We've got a major problem...

Trollheart · 08-17-2013, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Is it so that in order to be a member here, all your opinions have to be condoned by the rest of the community? I don't think so, I just think you should stick to the rules. Okay, if you're a nazi cannibal murderer, perhaps your opinions are too extreme, but I don't think they are in this case.

To you, I guess they're just some stupid guy's opinions. Why do you get emotional about it? And do you think we should ban people for having stupid opinions? Shall we remove his right to write about them? What do you think should be done in this case?

See, in the bolded part, you are saying that because Sopsych's opinions provoke others, he should be the one to take responsibility when other people start to troll him and derail the thread over it.

Don't you see what a slippery slope that is? We have laws here and we shouldn't hold people responsible for the crimes committed against them, no matter who they are or what opinions they have.

I believe me and Erica both see the bigger picture here. In the end, it is not about Sopsych, but about the rules and what should be expected from the members here.

No tore, again you're seeming to see what you want to see. I am NOT saying sop's opinions are wrong or that he can't express them. I never said that. I'm saying that constantly complaining without offering any solution, ignoring other people's contributions, making unsupported comments such as "only a few people read journals" and then when these are sussed to be total lies or at best not well researched, ignoring them, is getting up everyone's nose and there is absolutely no case for allowing someone to continue on with what I, and a lot of others here, consider bad behaviour simply because "they have a right". What about our right?

How about that old Star Trek maxim: Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. In this case, the one.

I'm sorry to say it, but I do wonder that if you were not already so disenchanted with the forum and also if you were being lambasted instead of praised by sop, if you would take this stance? Don't you see that it's not cliquey behaviour, just people agreeing? We're allowed to do that. Most if not all of us agree that what sop is doing is unhelpful and is in fact both derailing (again!) this thread and taking from the solutions duga asked for, so we are within our rights to challenge and take issue with that. What would you prefer? That we all just nod and say ok? What purpose would that serve?

duga · 08-17-2013, 10:41 AM

Tore, I agree with what you are saying... On paper. However, you are thinking too much like a scientist where there is a clear cut black and white solution to everything. There is a lot of gray here. Are we trolls for bringing up what we have? No, because we are both members who have contributed positively in the past. Is sopsych a troll for bringing up what he has? Maybe not initially, but with the turn things have taken, I say yes. He is a member who has not contributed positively to this forum and has persistently spewed his hard headed ideas in this thread. We would have considered his points if he had just posted them and let the discussion continue. But now we have a hard time taking them seriously.

Anyway, I've kept up on this thread and - despite the bits of drama (which were expected) - this discussion has been great. It's nice to see people still care about this site!

I'm going to think on ways we can turn some of these ideas from discussion to actual positive change. But not tonight... I'm seeing My Bloody Valentine in Dallas yeeya. I'll think on all this...

sopsych · 08-17-2013, 11:24 AM

Excellent replies in the past day. (Probably would have gone worse if I'd made more than one post.)

Quote:

He complains that there is no music discussion happening, and when I pointed out some new threads that he could participate in or simply just read and browse through, he shot them down saying he did not wish to participate, and did not investigate into OTHER threads himself, as if the threads I chose were the be all and end all of music discussion here. I'm seriously at a loss for what can or should be done now to say to this member "Look there are all kinds of discussions happening!" and provide some links as a starting point. Not even bothering to check out existing music and other active discussions, and then coming here to complain about the lack of conversations happening, is crazy.

That's an exaggeration. Like I said, the music sub-forums I follow (and one I consider the main part of the site) don't look more active to me, and I view them daily, scanning for things worth replying to.

Now I admit I did sneer at one solution, people making more music threads. It does work a little, if it can be sustained. (But forcing people, such as me, to make music threads doesn't work.)

Edit: another point that I'm following-up on is that publicly telling one person (or maybe two) to calm down usually doesn't work, but (as done on other forums) it can work to politely request that a few people disengage from each other (or, for example, the thread will be locked or moved).

Also, actually I don't necessarily agree that current moderators are mostly responsible for the slide. From what tore has indicated, drama has been driving away people since even before he was a moderator. Furthermore, in the past few years, new member influx was going to decline anyway (because of Facebook, etc.), and when you have the same regulars for years, problems are almost inevitable. But I think some of the decline can be reversed and have been frustrated for over a year at a lack of changes in that regard.

It's unfortunate that between my abrasive nature in this sub-forum (pointed language more so than my points) and my lack of valued music posts (despite intent), my ideas don't get much credit. Because I do have ideas, and I do think some of them could help. I hope that they're among the ideas duga is considering - I've been waiting the length of this thread for someone to say that there might be subtle, direct, non-technical changes for reducing drama. It seems to me that "the needs of the many" includes less drama.

Guybrush · 08-17-2013, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

Analysis: the mods have been mods for year. As the mods have anything but laissez-faire in their use of the ban hammer and their other authorities, it's reasonable to assume their style of moderation has led to the current predicament. Further, as the mods (rightly or wrongly) have a certain level of esteem on the board, this has allowed cliques to ossify and led to a certain amount of bitchiness.

Examples of dramatic failures of moderation: link. In this thread, the OP is dismayed that not everyone shares his opinion, and as the moderator in question shared his opinion, the thread is locked. This is a good example of both how cliques among the boards mods led to a quieting of discussion that was completely within the rules.

