mudcat.org: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]


BS: Censorship on Mudcat

catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 09:56 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 09:24 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM
GUEST,the shrink 26 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 08:08 PM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM
Jeri 26 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM
GUEST,Jon 26 Mar 05 - 06:43 PM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 05:30 PM
Jeri 26 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,Jon 26 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 02:02 PM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM
The Shambles 26 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM
GUEST,The Shambles 26 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM
Jeri 26 Mar 05 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,Scaramouche 26 Mar 05 - 09:48 AM
jaze 26 Mar 05 - 09:18 AM
jaze 26 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM
Big Mick 26 Mar 05 - 08:22 AM
GUEST,Jon 26 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM
harpgirl 26 Mar 05 - 05:48 AM
catspaw49 26 Mar 05 - 05:10 AM
Joe Offer 26 Mar 05 - 04:20 AM
The Shambles 26 Mar 05 - 03:02 AM
michaelr 26 Mar 05 - 12:34 AM
Joe Offer 25 Mar 05 - 10:54 PM
catspaw49 25 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM
Bill D 25 Mar 05 - 07:18 PM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM
Joe Offer 25 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM
wysiwyg 25 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM
GUEST 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM
Big Mick 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 AM
Joe Offer 25 Mar 05 - 04:55 AM
GUEST,Jon 25 Mar 05 - 04:21 AM
The Shambles 25 Mar 05 - 03:26 AM
Donuel 24 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM
GUEST 24 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM
Big Mick 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM
GUEST,Jon 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM
Raedwulf 24 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:56 PM

ROTFLMAO.......Gawd Hawk.....I love it!!! In other words, Max needs to provide a place for every wacko, nabob, bottom dwelling slug on the net so they can have their big chance to have a forum of their own!

The idea cracks me up but I think you have a pretty hard sell there(:<))

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM

Well, here's a thought. The forum has already been divided into an upper music section and a lower BS section. Why not subdivide it one level further, as follows:

1. Music - (the Etherial Realm of True Purity)

2. BS section - (for stuff that's somewhat less pure)

3. Truly Offensive BS section - (for stuff that's completely beyond the pale!)

Any post in which a person said something completely beyond the pale (whatever that is deemed to be) would be summarily dumped into the TOBS section as its own TOBS thread, with its own TOBS title, which would be the title of the thread it dared to first appear in with "TOBS-" added at the front.

Example: TOBS - What is the definition of Folk Music?

The TOBS section would necessarily be so far down the page that it would require considerable motivation just to scroll down there. This would be discouraging to the wretched souls who devise truly offensive posts, as they would more and more begin to feel that they had been consigned to some sort of purgatorial realm of terminal damnation.

If a particular poster caused more than 666 posts a year that were truly offensive, then a subroutine could simply dump all his future posts in the TOBS section from then on. This would amount to excommunication in Mudcat terms. I'm guessing that "Guest" would be there in jig time, probably talking to himself most of the time. Kind of like a man yelling at his own echo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM

The problem here Mick is that so many of do care so much for this place and also know from history that getting 100% compliance to shunning is about impossible here. So we long for the "benevolent dictator" to right the problem. What is important to understand, at least to me, is that on the net fairness is not a requirememnt.

On the other board I am speaking of, Spaw is still pretty much Spaw. I have a rep their as well and I get by with a lot that others don't....and that's simply because the mods know there is nothing mean-spirited about my posts. I still get zapped occasionally and have to explain a joke to RacePace now and then. The persona put forward by MG wouldn't last a day. WE've had some and they kept coming back but the mods were equally relentless and the trolls lose everytime. I could sometimes say the same things and not even be noticed. It isn't fair of course, but it is the reality and it works.

Spaw

S


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM

Yep, you're right Spaw. I am just getting to the point where the moderation you speak of sounds better and better. I would just hate to lose the freshness that spawned NYCFTTS, Reg and the boys, LFPS,Koko, the spud, ..... all of that. I guess if is far past too late though.

I hear you, maybe I will adopt a bit of that philo.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM

I'm glad to hear the NYCFTTS facilities are still open. I'd been wondering about that. I've got 15 people here hanging around the WSSBA who swear that they ARE William Shatner, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Most of them don't even look like him.

Talk about yer terminally screwed people...

