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

Peace 10 May 05 - 11:46 PM
Bill D 10 May 05 - 07:09 PM
The Shambles 10 May 05 - 06:21 AM
GUEST 08 May 05 - 12:57 PM
The Shambles 08 May 05 - 07:06 AM
The Shambles 04 May 05 - 02:31 PM
Gervase 04 May 05 - 06:50 AM
The Shambles 04 May 05 - 05:59 AM
Gervase 04 May 05 - 04:21 AM
The Shambles 04 May 05 - 02:05 AM
GUEST,Sleepless Dad 03 May 05 - 01:29 PM
GUEST 03 May 05 - 01:21 PM
The Shambles 03 May 05 - 01:12 PM
Wolfgang 03 May 05 - 12:33 PM
GUEST 03 May 05 - 05:12 AM
The Shambles 02 May 05 - 04:53 AM
George Papavgeris 02 May 05 - 03:45 AM
The Shambles 02 May 05 - 03:40 AM
gnu 01 May 05 - 04:33 PM
The Shambles 01 May 05 - 04:01 PM
catspaw49 01 May 05 - 12:19 PM
The Shambles 01 May 05 - 09:22 AM
George Papavgeris 01 May 05 - 08:23 AM
George Papavgeris 01 May 05 - 08:21 AM
George Papavgeris 01 May 05 - 08:20 AM
The Shambles 01 May 05 - 07:58 AM
Joe Offer 01 May 05 - 02:48 AM
The Shambles 30 Apr 05 - 06:44 PM
George Papavgeris 30 Apr 05 - 01:34 PM
The Shambles 30 Apr 05 - 07:30 AM
George Papavgeris 29 Apr 05 - 02:21 PM
Joe Offer 29 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 01:50 PM
jeffp 29 Apr 05 - 01:45 PM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 01:42 PM
jeffp 29 Apr 05 - 01:21 PM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM
catspaw49 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM
jeffp 29 Apr 05 - 08:31 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 08:15 AM
George Papavgeris 29 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,autoshambles 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM
GUEST,autoshambles 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM
Gervase 29 Apr 05 - 06:28 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 05:54 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 05:16 AM
George Papavgeris 29 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 04:44 AM
The Shambles 29 Apr 05 - 04:17 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 05 - 11:46 PM

This is turning into the Mother of all Censorship Threads. I won't be posting again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 05 - 07:09 PM

shambles...they won't give in... just leave it...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 05 - 06:21 AM

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:57 PM

Oh, shut up, you boring t*it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 07:06 AM

Some more interesting discussion on this subject - can be found on the following.

Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu Imposed changed from 'Objection to …. …[named poster].


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:31 PM

Piffling = small and of little importance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 04 May 05 - 06:50 AM

WAY more than 250 words there Roger.
Bong!
Try again.
And think about the word 'unacceptable' The copy-paste stuff above is piffling.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:40 AM

At this rate - you are looking well set for the 800th Ted.

Perhaps a look back again at the evidence at this point would be a good thing - for the benifit of the more recent arrivals to judge.

Without too much effort - there have been two imposed editing actions - that after being brought to light here - have been judged to have been wrong.

1. Flamenco Ted's claim for the 100th post which was deleted (from this thread) by a still anonymous volunteer - when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team was not even aware that any editing had taken place. This had to be changed back again.

2. And the change imposed by a still anonymous volunteer to the title of a B/s non-music related thread. This had to be re-re-named.

Now you might still think all this does not amount to a bag of beans - (you may not feel like this - if the imposition had been made upon your contributions). Which were in no way abusive (unlike many other posts here - which have been safe from any editing action).

But if bringing these mistakes to public attention is thought to be a fuss about nothing - then in my view - so must the initial imposition and all the factors that lead to this now routine 'tinkering' upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their knowledge or agreement?

Is it really 'too complicated' to review and finally sort this out - to show equal respect to all contributions? Is not rather that the whole current system too complicated, secretive and divisive? There is clear evidence that it is not under any effective control and also that those who feel qualified to impose judgement upon their fellow posters do not wish to change anything.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM

The evidence requested.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM

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- [in brown]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that it far from covers it.

Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain.......

Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?

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

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-

Here's Ted's (deleted) message:
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!