You could've been right, but towards the end, it was rather clear that the rules were being broken with the intent of ruining discussion or somehow cause aggravation or irritation. I think the thread is a good example of how drama and hostility was allowed to run rampant for too long, actually, and am grateful for how the mods intervened after I reported what I thought was a clear violation of the rules. Maybe you need to go over the last few pages of the thread again if you don't think so.

The way I see it, the discussion had taken a bad turn. I think leaving it open would've been an invitation for more conflict and drama. If you'd like to continue on the discussion that went on there, perhaps you could start a new thread.

edit :

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Tore, I agree with what you are saying... On paper. However, you are thinking too much like a scientist where there is a clear cut black and white solution to everything. There is a lot of gray here. Are we trolls for bringing up what we have? No, because we are both members who have contributed positively in the past. Is sopsych a troll for bringing up what he has? Maybe not initially, but with the turn things have taken, I say yes. He is a member who has not contributed positively to this forum and has persistently spewed his hard headed ideas in this thread. We would have considered his points if he had just posted them and let the discussion continue. But now we have a hard time taking them seriously.

Anyway, I've kept up on this thread and - despite the bits of drama (which were expected) - this discussion has been great. It's nice to see people still care about this site!

I'm going to think on ways we can turn some of these ideas from discussion to actual positive change. But not tonight... I'm seeing My Bloody Valentine in Dallas yeeya. I'll think on all this...

I do tend to think in terms of principles and I am aware that applying principles is easier "on paper" than it is in real life. Regarding trolling, I think it is something that is done with intent and in this case, I just think the intent is lacking. If others disagree, I can live with that. Regarding clickyness and drama, I think a double standard regarding what goes when moderating can contribute to that .. I should perhaps mention that some amount of double standards is impossible to avoid and I had double standards myself when I moderated. I treated long time, productive members more fairly than troublesome newcomers. But if the double standard becomes too great and long time members are treated too fairly, of course they may become privileged brats!

By the way, I love the positive finish to your post

I hope you enjoy the concert and tell us about it when you come back!

Urban Hat€monger ? · 08-17-2013, 11:44 AM

People wanted a laid back forum so that was the way it was moderated, it seems a bit curlish to me to blame the mods after the fact.

The whole point of this matter isn't 'people are being nasty the mods should do something' that doesn't help anybody. We already know this, that's why the thread was created in the first place.

We're dealing with grey areas here
We want to know at what point do people consider a post to be inflammatory?
How much leeway do we give before we step in?
You can say things like 'isn't it obvious' or 'you're a mod it's up to you' but it should be pointed out even when all the drama was going on there were some saying that these people were doing nothing wrong and we shouldn't have acted.

Nobody can't have it both ways, Does the forum want us to be stricter in the moderation of this or not? Give us feedback on things you think should be acceptable & what shouldn't. And if they do will they stop giving us a hard time when we do just what they ask for?

Like I said earlier in the thread, people are all for stricter moderation until they're the recipient of it.

Guybrush · 08-17-2013, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

There is a ridiculous amount of white knighting going on in this thread. It's really getting old now, and it's not effective. Tore and Erica, I love you both, but I think you are both seeing this issue through rose coloured glasses.

I understand how it can be frustrating dealing with others on forums. I just think it's important people try not to resort to name calling, trolling and the like. That's the jist of it really and I don't accuse you for doing that.

Also, thanks! I love you too and the way you disagree with me

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

People wanted a laid back forum so that was the way it was moderated, it seems a bit curlish to me to blame the mods after the fact.

The whole point of this matter isn't 'people are being nasty the mods should do something' that doesn't help anybody. We already know this, that's why the thread was created in the first place.

We're dealing with grey areas here
We want to know at what point do people consider a post to be inflammatory?
How much leeway do we give before we step in?
You can say things like 'isn't it obvious' or 'you're a mod it's up to you' but it should be pointed out even when all the drama was going on there were some saying that these people were doing nothing wrong and we shouldn't have acted.

Nobody can't have it both ways, Does the forum want us to be stricter in the moderation of this or not? Give us feedback on things you think should be acceptable & what shouldn't. And if they do will they stop giving us a hard time when we do just what they ask for?

Like I said earlier in the thread, people are all for stricter moderation until they're the recipient of it.

The difficult question which moderators have to deal with all the time and a part of the job I personally didn't care for at all. My sympathies go with all of you guys, I really mean that.

Personally, I want stricter moderation of this and I know that's basically asking you guys to do more work and submit yourself to more complaints from the community. I understand all that. Undoubtedly my wish would create a period of adjustment where moderators are stricter, but where people stir up as much conflict and drama as they're used to. But perhaps after that period, people would adapt to stricter moderation and then keep out of trouble more often.

More in response to your question, stuff like this white tears reply is an example of a post I think crosses the line and should be deleted. (Side note : I've also been accused of crying white male tears and I am pretty sure the inclusion of "white male" was meant to further aggravate me even if I don't quite understand how

)

When things are about to turn hostile, I would like more often to see a friendly reminder to not let things escalate. On other forums, I've sometimes seen moderators edit users threads and leave notices in the bottom of the posts saying something like "Offensive remarks removed. Please refrain from name-calling and the like in the future" along with a reference or link to the rules. On that forum, when you see that colour in a post, you know it's probably put there by a mod.