There are also several Canadian politicians who could benefit from a short stay.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:24 PM

LOL Mick.........Hell Bro, could be anything! I think in Shambles case he has been at this for so long that he really is off the deep end mentally. Reminds me a bit of Lenny Bruce at the end of his life where he was so occupied with his court cases he could think of nothing else. His entire act was him reading court transcripts. Or maybe Roger has been wearing the wrong size underwear all these years.

The other guy isn't worth the time of day. He's a decent enough troll but he follows the same pattern ad infinitum: He makes a thinly veiled attack on someone and they respond. He then responds with far worse stuff, saying he was attacked. If you do the same thing to him, he of course claims your thinly veiled first strike was a major attack on him. His first strikes are never major attacks on you. I tried him both ways after watching him for awhile and it's pretty much the pattern. Also, should someone fail to respond after keeping this up for awhile, he does an Anon Guest posting to keep it going. Pretty basic stuff but it keeps working because for some reason it seems a lot of 'Catters either can't shut up or actually care what this disembodied voice has to say. If everyone would just let it drop.......but that isn't likely and he knows that as well. It would be easy enough to just zap him out on every questionable post. Most trolls weary of that after awhile too.

Roger on the other hand.........LOL, well there is a beautiful room awaiting him at the NYCFTTS anytime he wants!

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM

yep, shrink, I think that is it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,the shrink
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM

In the case of Martin, that is exactly what I have presented as the purpose of his manner. I believe to someone as himself who lacks power in real life, to be moderated on an internet forum IS power.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM

Anyone ever consider that these folks, like Sham and martin gibson, are trying to force more moderation? Just a thought. Beyond being psycho's it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:08 PM

Ya' know Joe, I keep thinking I'd like to invite RacePace, ZapIt, CornerMarshall, and a few others who are mods at a racing forum where I hang out, to join me here for a field trip. We'd have to have El Swanno standing by because there would likely be a stroke or heart attack or two. At the very least a lot of hyperventilation.

Give them a few minutes and any number of posters would be zapped into the ether. Boatloads of individual posts would be gone and threads would disappear right and left including this one. They'd be camped out on these pages and any time someone even looked like they might be attacking.....ZAP. No explanations will be given and only rarely will they bother with one. Shambles would be completely beside himself, but no one would know!

Truthfully, if you handle it right, you can discuss their decisions privately and they will in fact change their minds......but you need to know that attacking them or demanding anything of that sort from the mods there will simply be zapped. Truth is that it's a real friendly place with lots of fun and intelligent people who understand that you post on these things as a privilege, not a right. The rules are clear regarding attacks, profanity, porn, and the like.......and the place runs very smoothly. I have not seen any instance where they have killed off discussions or conversations that were being held within the rather simple rules. I don't see where either good discussions or the community atmosphere is affected for the worse at all. Seriously it's a whole lot better than the place where the 'Cat seems to be devolving.

Now this bunch around here may think all that harsh, but for those who do frequent other boards they know that you allow far more, and I mean faaarrr more than is the general rule. Might be time to get a bit more aggressive though................Just a thought.

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM

Well, I had to look at your messsage twice, Jon, but I did understand you correctly. Still, it was a shock to remember that oncve upon a time, I had to delete only two personal attacks in two years.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM

Max himself shut down a couple of threads, if I recall correctly. In The Olden Times, I believe that was done with a bit of code that disappeared the 'Reply to Thread' window and the 'This Thread is Closed' thing was developed and implemented later.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:43 PM

Yep Joe, I can see some things have changed. My point really was that the power existed and action would be taken if needed back then. Just in case I was missunderstood, I didn't mean to imply that you haven't been forced to move with the times...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:30 PM

Gee, Jon, things were different back then, though...
Did I really say I had deleted two personal attacks in two years?

Now I'm lucky if I can get by deleting just two attacks in two days. Back in 1999, nobody ever called anybody a "cunt." We didn't have to deal with those things back then.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM

Little Hawk, I would, but I'd refresh the thread and it might bother Shambles.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM

As Shambles likes quoting, I've done a bit of research and will supply an extract from one quote and another full quote.

