Mudcat Café message #1444198 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #77879   Message #1444198
Posted By: The Shambles
26-Mar-05 - 01:24 PM
Thread Name: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
Max's stated view is that his role on the forum is only to facilitate. The role of anyone who is asked to assist in this must surely be to also facilitate and enable the public's contributions and not to sit in judgement upon the worth of them?

It makes little sense to judge and sort posters invited to a public forum - into what a volunteer may consider to be good or bad ones - for every contribution posted from the public invited by Max to the public -is equally valid. But it is clear that this counter-productive practice IS at least what some of our volunteers presume their privileged role to require of them.

The result of all this being posted publicly is that all contributors follow this example. Posters in turn would appear to think that the whole purpose of posting to the forum now - is to sit in judgement of the worth of their fellow posters and to post abusive personal attacks and respond in kind to others (rather than simply ignoring them).

Is it likely to ever prevent abusive personal attacks when those in responsible positions set the example of the double-standard? Of judging the worth of their fellow posters whilst themselves indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to also indulge in this and respond in kind to these abusive personal attacks? A practice that is well demonstrated (and defended) in this thread.

All that retrospective imposed editing action can effect - is what is removed or closed. It has no effect on preventing abusive personal attacks from first being posted. So if there is a genuine wish to prevent what most posters say they object to - some other and more imaginative methods MUST be found.

The most obvious and simple - but still seemingly impossible for some of our volunteers to manage - is to first set an example - to what they consider - to be lesser posters. One of:

NOT insisting on posting only to judge the worth of their fellow posters (good or bad).

NOT insisting on mounting abusive personal attacks inciting other posters to do this or ever responding in kind or at all to any obvious provocation.

I and many other second-class 'lesser' posters do not have the problems that some of our privileged volunteers have and can manage perfectly well to post and not respond in kind to obvious provocation. If they are to remain a permanent feature - is it really too much to expect our volunteers to set the example of also doing this. If it is are these really the right people to sit in judgement upon the worth of the rest of us?