I don't think I ever tried it myself as a mod, but it seems effective on the other music forum I sometimes visit and I've been wondering if it could be effective here as well.

GuitarBizarre · 08-17-2013, 01:30 PM

Tore - Lets make a big review of what's been said, and how, knowing how the thread went, I've been reading it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I've been saying this stuff for a very long time.

I do not have all the answers, but I think it starts with this:
Make tore head moderator (his duties determined by him) and enforce all the rules he created. For threads that start going off-topic in a hostile way, the mods need to not personally participate in that and instead quickly warn and then delete and at least temporarily lock.

Also, with the exception of tore, allow members to vote mods out, and let them vote mods in, subject to at least tore's approval.

Follow that advice, and I'm likely to resume starting (good) threads, the lack of which is helping to suck life out of the forum.

1 - I was saying this before it was cool
2 - You need to do what I say to fix this.
3 - I'm so completely up my own backside that I feel I can hold hostage the idea that I might contribute to the forums, because the lack of ME is what's sucking the life out of this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I'm waiting for tore to state whether he wants to be moderator #1 again. If he's willing to start another site.... Probably nobody could tell me he would make Music Banter worse, even with that weird "too idealistic" claim that I've seen applied to someone else.

Voting on mods - allow a window for nominations/demotions at the beginning of each month and if, for example, 5 people agree about someone, start a poll that runs for at least a week and requires enough votes that cliques couldn't do much damage. The thing is, The current system is the ultimate clique, friends choosing friends to work with them. And I'm not going to make (good) threads until that changes.

Deletion drama? Be very specific in posted guidelines about what will get posts deleted (for example, name-calling). But understand that if mods are actively part of that drama, deletions will be seen as unfair (mods above the law) and if moderators refrain from fighting, they'll be 'punished' less with complaints about deletions.

Lastly, I too have witnessed problems in forums that have a Politics section. I don't pay much attention to The Lounge (because I'm here for music), but if drama is starting there, then limit posting privileges in it (for example, not allowing new members to make threads there) and urge everyone to self-limit their time in that section.

1 - Repeats the claim for your numero uno moderation position.
2 - Continuing to hold his contribution to the forums hostage until other people fix everything for him.
3 - Calling for overly black and white guidelines regarding forum "drama", despite, as the thread proves, the entire moderation team agreeing that no matter how you mod, someone is going to be on your ass for it, and therefore that black and white approach doesn't WORK.
4 - A change of policy in the politics forum - that he (At least NOW) knows we don't have the power to implement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

You speak for you. Even if that is true of the others, I'd be surprised if any moderator would approve a personally disliked individual as a new moderator, which breeds sameness. To me, most moderators seem similar to each other and not idea people, and this website needs new ideas.

Speaking of that, Pete's idea should be implemented if technically possible.

Accusing Urban of nepotism and claiming the forum members would do better in voting in new moderators (Despite having pointed out in his previous post that he doesn't believe this would work anyway)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I've been here a few years - I don't consider myself new. Anyway, I noticed my comments were mostly disregarded and replies focused on points of disagreement. That echoes past experiences in this section and the Music section. The latter I agree is full of short, often off-topic answers and goes back to esoteric or bland topics - which I the provocative-subject generator personally could fix if I felt valued on this site.

But back to my idea from yesterday - is there a technical way to restrict new members from creating threads in The Lounge?

1 - Doesn't consider himself new, which is significant given your initial defense of him
2 - Playing the victim rather than considering that others criticisms of his points may be worthwhile.
3 - More "I was doing this before it was cool"
4 - More "This forums needs more of ME, I might be willing to provide if you all weren't so terrible, but first, more of what I like, then you get more of ME!"
5 - Technical suggestion, despite it being common knowledge on the forum for literally years that you, the person he's already praised twice, stepped down for the exact reason that you could never get technical suggestions implemented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I agree with Trollheart and the bunny. On the points by the former, I think mocking images should be grounds for deletion of posts. On the subject of moderators, new blood is needed and probably there should be a process by which mods who have been in place for a year are subjected to a public vote (if they wish to stay on) and have to get a strong majority to keep their jobs.

1 - Attacking the mods again, and suggesting a vote system again, despite, as noted, ADMITTING earlier that he has no confidence a voting system would work. I had also provided my own rationale, as had others, as to why a voting system would not work, at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

What do I think members should do? Behave better, but I don't expect that unless they respect moderators and will follow their lead (but that can be a bad thing, depending on the example set). Members should post more good music stuff too, but that's a more complicated issue. I say deal with the simple stuff first. Where's your reply, tore?

Also, yes, I realize that being a moderator is a thankless job. But I think unfortunately that some people like the sense of power it gives them. I've been a moderator elsewhere.

1 - Backhanded attack on the mods and the members, again.
2 - Members should post more music stuff - Where we agree, and had already said so for most of the thread.
3 - "Tore! Tore! You blessed beast, you king of the jungle, where are you to save us all in my time of need!"
4 - Another backhanded attack on the mods, accusing them, again, of nepotism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

No, no proof at all, but it's pretty clear that this forum has been going downhill for a while and that new ideas are needed. If this were a business and the moderators managers, some heads would roll.