Subject: I'm against censorship
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:51 PM

Well, I suppose that there are messages that those of us with "delete" buttons delete as a matter of course.
Duplicate messages - that's obvious

"Get Rich Quick" and other Spam messages that have nothing to do with music - obvious

Messages that just take up space, like the one from the guy who filled a whole page with just his name - obvious
I don't think that's censorship - it's just tidying up. The only other messages I have deleted are the ones that were direct, personal attacks on Mudcatters, and I think I have deleted only two of those in the last couple of years.
[snip]
Max gave a few of us "edit" buttons and told us to use them with good judgment. I think we've tried to do that, perhaps erring on the side of freedom of discussion, but I think that's good.
[...]
Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM

Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK?
-Joe Offer-


Now the first and most obvious point is that Shambles has been banging on about this for rather a long time.

The second point is rather less obvious. The "no rules" post was made in Oct 99, yet in July 99 it is quite clear that there were unknown volunteers and some editing work was carried out, even personal had been deleted.

I don't think Max's statement was ever meant to be taken the way shambes does. I think his meaning was intended to be taken as "we try to be as free and easy as humanly possible" rather that the literal "do anything you like regardless..." interpretation shambles puts on it.

Whatever, the evidence supporting the state of the forum pre Max's statment does seem to me to invalidate Shambles usage of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM

While we're on the subject, can anyone define the term "folk music" for me?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:02 PM

Shambles, a message is (or can be) a personal Hyde Park for anybody who wants to express an opinion. But just like in Hyde Park, you control only your own message - you don't control the entire park.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM

Roger, in 1999 you pitched a fit and in an attempt to garner attention, you publicly announced you were leaving. Were your motives pure, you would have stayed gone. At one point, I even invited you back. I regret that now. Your motives are not pure, you are an attention grabbing troll, nothing more. Further, I believe you need help. ANYONE who cannot see that is blind, and anyone who encourages it when they know better, ought be ashamed. If they are not, I am of the opinion that they have an agenda just as you do. I am through dancing your dance. Keep playing in the sandbox, and I hope the rest of you don't mind it when you step in the occasional catshit.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM

I thought we were overdue for a Jeri contribution - to refesh the thread. If this is is a game - it is one that you and many others are willing to play. But this is a relevant subject for discussion - why is it that so many post to say that they do not think it should be? I suspect if we were all saying the same things on censorship here - it would be thought to be a suitable subject for 'debate'.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

Now if this had NOT been the case here on the part of Max's accommodating forum – I, and I suspect many other long-term contributors would not have been attracted and contributed here for so long.

There were and are many places where pedantic judgements and tedious arguments about what was and was not 'on topic' and where control seemed to be the main object - The Mudcat Forum was never as ordinary as this and should never be allowed to be turned into one. Those that prefer this sort of place – should perhaps go there and leave the rest of us in peace?

This re-writing of history - where some animals are now more equal than others and feel qualified to sit in judgement and impose this judgement upon others - without their knowledge or permission - demonstrates exactly why I feel that credit for the forum that we have ALL created - is in danger of being stolen from us all - by a few.

Thread originators and posters generally have always been respected and should continue to be shown a respect that is not now the case. I agree that threads have always been the result of a community effort - they have been the result of contributions invited by Max. They have NEVER been and NEVER should be the result of deletions, closures, tinkering and general personal judgements of the the poster's worth - made by a selected and anonymous) few.   

You seem to be endorsing this man's assertion that there is something sinister going on here. There is not, and it seems to me that is what you should be endorsing. JMO.

I will leave others to judge from the evidence whether something sinister is going on. I have not said that there is. But if there is NOT anything sinister going on - an open approach - (with no secrets, threats and anonymous volunteers and the very minimum of imposed censorship) - a lack of sinister intentions will always be very clear.

It looks as if you have something to hide and protect if you choose to do this by adopting divisive and less than positive methods to prevent open debate. Folk may then tend to believe that there is something sinister going on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:54 AM

If anybody thinks they're having an honest9discussion9about Mudcat editing policies, <you're<in the wrong thread.<.This9one is for9playing head games designed by Shambles.

It's a whole lot9less frustrating when you<realize you're<not making any progress9in9the9surface9level of communication9because that's just for show. Shambles'9intentions seem9to9be9to9see 9how many<hoops he can get others<to jump through while avoiding jumping through any himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Scaramouche
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:48 AM

" shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here.