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

The title that the originator gave to the following B/S (non-music) thread was changed.

I blame the Romans…

It was thought important for some unknown reason - for some unknown but trusted volunteer to change the thread title to – I blame the Romans….(for Rabbits). Not sure that we can blame the Romans for this, or indeed the Greeks?

As this concerns me - I will do my best to bring attention (in this thread) to the routine tinkering to contributions like this and any other form of imposed censorship action - but as these seem to be increasing - I will not see them all. Perhaps when you see evidence of these - you could bring attention to them in this thread?


Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM

Unless of course you would not feel safe in posting a view that could be thought in any way to be a criticism of the semi-official line of our current trusted volunteers and their supporters and also become the subject of their displeasure?

If that is the case - then you can send the details to me in a PM and I will post it here to inform other posters of the reality of what our public discussion forum has sadly now become.

For example.......

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819


Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important.
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 04 May 05 - 04:21 AM

Hey, Roger, here's a challenge...
Can you condense the evidence you have for unacceptable* censorship on the Mudcat into one 250-word post? That means cutting out all the equivocation and indignation and just putting the FACTS down. Instead of all the waffle and huffing and puffing, try to convince us.
Then, if anyone agrees with your manifesto on censorship, they can say so here. If they don't, you must surely accept that it's a dead duck and go and lie down in a darkened room for a while before saddling up your next hobbyhorse (Amnesty would indeed be a worthwhile one).

*And I mean unacceptable - arbitrary deletion of multiple posts of the same message, spam and porn links is surely acceptable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:05 AM

Shambles - You've GOT to be kidding ?? 911 posts of you going on and on about a NONISSUE and you expect anyone to read all of this from the beginning ?

Any poster that posts their opinion to this thread now - without reading the entire thread - will probably not be commentating in knowledge of all the evidence so perhaps the worth of any opinion expressed without this knowledge - is questionable?

In truth - it will not take very long to read this thread - for perhaps less than half of the posts do actually address the evidence. The one's that don't - tend to be short.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:29 PM

"Perhaps anyone reading this thread from the start"

Shambles - You've GOT to be kidding ?? 911 posts of you going on and on about a NONISSUE and you expect anyone to read all of this from the beginning ?

If you had used half of the time you've spent on this nonsense doing something constructive - like writing letters for Amnesty International { now thats a job for you } or making sandwiches for the needy at your local soup kitchen - do you know how productive you would have been ?

But no - you're concerned about "censorship" on the Mudcat.

One definition I've heard for insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over expecting different results. If thats true - could you be insane ? I'm worried about you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:21 PM

hey shambles! How many have chimed in on this or the other censorship threads agreeing with you? Now compare the number of comments that have disagreed with you. consider.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:12 PM

Shambles,
I agree mostly. My whole point was and is that you are the one engaged since ages in this game of ridiculing etc.


I suppose I must answer? Yes Wolfgang - I am ganging-up with myself.

Perhaps anyone reading this thread from the start will be better qualified than you or I - to judge the truth of your statement? Yes I am serious about the loss of basic freedoms on our forum - as I am about this happening elsewhere for no good reason.

Unlike you - I am playing no games and I would question why you so keen to join in with games that you (mostly) agree with me - are sad?

I will be happy just to be able to express and evidence my views - as best as I can - and to leave the final judgement of these views and suggestions to them? And to try and address any views made on the issue - rather than to concentrate on judging the worth of those who post them on a discussion forum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 05 - 12:33 PM

Wolfgang ...
It is a sad day on our forum when folk post and encourage others to shout these honestly held and moderately expressed views down or to gang-up and play elaborate and silly games to ridicule them. It is a sad day indeed on our forum - when this sort of treatment of the views of fellow posters is thought to be acceptable.
(Shambles)

Shambles,
I agree mostly. My whole point was and is that you are the one engaged since ages in this game of ridiculing etc. I did the selective quoting, the juxtaposition of thoughts without any meaningful connection, and the repetition on purpose. You play the same game but sadly you seem to be serious about it.

You write the best parodies of meaningful posts here, we can only add to that in a way not comparable to the original.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 05 - 05:12 AM

Objection to Joe Offer


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 04:53 AM

A song about the life of the gnu (or the wildebeast).