1 - I knew this place was terrible before it was cool!
2 - I'd fire all those nepotistic mods if I were the boss!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I know that was tore's position, but I'm hoping it has changed lately. Clearly he's increasingly frustrated with the state of things.

By the way, on the subject of moderators again, I know of one site that had many behavioral problems, and partly as a result of gradual moderator turnover and the disappearance of an ill-tempered admin, the behavior has become quite good. People on that forum seem to really like and respect the mods. For the record, I don't want more than moderate turnover on this forum's moderators, just like a smart business wouldn't fire most of its managers.

1 - "Tore! Tore! You blessed beast, you king of the jungle, where are you! Please go against your previous thoughts on this place and save us all!"
2 - Attacks the moderators again, by using a completely irrelevant example about a completely different forum doing a completely different thing with completely different people, in order to AGAIN imply that the moderators here are bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

Are you going to implement any of the changes suggested (by anyone) in this thread, or is this forum going to keep dying? And I think it's been made clear here who some of the moderators I have a problem with are.

1 - I knew you'd not take any of the suggestions I put forward! Clearly you don't care, EH MODERATORS?
2 - Finally admits he has a problem with the moderators, and rather than just attacking them all, he now points out he just has problems with specific moderators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I'm not into clubs, sorry. I see a thread about plug-ins. What about the changes proposed in this thread? I'm not sure a moderator has even commented on anything specific. When I asked about the technical feasibility of one of my ideas (not a change in the moderation team), crickets.

1 - Why are these changes not being implemented? Clearly you moderators don't CARE, do you?
2 - You MODERATORS clearly haven't even tried to respond to this thread, you don't CARE, DO YOU?
3 - Well *WHY* aren't these technical changes being made? HUH? (And again, these are years old issues, that YOU, tore, had a big problem with and stepped down because of. He should know this. He was told this multiple times before he made this post. He ignored the information.)

GuitarBizarre · 08-17-2013, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

"Banter" in this thread - the same way music threads often get derailed.

If people want catchy phrases, then from Duck Tales, "Work smarter, not harder." To echo Pedestrian, I am not personally going to work hard creating threads when they likely would be sabotaged by horseplay and/or personal attacks. If you want to pressure someone to be the change agent, pressure tore or someone else with leadership potential.

1 - Again, holding his apparently godlike input hostage unless we meet his demands of fixing the forum for him before he comes along and contributes, because the lack of HIM is what's sucking the life out of this forum.
2 - Personal attacks like the one this entire sequence of posts is against the current mods.
3 - Great idea, force someone to lead a group they don't want to!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

The usual defensiveness and near-defeatism. I doubt Yac refuses to make any technical changes, and technical changes are secondary for the issues that are bothering members. Many of us want more substance and less fighting. It sometimes feels like members vs. moderators, and no site can thrive that way. Friendly, visionary, can-do - I don't see those characteristics applying to any current mods, and I mean that matter-of-factly, not as an insult (I'm not "friendly" myself). Do any non-friends of the moderators disagree with my assessment? We need some moderators with those traits. If tore is more talk than action, then point me to someone with the right traits who is willing to be a moderator, my proposal to "be a part of the solution." This site can improve, if people are properly empowered.

1 - Refuses, again, to accept that the technical changes he's asked for are not reasonable given the forums power structure.
2 - Accuses the mods of starting an "us and them" war - funny, then, that he's attacking them constantly while the MODS started the thread for input into the forum and have expressed, over and over, their willingness to listen to anyone except sopsych, the guy who's attacked them in nearly every post, and has a sig which can only be read as "This place is terrible make it better for me"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

It would be better and smarter to just agree with me. If enough people did that, the site could undergo positive change. That I'd much prefer over complaining.

1 - "Again, I must remind you folks, that the lack of MORE OF *ME* and listening to *ME* is the problem here! All hail *ME*, THE SAVIOUR!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

One-liners don't belong in this thread.

Okay, if Yac isn't the main man on technical decisions, who is, the corporate owners? Lessen our "ignorance." But as for new moderators, the idea isn't special negotiating powers on their part - technically, this site isn't bad, in my opinion. New moderators are for willingness to more strongly enforce rules against nastiness. A wide range of people in this thread have requested that policy change, but at least one moderator since seems to have more or less dismissed it and I suspect a few of them are the reason for the long status quo on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

One-liners don't belong in this thread.

Okay, if Yac isn't the main man on technical decisions, who is, the corporate owners? Lessen our "ignorance." But as for new moderators, the idea isn't special negotiating powers on their part - technically, this site isn't bad, in my opinion. New moderators are for willingness to more strongly enforce rules against nastiness. A wide range of people in this thread have requested that policy change, but at least one moderator since seems to have more or less dismissed it and I suspect a few of them are the reason for the long status quo on that.