Yes but would you not agree that with any right - comes responsibilty? "

Yeah and part of that responsibility, Shambles, is to deal with things like porn postings, spam and public postings of email addresses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jaze
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:18 AM

400! Never did that before.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jaze
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM

Well, gee, now I've just found out some of you were invited by Max. Now I really feel left out!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:22 AM

Well said, Jon. It is a matter of asking. It is also a matter of accepting the answer. This place is what it is. Accept that and move on with enjoying it.

Harpie, if I thought there was some good coming from this, I would say so. You seem to be endorsing this man's assertion that there is something sinister going on here. There is not, and it seems to me that is what you should be endorsing. JMO.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM

Harpgirl. If you were unsure on why thread titles were changed, one straight simple question "Could someone please explain why thread titles are changed?" would have got you a straight answer.

Shambles is not asking straight questions but is making accusations and forcing people to defend themselves repeatedly.

If you want to encourage shambles' fantasy world where Max's dream is being wrecked by Joe and his evil empire, fair enough but don't pretend he's bringing out answers you couldn't have got by much simpler means.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:48 AM

Congratulations Roger! Your persistence has elicited many explanations
for the reasons for clonehead activities on mudcat. I see Joe has explained his reason for thread title changes. Interesting! (He may have said it before but this is the first time I've groked it.)

If it weren't for your "97 different ways of asking" we might still be kept in the dark about many things with regard to "censorship" on mudcat. Why do the verbal abusers on this thread not see that Roger's persistence has clarified many issues? Does anyone see also that the continuing dialogue helps to put the issue out in the open, debate it, keep the cloneheads thinking about why they do things, and is thus dialectical?

Oh, no. The boneheads, oops I mean cloneheads just keep telling you to shut up! The irony of this thread is astounding and magical! Go Roger!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:10 AM

I think Bill tires of your questions as well as mine. I tire of them too. But every factual question I can think of that you have asked over the past several years has been answered 97 ways from sideways in an effort to make it clear to you. You refuse to accept ANY answer that does not match your personal vision.

It matters not where it comes from at all. Any answer that does not fit is twisted into something sinister by you and then becomes yet another complaint. I simply want to know if there is any point that you will say, "Well, that's it. I made my case and stuck to my guns but now it's over."

I would think that a definitive answer from Max would be that point. Here's a song with some verses that are germane to the situation (italics are mine):

*************************************************************
Move On Down the Line

I got to move on, down the line
What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine
There's nothing left, but the lying
Move on down the line

This train we're riding, has reached the end
And it's no good to pretend
We were walking, hand in hand
Into some Promised Land

So long, I won't forget you
But, I never was 'gonna' let you
Tie me up and settle me down
Nothing's lost, nothing's found

The story ends, it's had it's time
And if you look, I'll think you'll find
The bottle's empty, we drunk it dry
There's no need to cry

This dog is happy, it's had it's day
There's really nothing more to say
No need to cut up, don't howl the moon
We don't sing the same tune


No need to tell me, I'm no good
I just thought, you understood
Just like the wind, needs to blow
I've 'gotta' go
*************************************************************

Interesting song.........Unlike the guy in the song, I see no need for you to go, but when do YOU reach the point of saying that we just don't sing the same tune?   Anything I have to say you won't accept. That is true of Joe and virtually everyone else as well. This leaves only Max as best as I can tell........That being the case, I don't find it rhetorical at all to ask you if an answer from him would end it for you or not. So on that basis, I ask again:

Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned?

OR.......

Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference?


Spaw
Oh yeah.....I forgot to attribute the lyrics above to the writer. Seems it was written by some guy named Roger Gall........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:20 AM

You know, Roger, usually I do inform thread originators, to make sure they can find the thread - but I don't ask their permission to change a thread name. If I can't find them, then I can't inform them. Remember also that we try to clarify thread titles by adding to them, leaving the original title as part of the new title.

Once upon a time, we'd get lots of song requests with generic titles, titles that couldn't be differentiated from other titles because they were all the same - "lyrics request," or "lyrics required," or "desparately seeking lyrics" (and they always spelled "desperately" incorrectly). Then we'd get all sorts of helpful Mudcatters posting to the thread, preaching that the people needed to start a new thread with a specific title. We'd also get people requesting many unrelated songs in the same thread, and those requests would get lost. A simple thread title change solves those problems.

