Mudcat Café message #1400939 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #77879   Message #1400939
Posted By: GUEST,The Shambles
06-Feb-05 - 04:13 PM
Thread Name: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.


Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-


I fear that this list can only increase - perhaps it could be first publicly explained why when there is no editing action taken or required here that our volunteer's reply was chosen to be made in the form of an editorial comment (so as not to refresh this thread)? Not an option that is open to all of us - as explained in the following?

Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:23 AM on this thread http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82
But if I reply to a question or comment within the message where the question was asked, there's no question to whom I am responding, is there? I find that efficient and clear, and see no reason to do otherwise. It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them.
-Joe Offer-


Perhaps it can be publicly explained what exactly our volunteers find 'contentious' about this thread - that they do not wish to refresh it? And are 'contentious people' now those who simply dare to hold and express a different view to those of our volunteers?

The thread where I spoke of contentiousness wasn't particularly contentious. I was speaking of other threads.
-Joe Offer-
The problem is that well- intentioned folk like Bert are rather too ready to defend and inform other posters what they honestly believe (or are told to believe) is currently happening under the cover of our volunteer's 'spin'. This is not very helpful - as the reality (if also still mainly well-intentioned) is somewhat different.

Bert who will protect us from deliberate personal attacks (and incitement for other to indulge in these) when they are made upon us - by our volunteers (and defended and justified by them)? Some following examples of the double standard that is making this forum look foolish and oppressive.

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM
I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen.
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation.
Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
-Joe Offer-


I can deal with deliberate personal attacks (even from our volunteers, if I have to). By not ever responding in kind but I cannot accept incitement from our volunteers to encourage other posters to indulge in the very activity all this imposed volunteer judgement is supposed to be protecting us from. There are sadly many other examples of this double standard being set by our volunteers incredibly and sadly - all of it defended and justified by them.

Perhaps Bert you can do your best to ensure that this practice and all of this volunteer imposed judgement - can now stop and a less hypocritical and a more positive example of conduct is set for the forum's posters to follow?