Born on the run


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:45 AM

Crossing a gnu with an aardvark - hmmmm, let's see. Something horny that can suck the ants off your pants?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:40 AM

This is sound advice - coming from a GNU?
*Smiles*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:33 PM

OUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:01 PM

He may have said - OUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK?

But whatever Max says - Joe now says tells us that we should not take anything that Max (the site owner) says - too seriously.

Joe also tells us that our volunteers are now the most important priority on our forum - perhaps they are? But perhaps even if they are not - it is not wise for ordinary posters to openly question this?

But your attempts to make rules for the volunteers are not appreciated. We are rational, responsible people; and we do not need your supervision.
-Joe Offer-


Unlike our volunteers - who appear to have a low opinion of ordinary posters - I know that the vast majority of Mudcatters are "rational, responsible people" (with a few notable exceptions).

They don't need your newly imposed 'rules' or your supervision either.

To be fair Joe why don't you take your 'rules' and your volunteers and go to Jon's site and leave the rest of us in peace? We may just survive perfectly well without you..............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:19 PM

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, did he respond?
If not, why not?


Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:22 AM

Possibly the 'light policing' is in fact now more of a problem that what it was set-up to deal with? Yes it is well-intentioned - but is it now possible to distinguish this from the original problem?

1 Do abusive personal attacks from our volunteers - protect posters from abusive personal attacks?

2 Does anonymous posting (and imposed editing) from our volunteers - protect posters from anonymous posting?

3 Does bullying by our volunteers - protect posters from being bullied?

4 Do threats from our volunteers - prevent posters from being threatened?


As no one has any control over what others choose to post Is it not about accepting this and setting the example for others to follow?

If the example set by our volunteers (and their supporters) is one of making abusive personal attacks – anonymous posting – bullying – and threatening and all this is excused and justified – is it any real surprise if things just get worse?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:23 AM

(Sorry Roger, couldn't resist stealing that one from LF or Ted)

In truth, if this forum mirrors the outside world, we need both self control and some (light) policing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:21 AM

900
...I fear they are not. Too many trolls, too many axes wanting grinding...too many attacks, too much abuse


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:20 AM

I wish that "self imposed rules of conduct" were sufficient these days...but...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:58 AM

Gee, Shambles, when Max said, "You get to make the rules," you took it a bit too seriously. You do get to make the rules that govern your own conduct. As Shula said so well many years ago, "You are responsible for your own wake."
-Joe Offer-


Joe - Do we assume from the fact that it was posted in the only way that the second-class Mudcatters are able to post - a method which refreshes the thread - and NOT in editorial brown writing - that this is ONLY your personal view?

Or are you saying that it is OFFICIAL - that I and other Mudcatters are not now to take what Max (the owner of the site and originator of our forum) says - seriously?

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none
.

It should be clear to all - that Max was referring to 'the rules' on what B/S is. And NOT "the rules that govern your own conduct".

Do you accept Joe - that these are your words - and not those of the site's owner and originator. Unless you are saying that Max does not own this place now and the volunteers now do? Sadly - this senario is looking more - day by day - to be the case.

I feel very strongly that self imposed 'rules of self conduct' and the example given by and set by this - IS just about all the 'rules' that have ever been needed on OUR forum.

Perhaps those who do not think this is enough and tell us that we should ignore the site owner's wishes- and feel qualified to impose their personal judgement upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission - and who obviously have no trust in ordinary Mudcatters being able to censor themselves - are the ones who should start a site where they can impose as many petty rules as they wish ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:48 AM

Gee, Shambles, when Max said, "You get to make the rules," you took it a bit too seriously. You do get to make the rules that govern your own conduct. As Shula said so well many years ago, "You are responsible for your own wake."

But your attempts to make rules for the volunteers are not appreciated. We are rational, responsible people; and we do not need your supervision.

-Joe Offer-

896


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:44 PM

No - I was sure it wasn't a double standard.

Do I take that - from now on that all personal opinions from our volunteers will be posted normally and that and official statements and editing comments will be confined to the facts and be in brown writing - to enable poster's to know the difference?

Or would this increase the volunteer's workload too much? If so - perhaps we need some more volunteers?

Any volunteers?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:34 PM

I don't see that as evidence of double standard, but rather of double (indeed multiple) considerations needed to be taken concurrently. Some things you do for one reason, some things you do for another.