So, Jeff created a utility that allows us to change thread titles, and we use it. With almost 78,000 threads, it's important that thread titles describe the contents of the thread. It's simply a process of indexing Mudcat threads so that it will be easier for people to use them. The philosophy is that the needs of the general community are more important the the wishes of the thread originator - although we do try to take the thread originator's intentions into consideration.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

Yes, there have been some people who have complained about a thread title change here and there, but the number of individuals who have complained has been very small. In fact, I imagine that 98.3 percent of the complaints have all come from the same individual, and I think we all know who that individual is.

-Joe Offer-
394


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:02 AM

I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it?
Catspaw

are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome?
Bill D

But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."
Joe Offer

No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 12:34 AM

Given Martin Gibson's recent sewage spewage, along with Shambles' rambles, I do find myself wishing Mudcat was a moderated forum like most --   where no one would waste time, energy and bandwidth on this bilge because it would never see the light of day... er, light of cathode ray tube.

Cheers,
Michael


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:54 PM

    Joe I have lost count of the times over the past few years that I have pointed out an editing action where you later excuse why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done. Usually only after the victim has publicly complained about it………The example in this thread of - why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done - is just the latest. Simply keeping on saying every time that these should not have been deleted – after they have - does not alter the indisputable fact that the 'spin' is not anywhere near the reality. It is not open, fair or have any clear object.
You're right, Roger. You DO complain time and time again. You can take a single incident and complain about it over and over again for two years. I answer it once, but you complain when I don't answer the same question about the same incident, each of the subsequent 937 times. How many times do you copy-paste the same statement from me and complain about it, over and over again? I've counted a few of your copy-pastes, and I've seen more than ten repeats of some of them.

When you come up with new stuff, that's one thing.
But your constant repetition is wearying.

Aren't you aware of how often you repeat yourself?
-Joe Offer-



(937 is hyperbole used for rhetorical purposes - but Shambles wouldn't understand that.)(and Ted, this is the 391st post in this thread)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM

Roger, I mean this sincerely and with no disrespect. I am even worried when I say to you that whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.

Your questions have been answered hundreds of times by people empowered to do so and yet when confronted with the same explanation but put forth in a different way in the forlorn hope that you might somehow understand, you see them only as "spin." You have this deeply held set of beliefs that you refuse to challenge in the face of all evidence to their contrary. Discussion with you has become impossible as you aren't even willing to accept evidence as evidence unless it can be grossly misconstrued to fit with your hypothesis.

I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it?

Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned?

OR.......

Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference?

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:18 PM

have we beaten this horse to death?

are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome?

Does anyone care?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM

There was talk of possible legal action and libel etc. Perhaps the legally-minded among us could advise?

I am accused (amongst other things) of not being very good on this logic business - but do I follow correctly - the logic of the argument being proposed?

That - as they are appointed by Max - whatever our volunteers say or do is approved by Max and they are in effect - acting and speaking for Max?

Does it also follow that - if one of them calls another poster a name or worse - that this is also speaking and acting for Max and would be considered as official Mudcat Editorial Policy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM

Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe.

I would like to state to the other volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) that anything I say here should not be taken as a personal criticism of you. I am sure that most of are responsible and well-intentioned and would not primarily see their role as sitting in judgement upon certain other posters, informing them of what they will allow or feel that it was acceptable to mount abusive personal attacks upon them and incite others to do this and feel that setting an example of a double-standard was a good one.

I would think that any armed cop who was tempted to be 'trigger-happy would be at least partially inhibited by the stack of paper-work that has to filled-in everytime they discharge their weapon. Perhaps a similar process here - where every imposed editing action required a written report to be submitted to Max for his approval - may have the same effect and result in less imposed judgement and a more proportiate approach?

These officers, judges and others in the type of postion that require them to be seen to be impartial - (if they take them seriously and one hopes they would not be employed for too long if they did not) - are very careful about expressing their personal opinions. Most take great care to keep these very clearly separate from their job. This is wise - For they know they could lay themselves open to accusations of prejudice and unfair treatment in the course of their duties - accusations that they may find very difficult to refute.

In cases where those in these type of jobs or roles were to be seen to have abused their position - they would be dismissed or be expected to resign (or in some professions - maybe even promoted).