1 - Finally accepts that his previous suggestions are infeasible, claims ignorance. Again, this was common knowledge for YEARS, and the reason YOU stepped down - Why is he campaigning so strongly for you to return to a moderators position if he doesn't even know why you stepped down?
2 - Wish I knew who these people are that wanted the policies changed to be less lenient on "meanness", since I seem to recall all the mods and members in this thread agreeing that we wanted more free, open, and fun music discussion, not some draconian law bringing down upon anyone who was the slightest bit mean. In fact, we had old and new members alike pointing out that new members are NOT treated significantly differently now, than they were 5 years ago. In fact, we had one member who made two intro threads, 5 years apart, and got the exact same general treatment in both!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I wasn't trying to sound like Hal 2001. That movie probably is the worst alleged "masterpiece" I've ever seen. I am right about that too.

Anyway, tore now seems to somewhat agree with my main point. But where are potential moderators? If tore, Pedestrian, etc. don't want to do that, can they please at least name or privately seek out reform-minded candidates? After that would be the hard part about making room for them as moderators.

I fully believe that if the community becomes less harsh, people like me will step up with more music-related contributions.

One last question in this post: has moderating posts ever been tried as a way of "training" people to not fight with each other?

1 - "I'm so right about everything, I know better than movie critics, objectively!"
2 - "Tore agrees with me so you should too"
3 - "I'm assuming that if tore becomes a mod again he's ALREADY going to be onboard with tossing out the entire modship and starting from scratch"
4 - "If the community does as I say, I'll contribute, and NOBODY can possibly give up THAT opportunity, right?"
5 - Holy crap that suggestion about moderation being used as training is stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

Amen. I wish Pedestrian, Trollheart, and others would reiterate their points from a few days ago, instead of letting it seem like it's just whipping-boy me who wants things to change.

Edit: "train" was in quotes to be somewhat facetious, although I do believe that forum atmospheres do partly condition members' behavior and that moderators theoretically could deliberately condition troublesome members' behavior. It's part of my idealistic hope that nobody gets banned and instead everyone can enjoy the forum and not hate anybody. (No, I didn't just get body-snatched.)

Another question: is it possible to moderate entire threads? I've never heard of that on any forum, but it's a nice feature to fantasize about.

1 - Funny, aren't Ped, Trollheart, and "Others" now the ones who want sopsych to shut up? Why would they come to his aid?
2 - More requesting features after being told (and apparently accepting) that feature requests are not feasible. Head, meet wall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I have never paid attention to those sections. Yes, that is what I mean. Is it possible to turn moderation on for an existing thread in another section?

As for behavioral change, if I start threads again now, 1) I'll be ticked off at reactions and 2) that lessens incentive for moderators and other members to rein in the nastiness.

1 - "If I start threads NOW, *YOU* people will *RUIN* them, and then I won't look fantastic, so why would I do it?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I dislike false accusations of trolling. I didn't come here to be abused. This is supposed to be a site for good music discussion, but because it isn't someone other than me created this thread. Don't blame me for this site's problems.

1 - "Waaaaaaaahhhhhh, I'm a VICTIM because people aren't listening to me, and are DARING to get annoyed with my repetitive, endless prattle about how great *I* could make the forum! Its not MY fault I could make this forum so great and none of you are listening to me! Its *YOUR* faults!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

Good stuff there, including many points I hadn't thought of. Although if part of that refers to me, I want to clarify that I'm not blaming everything on the mods or even much on most of the mods.

I'd move on myself if I knew of a site that's more active than this with a decent atmosphere and discussion about many different genres of music.

1 - Coulda fooled me boss, you've been going after the mods this whole damned time. Well, in between telling us how great you are and how us ushering in your golden age would help us all have an amazing forum.
2 - Please move on anyway, thankyou.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I know for a fact I'm considered a troll, and I believe that was a swipe at me and perhaps intended to scare me. But I'm not a troll. If tore had said those things instead of me, it would have gone over fine. Trolling isn't much of a problem on this site, from what I've seen. (Most trolls would want a larger audience.)

How about people actually comment on rostasi's post? I guess I'm ever the optimist that many people will realize the disease before it kills this place.

1 - "I'm innocent! A victim! If I were one of the ruling elite, you'd respect me, you bourgeois pigs!"
2 - "I know something you guys don't know, loooooool the disease, the disease!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

Well, I don't understand it, unless it's simply a tendency for people to label loudly stated unpopular opinions as trolling. I have been accused of that a few times elsewhere, and I have seen it happen to others, mostly to individuals who start threads. 'Funny' thing is that, in this case, my opinion isn't unpopular - the subject was brought up by Pedestrian or actually by a mod (Duga) who probably thinks I'm a trouble-maker, and several other members have commented negatively about the atmosphere. And I will state here, as I did maybe last year, that mods shouldn't egg things on against anyone, for moderators are supposed to appear impartial. Also, in this case, I don't see the opinion as offensive - unfriendly atmosphere doesn't mean members are unusually animal-like or rotten (though I suppose a few are).

1 - "I'm a victiiiiim! I'm a victiiiiim! My opinion is totally valid guys!"
2 - Another backhanded swipe at the mods, another accusation of favoritism and nepotism.
3 - "You guys are OK, but some of you are awful people and should feel bad!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I disagree. Sometimes it is related to the drama. I think new members who start threads (outside the Introductions section) are particularly likely to get mad and leave (I didn't get pissed about MB until I made some threads). Because this is duga's thread and he is a mod, I think he should do a statistical investigation of that, looking at 40 non-spamming members who joined in 2013 and tried to start music discussion. Not that all of those members were worth keeping around, but certainly proactive new members is what the site needs.