- you index threads as a consideration towards readers
- but you don't seek pre-approval of contributors, as a consideration towards volunteer workload

No double standard; just multiple considerations. This is not a case of the same criterion applied differently, but of two different criteria.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:30 AM

Joe Offer says (in official brown writing).

Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary.

Joe

Your earlier opinion was that the priority on our forum should be given to its readers (rather than its contributors). Is now your opinion that priority on our forum should NOW be given to its volunteers? .....Is this now set to appear in the 'rules'?

It would appear that imposiion by anonymous volunteers of 'cumbersome procedure and restriction upon' ordinary contributors - is thought (at least by by you) to be very neccesary?


This is not a double standard - is it?

As Catspaw would say (over and over).
Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:21 PM

I hereby invite anyone who feels they have been unfairly censored in the past to act on Gervase's suggestion and "let us have it".
If no such actions take place in the next few days, this clearly and irrefutably is not, and has never been an issue.
(El Greko, 28/04/2005)

29 hours later, not a peep on the above. No pent up frustration by those censored in the past. Not even arising out of the profanity threads discussion, though a "GUEST" there was grouching about double standards (it turned out he did not understand that it is not profanity that gets censored, but personal attacks).

Meanwhile, the "powers that be" have not acted on Roger's suggestions. Further corroboration that all this is not viewed as an issue by them either.

Roger, you do such good work both on Mudcat and on other fora, not only on the internet, on subjects that are so much more important to this community and the world; I am thinking of your sterling work on the PEL, where you kept us all informed and fought like a lion.

Perhaps you should consider now that this non-issue is not worth your efforts or indeed anyone else's, and focus your energies on the things that do matter - a lot more. And I am sure your efforts will be a lot more appreciated then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM

Yes, Shambles, you may take that as official. Here, I'll put it in brown:
    Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work, as space allows. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread.

This has been our procedure for a number of years. While it does not follow your specifications exactly, it does attempt to respect the concerns you have expressed.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:50 PM

Not too sure if you can actually tell if - not doing something - can be implemented.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:45 PM

Since it hasn't been implemented, I think it's pretty obvious.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:42 PM

The time and effort that our volunteers would save on non-urgent routine 'indexing' could be spent on protecting us from "vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such".

In other words protecting us from Catspaw. *Smiles*

Has my suggestion in fact been rejected by 'the powers that be'?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:21 PM

Your suggestion has been rejected by the powers that be as impractical and unworkable. That should be it. That you continue in your quest is peevish and childish.

There is nothing dishonest in bringing up all of the work that the volunteer Joeclones do. Anything that increases their workload unnecessarily is to be avoided.

You have consistently failed to prove to anybody's satisfaction why the changes you advocate are necessary. As you say, it is not a matter of life and death.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM

Well let's look at the reasons given - so far - as to why my suggestion is so terrible.

That posters would respond in PMs at length and tie the server up.
If this is a real concern - it (or the solution) is not a problem confined to my suggestion.

That posters may not be contactable.
Well the answer is to leave the post alone - as this 'indexing' is not a matter of life or death - just a matter of showing mutual respect.

The time and effort of the volunteers involved in asking would increase if they had to ask for prior permission.
This is one factor but if a job is worth doing - it is worth making the time and finding the effort to do it well. No one is forcing our volunteers to volunteer and if they find the demands too taxing - they can un-volunteer.

It is is not really honest to bring into this discussion of the routine imposed 'indexing' - the other fine work our volunteers may be doing to protect us from "vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such" .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM

Ya' know Roger, a lot of those 'Catters so concerned you say over Joe's censorship, appear to be asking for it over on the Mehlberg threads. Joe had plenty of time and opportunity to "impose his will" and did not. He posted later and explained some and asked for more input.

That's what goes on almost all of the time. Now go and dig a few termites or something and we'll talk again later..............