Is it really not possible for any editing comments to be objective and factual and completely free of personal judgements and opinions made about other posters? This would also protect our volunteers from any accusations of unfair treatment and of abusing their responsible position of trust?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM

As I've explained many times before, we do not require Clones to obtain prior approval of an editorial action. That wouldn't make any sense at all. We want the Clones to act quickly if there is a serious problem post that needs to be dealt with immediately, and then report their action to us. Mostly, the immediate problems that fall under this limited permission are severe personal attacks, racism, and Spam - stuff that's really obvious. If they had to get approval first then it would make more sense to leave all editing to the Mudcat Troika - and Max, Jeff, and I simply don't have time to be here every minute of every day. Ted's deleted 200th post slipped by me because Mudcat was having technical problems at the time, and my edit review tools weren't working. That post should not have been deleted.

Joe I have lost count of the times over the past few years that I have pointed out an editing action where you later excuse why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done. Usually only after the victim has publicly complained about it………The example in this thread of - why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done - is just the latest. Simply keeping on saying every time that these should not have been deleted – after they have - does not alter the indisputable fact that the 'spin' is not anywhere near the reality. It is not open, fair or have any clear object.

Because these type of things keep on happening - all I have ever asked for is a review of why these mistakes are repeated and why they keep being excused -so they can stop? In the context of personal attacks etc – I can see no better examples than in the 'What is antisemitism thread' but these – the very things that all of this censorship is supposed to be about and which many support it for – are not even touched by you or your volunteers…. Why?

But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."

No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

Well, Shambles and my ex-wife and George Bush have a lot in common. You can't really carry on a debate with them because they have such a limited grasp of the laws of logic. Still, it's kind of fun to play the game - like fishing in an overstocked pond.

If I had the chance, I'd love to needle Georgie. They'd probably arrest me, though.

I'll stay away from my ex, thankyouverymuch. That one is dangerous. She just got married to a very nice guy.
I wish him luck.

Guess I'd better stick to jousting with Shambles. His huffy, self-righteous lack of logic can be quite entertaining. Sometimes, though, I have to admit that I'm tempted to stick pins in my Shambles doll....

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM

... the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger ....

1. I don't need a messenger on the issues being raised-- I can see the Forum for myself.
2. Messengers are usually dispatched FROM someone, and TO someone.   Who sent you, Shambles?

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM

So, we have shambles who tirelessly posts to put forward his argument.
And we have the regular little band who tirelessly post to tell shambles he should stop posting.

Why are the regular little band unable to stop themselves opening this thread?
Why do they persist in this game? Do they need to have a person to persecute? It's becoming unsavoury.

Including you, apparently. You seem to keep opening it, and commenting. I guess that means that you are a part of the regular little band, no? If you don't like it, don't open it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 AM

Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe.

Max, whom I have the greatest respect for and consider a close personal friend, apparently thinks there is some value in having you around. Joe, whom is another close friend and whom I respect greatly, apparently is of the opinion that banning you is not a wise move. I will submit to their judgement. The only posts of yours that I delete or edit, are those that are dup's or to fix a link if necessary.

One last comment before I leave this thread. You should thank Joe. He has a much lighter hand on the delete button than some of the rest of us. Your attacks on him are unjustified. Joe is actually a calming influence. He is committed to keeping it clean, by combining threads that are about the same thing, or not allowing certain types of posts. I think he and Jeff have the best handle on Max's philosophy of letting it roll, yet he brings a necessary sense of organization and limited moderation to keep it from descending into a mishmash. You should be thanking him, not attacking him.

And it is still my opinion that you need to see a professional. I thought that years ago (1999)when you made a spectacle of your leaving, and I think it now with your need to bang a drum no one thinks has merit.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:55 AM

I'm sorry, Shambles. Sometimes, you make sense, but not today. I can't figure out what it is you're saying or what you're accusing us of now.

volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge
    As I've explained many times before, we do not require Clones to obtain prior approval of an editorial action. That wouldn't make any sense at all. We want the Clones to act quickly if there is a serious problem post that needs to be dealt with immediately, and then report their action to us. Mostly, the immediate problems that fall under this limited permission are severe personal attacks, racism, and Spam - stuff that's really obvious. If they had to get approval first then it would make more sense to leave all editing to the Mudcat Troika - and Max, Jeff, and I simply don't have time to be here every minute of every day. Ted's deleted 200th post slipped by me because Mudcat was having technical problems at the time, and my edit review tools weren't working. That post should not have been deleted.

Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers.
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Yes, we do routinely add clarifying words to thread titles, usually leaving the main part of the original title intact - in an attempt to help posters obtain information by making the title of their request more specific. Long experience has taught us that threads titled "Desperately seeking lyrics" get little response. But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."

    And I have no idea what the anti-Semitism thread has to do with this one, except that Martin Gibson has been acting up there, as he sometimes does. All I can say is that we're working on him.

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:21 AM

Yes Shambles, I do question you. Not everyone is saying you are necessarly wrong with some of your observations or that there may not be issues worthy of discussion. The fact is though you have been banging your head against a brick wall for ages and it should be clear to you that you are getting nowhere.

Another fact is that you have yet to try the top man. In this case it happens to be Max but I'd be telling you to go to Joe if it was his site, similarly with Mick, Jeri (if she could be the top man), etc. It is simple normal business procedure. Normal peoople either take the matter higher or let the matter drop.

If you try to take the matter to Max and either find you are ignored or that you are told that Max approves of the current actions of the volunteers, I might understand you trying to do something in the forum as you have nowhere left to go but that is not the case with you. You refuse to try the most sensible option first.

It is for that reason I question your sanity and/or motives.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:26 AM

Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval

Perhaps someone can expain why it is that even when facts are clearly established - like when it is demonstrated in this very thread that volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge – such as Flamenco Ted's posting in this thread – all of this is ignored -in favour of the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger and calling them names?

The 'spin' of what is supposed to be happening (as opposed to the reality) is perpetuated and supported by personal and abusive attacks (some from these volunteers) and as a result the example is given that making personal attacks and responding in kind to these– is acceptable.

Flamenco Ted's innocuous posting is deleted from this thread by persons still unknown for being judged 'obnoxious'. The result of the example this sets of hypocrisy, inefficiency and double standards – is that the very posts that the majority of posters would consider as 'obnoxious' and the main reason they may support the current example of censorship – are left in place. You can see a current example of where we stand - in a thread running at the same time as this.

What is antisemitism?

Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers.

And those that post to support all this clearly increasing and damaging nonsense on our forum – question me and accuse me of being mad?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM

How about these people who obliquely call for the murder of Terry's husband?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM

I started a thread "Help The Shambles Find A Worthy Cause." A few people contributed suggestions like "End world hunger" before it was declared a personal attack and deleted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM

Wolfgang, old cyber friend, you are absolutely correct. My history on this forum will show that I enjoy debate. But I tried the same logic and reason on Roger, and came to the same conclusion. I gave up. He isn't listening, and he loves it up on the cross. In his delusional state, he believes that he is a voice crying in the wilderness.

That is why I adopted a different tact. I just tell him he is an idiot that everyone here sees through. Self fulfilling prophecy and all that. He creates the conditions that make people angry and then puts himself on the cross and complains about the personal attacks. Provides some sort of twisted validation, I guess.

Pathetic, IMO.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM

Raedwulf, I suppose I still can't work out whether he is paranoid or not.

A simple thread started like.

I'm beginning to feel that the levels of censorship at Mudcat are getting a little to heavy, I wonder whether the policy of having "invisible volunteers" is wise[...]

What do others feel?
Would not trouble me. Shambles goes

Posts made by people invited by Max to our forum are been tampered with by invisible volunteers
Maybe my examples aren't too good but the point I'm trying to make is that Shambles, not directly, but by implication is accusing others for obeying instructions that one can assume ultimately can only come from Max - at least if one gives him credit for control of his own forum.

Quite why Shambles refuses to see this simple logic is beyond me. If if it is not paranoia, it is a thinly veiled attack.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM

Oh, and BTW, Roger, demanding a quick answer from Wolfgang (which you did at 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM) is profoundly hypocritical, considering how long it took you to respond to my very much repeated question, considering how long it took you to answer brucie, & so on & forth.

Did you really stop to consider what you were doing/saying/posting? Because, at the moment, it doesn't look very much like it to me, at the least!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 1 June 3:25 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.