:clap:

:bowdown:

I know how he irritates you, GB. It's just that I don't believe in excuses. If you troll someone because they annoy you, you should do so with the knowledge and acceptance that you may get moderated for doing so because it is against the rules. In my opinion, you're not excused from trolling because the person you're doing it to is Sopsych.

Many people have acted in anger in this thread and contributed to the resulting derailing. But mods and members have really only held one person accountable for all that happened as far as I can tell and that is Sopsych. Aren't or shouldn't we all have an obligation to not break rules and derail threads?

Edit :

We discuss drama and hostility, but when people then generate drama and hostility in this very thread, noone is prepared to take any responsibility. Instead, everyone starts playing the blame game.

Where are the principles? Where are the moral standards and integrity?

He has spent no fewer than thirty THOUSAND characters, repeating to us all that he is the one true saviour of our forum world, and is being hamstrung by those diabolical, hideous moderators that would DARE allow anyone to respond to him negatively in any way.

I am past the point of thinking he should be given a leash whatsoever, let alone one the length you seem to want to give him. He is NOT, and WILL not help. His entire diatribe in these two threads has been SOLELY BASED around his monumental, astonishingly precise and focused, and COMPLETE inability to temper his own arrogance with even the slightest bit of humility.

When you're putting out gems like this:
Is this sort of prattle not the kind of **** that rings alarm bells for you Tore? Does this GENUINELY not give you any pause whatsoever when you support this rampant egomaniac?

I don't think you understand. What Sopsych wrote or even that it was him that did it matters not. It's about principle and could be applied to any conflict.

Who should be held accountable or punished is a moral dilemma, but there's precious little moral thinking here, only gut reactions and blame-gaming.

Arrogance is not a crime. But - instead of answering a mod's good question about formal moderation changes - trolling someone like that should be a crime, and I will hope that derailing batch of posts get deleted. Also, that stuff isn't even accurate at its heart - I never said that me starting threads again would make a big difference in the quality of Music Banter.

Tore, at this point, I think you're just completely making **** up so you can believe sopsych is a good person, to the point you're utterly ignoring any evidence that he's not, in favour of believing everyone other than sopsych, is making some sort of shared mistake that is making sopsych irrational.

I'm sorry, but if this is the kind of moderators attitude you would bring to a new site, I can't honestly believe it'd be any better than this.

There is no perfect system wherein everyone can get along and be perfect friends with everyone and be amazingly understanding. If you're trying to apportion out blame for sopsych, to everyone else, on the basis that we are somehow as much of a problem... I can only liken it to trying to blame white blood cells for making you weak when you get sick, or blaming your blood for making your skin dirty if you cut yourself.

Nobody is blaming sopsych for anything because he's perfect and we're looking for a scapegoat for a problem - people are blaming sopsych for his bull**** because it is exactly that and we are sick and tired of it and the only way any of us have of getting rid of a disruptive force, is to make it clear in progressively more extreme ways, what a disruption he is. Our only other option would be to never respond to anything he said and just endlessly report his posts to the mods, which you can't possibly, ever, in a million years believe, is a valid use of the report system when it comes to trying to rid ourselves of a law-abiding but disruptive prick.

^And so I fear the drama shall continue :p: I would advise people to use the ignore function or at least not resort to name calling and the like if they feel offended.

Despite the social danger that comes from agreeing with Sopsych on anything here, I do think it would be a pity if Urban's question is buried and forgotten so here it is.

Please read Urban's question quoted below!

Also tore, the funny thing about trying to run a moral system, is that as Nietchze said, "A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.".

We shouldn't be, and I hope we aren't, looking for a solution based on morals. If the finest minds in the history of mankind have failed to define a moral system that doesn't come up horribly short when applied practically, then I think the solution is a practical system. Adding some ridiculous moral high ground to the question of "is this working, and why not if not?", is just overcomplicating the issue entirely.

Sopsych IS the source of all of this disruption and his boundless arrogance has earned him no friends, nor do I think it is practical to try and save him from himself when it comes at the cost of everyone elses enjoyment. Get rid of the thorn in our side and we might be able to actually focus on something practical to solve our other problems.

GB, I think you're too emotionally involved in this to see that I am talking about principles here. I am asking you to see the consequences of your own actions and own up to them. If I had used some other example that didn't involve your nemesis, perhaps you would've seen some sense in it, but I think your anger blinds you at the moment.

edit :

Nietzche didn't understand human morality. ;)

I don't understand it. I see a lot of people derailing the thread. Some do so by breaking the site rules. Why should I consider Sop the only one responsible for all those derailing, trolly posts? Are we no longer accountable for our own actions?

And as for Urban's post - I think the lenient moderation we have is perfectly fine, and, as I have said for the whole thread long, the forum community should be made aware that under a lenient system, they are more responsible for governing themselves.

With that said, there are some extreme examples of leniency that have been showcased regarding members like hermione, who have largely been inflammatory for long periods with little or no repercussion, and I think the mod team should take a role there, not in being less lenient, but in simply being more present as a known entity that can and will take action if a person's behaviour continues.

In short, if, say, hermione, is consistently inflammatory for a long periood and the mods are unhappy with this or discussing if action should be taken, then I think there should be a level before "banning hermione for 2 weeks", where the mod team make some sort of direct statement pointing out that hermione or any other member in need of this guidance, needs to tread carefully before hammers start falling.