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:31 AM

Time and effort IS a factor. We are talking about unpaid volunteers who are donating their time and effort to the Mudcat. Max's Mudcat. No matter what Max said 6 years ago about it being "our" forum, it is still Max's Mudcat. In order to help him manage the Mudcat, he enlisted Joe, Jeff, and the Joeclones a few years ago. They work to enhance the Mudcat experience for ALL of its members as much as is humanly possible. This takes the form of trying to keep it clean of vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such. It also consists of making retrieval easier by correcting spelling, linking threads, deleting multiple posts, and other editing functions that are essential to facilitate data retrieval. I for one appreciate that. When I am looking for a song, I don't want to have to search on every possible misspelling of "Diddle My Fiddle" in order to find it. If people were being paid by the hour to do this, they might not mind added hassles interfering with their efficiency. As they are donating their time, we owe it to them to make it less onerous for them.

In addition, they are not "imposing their personal judgement." They are exercising their judgement on behalf of Max. They are not always right. There is also room for disagreement. Joe has the authority to overrule somebody's judgement if, in his judgement (also exercised on behalf of Max) it is warranted. Max obviously is pleased or at least satisfied with the way this judgement is being exercised, or else he would make changes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:15 AM

Calm down Bill. It is not as if Election Clerks have changed your vote for you - as they thought that it looked more tidy to have equal piles of votes on the table.

"The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion??"

Bill D says.
yes, indeed it is. That would increase the time and effort to make non-controversial 'tidying' edits immeasurably.

Is time or effort really a factor - where there is no question of any offensive content? We know Bill that you would always be safe from such impositions but are their not more important considerations at stake than the volunteer's time and effort? You may always agree to any proposed changes - so would most posters, I suspect. If a job is worth doing - perhaps the time and effort should be given to ensure it is done well - or if the time and effort is not available to do it properly - not done at all?

And if non-controversial 'tidying' edits were only ever undertaken at the request of the originator - that would ensure that these were always in fact non-controversial - wouldn't it.

It would essentially eliminate needed 'clean up' of multiple threads, etc.

Bill please explain why you and 99% of posters think this? Who are these 'clean ups' so desparately needed by? All 99% of us? How do you propose to support this rather surreal claim? Or do you always think that 99% of the people agree with you?

No one is suggesting that such 'clean ups' could not still take place. But as they would only happen with the originator's permission and never be imposed upon them against their wishes - these actions could never be confused as routine censorship - could they?

Is this really such a terrible suggestion?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

Roger, your statement to me is there for all to see and judge whether you were accusing me of slander or not.

Your refusal to consider that you may have offended me and to apologise (as I readily did) also stands there for all to see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM

Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.


The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement.

The facts are all here – you judge……But these facts will demonstrate that if you should post and assume to judge our volunteer judges (in any way other than being totally uncritical)- you should probably be prepared for them to mount abusive personal attacks, incite others to do this and encourage the idea that this practice is humourous - when undertaken against certain (safe) targets.

This evidence has been provided or linked to in this thread. There is no shortage of such evidence of our forum now being shaped by this - but if you are determined to hold and express a view that ignores all of this evidence - I am not sure why you would expect me or anyone else to take your opinion seriously.

Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM

I happen to have met all three 'bullies', GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem.


What I demonstrate is that the reality of all this (probably well-intentioned) censorship - is not the same as the 'spin' and justification that is given by those volunteers who mainly wish to continue to impose their reactive judgement upon others.

Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse.

Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me).

This is part of Max's website that he has provided for all of us for open public discussion. So in that sense, although the website is Max's – the forum is ours. His stated role in this is only to 'facilitate'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Gervase said
Anyway, I'm off to see a ewe with a dodgy foot...

That reminds me of something that I was told once

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-


Well if you can't find a good Aardvark.

If this profound advice -about what not to do with the Aardvark - was so appreciated - I wonder why no one appears to follow it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:28 AM

"Which could be thought to be - and may in time prove to be - more than a little foolish?"
I have a hunch that - in time - this whole thing won't prove to be anything more than a hill of beans.
At getting on for 900 posts, nothing has changed, the one person who seems convinced that this is an issue is no nearer 'closure' on the matter, no-one else gives a toss and most of us, I'd suggest are just bored witless and reduced to the point of prodding the thread with a stick now and again to see if anything interesting happens.
Sadly Roger's now reduced simply to repeating himself like a parrot with Alzheimer's and - since Spaw's "Don't Fuck With The Aardvark" gem - there's been precious little in the way of decent invective. Let's either make this topic interesting, resolve it or walk away from the wreckage and start another obsessive compulsive thread full of weary cut'n'paste repetition (foxhunting, anyone?).
Anyway, I'm off to see a ewe with a dodgy foot...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:54 AM

As we are on an apologising/retracting tack, would you now care to apologise for claiming that I accused you of slander (when all I said was that repetition CAN APPEAR to be willful and malicious)?