1 - Because I am the arbiter of all things, Duga should go and do some bizarre and likely pointless survey that will doubtless conclude that "Lots of people join and leave forums for no discernible reason, they probably just forgot to check back"

Quote:

That's "winding people up" right there. A common reaction many people on this site get to thoughtful posts, and then some wonder why fights erupt and serious music discussion isn't attempted much Moderators need to make/enforce rules against posts like that and issue warnings (or worse) for them.

Meanwhile, for all the talk about senior members now making more threads about music, I don't see any overall increase in activity in the General Music section.

The hilarious thing about this is that Neapolitan's post said nothing more in line with sop's views than "We got some new members in the shoutbox, and they left because they wanted to leave, it was nothing to do with drama", then mentioned that at one point I wanted to leave, but neapolitan asked me to stay. (which was kind of a nonsequitur even in nea's original post).

The post he's responding to literally has nothing whatsoever to do with what he's talking about here. In addition, people pointed out many times after he said this, that to not see the increase in activity, he must have been blind.

Quote:

Ban me for disagreeing with the clique? Brilliant.

I've said many, many times that I'm not going to put time and effort into making threads that are likely to get me attacked and reduce incentive from moderators to change the site's atmosphere. No matter how many threads senior members make, new or sensitive people (mostly women, I suppose) are unlikely to participate enough given the level of meanness on MB. Nobody can force me to start threads, just like you can't purely wish activity from people outside the clique.

I regularly view just a few sub-forums here. The Pop section doesn't seem more active. Not sure about Rock, which is more important. General Music possibly is the most important part of the site, the part making the biggest impression on members who aren't already dedicated to Music Banter - and as I said, it's not improving.

1 - "I'm not going to grace you with my presence unless I'm assured a receptive and fantastically supportive audience that will appreciate the greatness of my contributions!"
2 - Yay, sexism! Women are overly sensitive! You ride that misogyny train bro!
3 - "People are mean! People are mean! (Again, despite the fact people had pointed out by this time, a TON of times, that new members are not being dealt with any more harshly than they ever have been - it is the older, ESTABLISHED members who are finding the forum dynamic to be poorer than before, due to the actions of OTHER established members. "
4 - "You guys are cliquey! All of you! I won't start any threads until you fix this! You guys want me to start threads so badly don't you? WELL NOT UNTIL YOU GIVE ME WHAT I WANT BUSTER!"
5 - "The forum that's improving isn't improving! You guys are lying to me!"

Quote:

People don't seem to want to think. I already indicated that, besides reducing incentive for policy change, my threads are likely to receive too much negative attention under the current atmosphere. How would that help? More fighting will not revive the forum. Journals, whatever, few people read them and they're unlikely to cause controversy even among quick-tempered members. The sensible plan would be to improve the atmosphere first and then increase traffic with interesting threads by people like me.

1 - Anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot and can't think!
2 - "I can't POSSIBLY make my fantastic new threads anywhere where people might DISLIKE them! How dare you suggest that!"
3 - "Nobody reads our journals with hundreds of thousands of views and posts! Nobody!"
4 - "The sensible plan would be to improve the atmosphere first and then increase traffic with interesting threads by people like me. " - Does this comment really need any more critique? I mean really, what the actual ****? This guy's ego is off the CHARTS.

Quote:

People shooting the messenger and ignoring tons of evidence instead of admitting the problem.

I hardly see any positive side. Why are my posts concentrated in complaint threads and a few stupid-seeming music discussion threads that haters cite against me? Because most topics aren't good (or are too obscure, a minor distinction), and when I do reply somewhere, it's like posting into thin air. People on this site seem more interested in replying to their friends or attacking anything they disagree with than making enjoyable music discussion. It's a point others have stated in this thread. Even many people who create threads seem to selectively reply within their threads.

1 - "Guys, I'm TOTALLY right, you're just stupid for not believing me."
2 - "I am so desperate for attention and positive feedback on EVERYTHING I do, that I will ONLY contribute to the forum if I am guaranteed to recieve ONLY the praise I so truly deserve!"

Quote:

If this thread isn't moved back fast to where it was, Yac will be getting a message about moderator behavior. I have little patience for this garbage. The complaints I've made are shared by others in the original thread - if you want people to blow smoke up your [bleep] on a forum with a feedback section, you should not be a moderator.

1 - Holy overreaction batman - did you ever think that maybe you were causing a scene? Get the **** over your gigantic ego.

GuitarBizarre · 08-17-2013, 01:32 PM

Quote:

"The complaints I've made are shared by others in the original thread" For example, tore.

This spin-off thread is meant to isolate and abuse me. It would take some balls for somebody to come into a pile-on and fight for the victim. The only reason there have been so many posts by me is because people keep insulting me, dismissing facts (e.g., statements by tore), and distorting my position.

Quote:

Quote:
So basically your complaint is that because you or someone else don't have the kind of feedback you want from posts, (which strangely has nothing to do with the posts in question... odd) the whole system is flawed?

