:16 PM (#1730193)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Shambles

And, just WHO was THAT from, Roger????

That was from our first and second in command. There would now seem some question as which is which.........

---

29 Apr 06 - 06:20 PM (#1730194)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: The Fooles Troupe

Just a Foolish Thought,

If a Moderator acts without Moderation, is esh then an Immoderator?

---

29 Apr 06 - 06:48 PM (#1730203)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Georgiansilver

Moderately I suspect

---

30 Apr 06 - 01:25 AM (#1730363)
Subject: RE: BS: Question re: moderators
From: Bert

moderators are biased...

Say Kay, If that is so. What did I edit that YOU KNOW was biased?

---