If the same questions repeated questions CAN APPEAR to be wilful and malicious - perhaps the same repeated answers can also? Repeated abusive personal attacks and name-calling - certainly are - whatever the justification given for them.

El Greko - What I said was -

Perhaps before you go on to publicly accuse anyone of 'slander' - you could produce some evidence that I have claimed there was any 'evil intent'?

Did I accuse you of slander here? I did say 'perhaps before you go on to etc-' useing your logic - I am not sure if this can really be considered as accusing you of slander - But I will apolgise.

However, you have stated in other posts - that you have found my evidence 'laughable' and I am still waiting for any evidence to support your claim that this same evidence 'was also found to be inadequate'.

Perhaps you can finally make it clear to the forum - that this evidence is more than adequate to demonstrate the facts of these two cases - whatever your personal opinion may be of those facts?

If folk are feeling truly masochistic - a look back at this thread from the start - will see that many posters are expressing opinions that are not supported by the true facts. And in some cases (it would appear) these opinions are strongly expressed - in full knowledge of these facts - but spite of these facts and the evidence provided. Which could be thought to be - and may in time prove to be - more than a little foolish?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:16 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:40 PM

How come if people on Le Sham's side are so scared of the clones, they don't just post as a Guest?


Perhaps this is why? ………But who are you scared of?

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.

[The anonymous editorial Comment (in BOLD) was in green writing] Robin Hood possibly?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM

Roger, I accept your statement that you were not setting out to prove bad intention on behalf of the editorial team, and I apologise for implying that that you did.

However, my warning/alert still stands: constant repetition of that same evidence again and again can appear as willful and of doubtful intent.

As we are on an apologising/retracting tack, would you now care to apologise for claiming that I accused you of slander (when all I said was that repetition CAN APPEAR to be willful and malicious)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:44 AM

El Greko - Perhaps it is not a good idea to try and put words into other's mouths - especially as anything said here can be so easily retrieved?
This is what you said.

sorry, but this does not constitute evidence of bad intention (to which you clearly allude) on behalf of the editorial team; you have posted this "evidence" before, and it has been found inadequate.

Perhaps you could apologise? For it is clear that my evidence in this post was simply to prove the facts of the two cases. For that purpose - I hope you will now agree that this evidence was perfectly adequate and these facts are established?

Perhaps you can also agree that the evidence in this post was never intended to prove or show (in your words) 'bad intention' and that in many other posts - I have referred to all this routine imposed censorship as 'well-intentioned'?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:17 AM

Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form. - Joe Offer

Joe am I take it from this as OFFICIAL that my suggestion is rejected and that you intend to carry on imposing your personal tastes upon the titles chosen by fellow posters - as you wish - without their knowledge or consent? Or (as it is NOT in brown writing) is this just you expressing your personal opinion?

The "evidence" (where relevant) I see shambles has provided does indeed proove that Joe is willing to reverse an action where appropriate. - Jon

Jon I agree that (among other things) this evidence does suggest this. I suspect that it does prove is that some volunteer's personal tastes about what needs to be deleted or changes imposed - are subject to the persoanl tastes of other volunteers who are thought to be more important - who do not seem communicate very well together.

There are times on our forum - when shooting first - and asking questions later - may be proportionate. But should this policy be the only response to every case - as it is not always easy to repair any damage cause by this. Perhaps the best way to deal with this - is NOT after the damage has been done and only after a lot of fuss is publicly made about the imposed change? If asking the original poster's permmission prior to any proposed change - is thought to be -too much trouble - perhaps it is?

Doing something properly tends to bring more benefit than doing it badly. If it is thought to be too mucy trouble to first try and obtain the original poster's permission - perhaps the hoped for benefit of imposing the change without this permission is questionable? Perhaps the benefit of the doubt can always be given to the original poster? If they can't be contacted - then leave their contribution as posted.


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

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 2 June 11:30 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.