Please help me clarify whether or not that's your position. Because it sounds like you're willingly disregarding the fact that people routinely engage in good music discussions when there is a good music discussion going on. If your gripe is that the mods need to start deleting everything they deem as "not good music discussion", yeah, we can go Hitler with it if you want. But we won't. Because it's not our responsibility to ensure your posts are worth replying to. And the sooner you realize that, the less angry you will be.

And if you think this is some clique where only the members get involved in the discussion, you're deluding yourself. While we have somewhat cliquish factions here and there, I seriously doubt that anyone who has something interesting to say to someone who is interested is going to turn that convo down.

And unless you're suggesting that the mods drill into the brains of all our members and flip a "be interested in everything" switch, you already know what you have to do. Post interesting things in relevant areas. But don't blame the world when no one seems to mirror your sensibilities.

That's just ridiculous.

I don't understand a lot of that and am not in the mood to try to figure it out. Again, if people here would just think - gee, if someone prefers to talk with pals, he/she is naturally going to put less attention and mental energy toward reading and replying to non-friends' posts and probably automatically would go to a different thread featuring friends than reply to someone else (unless it's for the "fun" of mod-approved attacking). Of course people could fight their own tendency, but I see complete unwillingness by haters to follow any of my advice. Since I am a thinker, it pops into my head right now that the revived Journal in itself will just divert more attention from regulars to each other.

Anyone who sees this thread and does not approve of its existence should be ready to tell Yac what the real problem with this site is.

1 - "I'm a VICTIIIIIIM! You guys took me out of the discussion I was ruining so that I didn't ruin it anymore, and now I'm getting direct negative feedback on what I'm saying! You're so mean!"
2 - "I dunno what you said, so I'm going to ramble on about unrelated crap for a while! YOU'RE ALL HATERS, BECAUSE YOU WON'T FOLLOW MY AWESOME ADVICE! I am a *THINKER!* Therefore I *MUST* be right!"
3 - "Yac is above all of you so I'm going to start making baseless threats about telling him bad things about you all, which he will totally take seriously because he cares so much about my amazing opinions!"

Quote:

I think people can see through that, given the title of the thread and various mods' bashing and threatening me and condoning of nasty things posted by others.

At some point, Yac will make changes. Moderators don't last forever, especially when things go bad under their watch.

1 - "This thread is an ATTACK on me!"
2 - "Watch your back mods, the SHERIFF will see to it you RUE THE DAY you messed with me!"

Quote:

That is false dichotomy and distorted. There's no need to ban anyone and nobody is a total non-contributor, but of the people who are clearly acting against site rules, some of their posting histories would indicate that they have acted out against other members elsewhere on the site. I said before that banning me would not help the site at all, and any impact would be negative through loss of music posts and alienation of people who agree with me. And there's no acknowledgement that I have a right to be frustrated when we (atmosphere-change proponents) keep making reasonable suggestions that aren't even considered.

1 - "Don't ban me, I'm too amazing to ban! You wouldn't want to lose my POSTS and my FRIENDS now would you?"
2 - "I'm an "Atmosphere change proponent", all these other people disagreeing with me want the forum to stay how it is, no matter how many changes they've all already put forth as suggestions themselves! I'm the only one they should be agreeing with if they want changes!"

Quote:

I wanted to look at the numbers first, since they didn't make sense. They still don't make much sense, though the sheer age of some of those journal threads automatically give them many views (search engine robots included). I do not know how many people currently post to that section - mods could more easily research that than I could - but it ought to be less than the number in General Music. ("Ought to" because Journals are inherently clique-oriented.) I'm going to make another assertion - that Journals have virtually no impact on whether new members became regular contributors to the site. (Lots of people patting themselves on the back for something that in practice doesn't address the gist of Duga's complaint.)

So, I'm wrong about a very minor point that's hardly related to site atmosphere, and you want a medal? How many people have joined this week, been turned off by the types of discussion they've seen, and probably never will return?

Well, okay, on a positive note, some nasty posts were deleted from this thread.

1 - "These threads with hundreds of thousands of views are old! Clearly nobody reads them NOW, that's what I meant to say when I said nobody reads them! Maybe someone read them years ago! Mods, go and do a pointless survey of these statistics for me!"
2 - "I'm going to reiterate that new members are being put off, despite plenty of new members pointing out that they weren't! And other members pointing out that of the new members who didn't stick around, most didn't leave because of any "meanness"!"

Quote:

Robots index everything public, I believe.

How many times have you approved there a comment from someone with fewer than 30 posts? I see a few from one person - I didn't look back very far. Not did I look at other people's journals. Maybe they are visited as much as some music sections, but that would be a bad sign if true - journals don't and can't lead to the kind of sustained discussion that regular threads can.

Also, I didn't say anything about moderator performance re Journals. My point is that effort spent there doesn't do much for the site as a whole. The idea that people can fix this site by just posting more Journal entries or starting more threads is ridiculous. Unless Music Banter wishes to become the Live Journal of music musings, which is not my vision of the site and probably wouldn't succeed.

1 - Anything that is not *MY* vision of the site is clearly a terrible idea!

Quote:

I don't have a problem with people posting to their journals if it isn't distracting them from being 'productive' here. But the idea that, without other changes, members can increase their productivity to fix this site is silly. I haven't heard many reasoned objections to the changes I favor, while ironically I'm labeled unreasonable.

1 - "Without *MY changes, this site cannot improve!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

I think some drama happens because the music discussion isn't exciting enough, with there literally not enough good threads to divert time and attention from fight-filled threads. (I certainly don't excel at rising above drama and am not the ideal person to be arguing Duga's case.) I also think that VEGANGELICA made a good list of suggestions (and I appreciate the music compliment). My additions would be discouragement of sarcastic and rude replies and outright intolerance of that as done with pictures. I genuinely believe in training - maybe I'm trainable myself, baaah - and I think things would improve gradually.

That said, there are two major questions:
Are moderators willing to change their own behavior as pertains to drama? (If not, they should just admit it and complain less about having to handle the reactions or, yeah, stop dealing with it altogether.)
Do many people believe there is too much drama on this site? Someone should do a poll - but it darn well won't be this whipping boy.

Right now there's an impasse - avoiding the issue won't help, and it probably can't be won by fighting.

1 - Yet another swipe at the mods.
2 - "Someone should make a poll, but not ME! I'd get too little ego stroking out of it!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopsych

Excellent replies in the past day. (Probably would have gone worse if I'd made more than one post.)

That's an exaggeration. Like I said, the music sub-forums I follow (and one I consider the main part of the site) don't look more active to me, and I view them daily, scanning for things worth replying to.

Now I admit I did sneer at one solution, people making more music threads. It does work a little, if it can be sustained. (But forcing people, such as me, to make music threads doesn't work.)

Edit: another point that I'm following-up on is that publicly telling one person (or maybe two) to calm down usually doesn't work, but (as done on other forums) it can work to politely request that a few people disengage from each other (or, for example, the thread will be locked or moved).

Also, actually I don't necessarily agree that current moderators are mostly responsible for the slide. From what tore has indicated, drama has been driving away people since even before he was a moderator. Furthermore, in the past few years, new member influx was going to decline anyway (because of Facebook, etc.), and when you have the same regulars for years, problems are almost inevitable. But I think some of the decline can be reversed and have been frustrated for over a year at a lack of changes in that regard.

It's unfortunate that between my abrasive nature in this sub-forum (pointed language more so than my points) and my lack of valued music posts (despite intent), my ideas don't get much credit. Because I do have ideas, and I do think some of them could help. I hope that they're among the ideas duga is considering - I've been waiting the length of this thread for someone to say that there might be subtle, direct, non-technical changes for reducing drama. It seems to me that "the needs of the many" includes less drama.

1 - "Forcing AMAZING people like me to contribute doesn't help - fine minds like mine must have the proper environment in order to contribute our amazingness!"
2 - "Despite my constant attack on the moderators, they're ok! Really, I'm sincere, you know?"
3 - "I'm abrasive and people disagree with me - but its not because I could possibly be wrong, its because I've worded it in a way they don't like!"

GuitarBizarre · 08-17-2013, 01:34 PM

TL;DR - If you actually go through sopsych's posts, all he's actually done is repeat over and over that the moderators are terrible, nepotistic favouritists and need to be removed and replaced with people who will enforce sopsych's ideal forum rules, wherein he can make threads and recieve only positive feedback, because he's unbelievably amazing and him posting threads again will inevitably lead to the forum becoming amazing.

All I can get out of this is that sopsych has an ego the size of the goddamned moon.

OKAY NOW, CAN WE PLEASE BE DONE WITH RESPONDING TO SOPSYCH?

08-17-2013, 10:41 AM	#352 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	Tore, I agree with what you are saying... On paper. However, you are thinking too much like a scientist where there is a clear cut black and white solution to everything. There is a lot of gray here. Are we trolls for bringing up what we have? No, because we are both members who have contributed positively in the past. Is sopsych a troll for bringing up what he has? Maybe not initially, but with the turn things have taken, I say yes. He is a member who has not contributed positively to this forum and has persistently spewed his hard headed ideas in this thread. We would have considered his points if he had just posted them and let the discussion continue. But now we have a hard time taking them seriously. Anyway, I've kept up on this thread and - despite the bits of drama (which were expected) - this discussion has been great. It's nice to see people still care about this site! I'm going to think on ways we can turn some of these ideas from discussion to actual positive change. But not tonight... I'm seeing My Bloody Valentine in Dallas yeeya. I'll think on all this... __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

08-17-2013, 11:44 AM	#355 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	People wanted a laid back forum so that was the way it was moderated, it seems a bit curlish to me to blame the mods after the fact. The whole point of this matter isn't 'people are being nasty the mods should do something' that doesn't help anybody. We already know this, that's why the thread was created in the first place. We're dealing with grey areas here We want to know at what point do people consider a post to be inflammatory? How much leeway do we give before we step in? You can say things like 'isn't it obvious' or 'you're a mod it's up to you' but it should be pointed out even when all the drama was going on there were some saying that these people were doing nothing wrong and we shouldn't have acted. Nobody can't have it both ways, Does the forum want us to be stricter in the moderation of this or not? Give us feedback on things you think should be acceptable & what shouldn't. And if they do will they stop giving us a hard time when we do just what they ask for? Like I said earlier in the thread, people are all for stricter moderation until they're the recipient of it. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.