It's no less lenient, in as much as the member is denied no priveledge until they wilfully disregard this advice, but it at least places the mod team more "in the fray" rather than the current system, which essentially makes mods no different to any other member until such time as a direct punitive action is taken.

That would in turn result in a greater respect of the mods capabilities, and should hopefully reinforce the previous statement I made regards a community that is aware it should govern itself so that the mods need not involve themselves in these ridiculous, drawn out, overly painful grey areas, where there is a clear problem that needs addressing, but the forum encounters a reminder of the mod teams function so rarely and ineffectually, that the respect for the mod team is lost.

And neither has anyone else before or since, including you - You cannot possibly believe that you have the answers to getting us all to get along with sopsych. Enough people are so vehemently pissed off with him, for reasons good, bad, and in between, that it cannot possibly be your belief that his integration with the forum community is a reconcilable thing.

Stop dealing with some bull**** moral approach, and take a practical view - Can sopsych continue to contribute in any worthwhile way, to this discussion, or any other, in the foreseeable future, if his attitude does not either undergo a drastic change, or he is removed as a factor in those discussions?

I do not believe he can.

I will answer, but just read this first. What I want is a community in which threads don't get out of hand with hostilities. I want a community where moderators are the ones who deal with disruptions, not members. I want a community where people see that acting riled up and angry only adds to the drama. I want a community where, if people choose to break rules, they do so accepting that they may get moderated for doing so. I want a forum where people take responsibility in making this an enjoyable place for all of us.

I'm not saying I want a community where everyone agrees, but where even if you strongly disagree with someone, you do so in an orderly fashion (;)) with the rules of the forum in mind. I do want more high road kind of thinking.

Just thinking out loud now. I know this probably sounds like a boring, impossible utopia to most.

As the community is now, I don't think Sopsych can continue to post as he does without stirring hostilities against him. I don't hold him personally responsible for the fact that his posts will generate anger in others if he's not doing that with intent, but from a practical point of view, his presence is a disturbance, like a crow in a hen house.

It puts the moderators in a pickle I do not wish on them. Sometimes, all your alternatives may seem like bad choices.

Can I also suggest by the way - I think the mod team need to re-establish some measures of respect. I can honestly say that before the big "member bans" thread that Dirty started way back when, I don't recall the mods ever getting this much complete **** from people.

After Dirty started that bandwagon however, the mods have seemed to recede from the forum and almost sought out a non-existence, where Janszoon the mod, and Janszoon the member, are two different people, and Janszoon the mod is some sort of alter ego brought out only to fight crime, and be hidden away at other times.


I suggest that the mods be less afraid to take their own moral stances on things in a semi-official capacity.

I mean, take for example occurences in the past where Hermione has, after working as a dominatrix, taken to the shoutbox to mock her clients preferences or gloat over their willingness to give her money.

Personally, I find that particular behaviour somewhat abhorrent - at the very least unprofessional, to mock an innocent person's extremely private life in a public forum, if not outright cruel, and/or betraying a lack of respect for others.

Now of course, this sort of moral judgement isn't within a mod's purview - or is it? Let's consider this - if I go into the shoutbox and express the opinion that Hermione doing that is abhorrent or unprofessional, I don't think I'd ever be a million miles away from the truth to expect an insult, a haranguing, or simple offensive language being tossed my way with abandon.

If, Janszoon the member shows up, honestly, very little stops Hermione from doing the same thing, since he's not portraying himself as anyone with the power to have a say.

On the other hand, if Janszoon the mod shows up, Hermione suddenly has to carefully consider whether she resorts to that same offensive or dismissive or confrontational language - not because Janszoon, with his mod hat on, has chosen to tell Hermione that he will moderate based on what he finds distasteful, but because Janszoon with his mod hat on, is someone where Hermione can't just give both barrels without a care as to the consequences.

Has Jansz in this instance moderated based on his opinions or morals? No. What he's done is he's laid down a line of respect between himself and that member that can be used as a measuring stick for how respectfully that member should treat OTHERS, who are NOT mods, in future. It makes plain that an acceptable level of argument or debate between Jansz and Hermione, is one that remains civil, respectful, and hopefully results in a mutual understanding of boundaries.

If in future then, Hermione oversteps that boundary significantly, with a non-mod member, Janszoon can, quite rightly, say "Hermione, you'd never treat me with this kind of disrespect, and if you continue to treat this other member with that disrespect, I will be forced to take action".

Is Jansz moderating based on his morals or beliefs there? Again, no - but his willingness to put his morals and beliefs against Hermione's informally, but with his mod hat on, has informed a situation where a more clear cut judgement can be made in a situation where a moral debate is occuring.

Mods, I'd really like your input from this perspective - do some of you feel that in aiming to be as close to the members as possible, or in the interests of avoiding heated debates or argument in order to seem professional yourselves, you have given up your ability to directly reference from personal experience, the levels of argument and respect that all members should use the moderators as a yardstick to determine? Is that sort of lack of defined mod example, perhaps a reason why some members can at times take a mile, from the inch of leniency you intended to give?

GB, I'm in awe at your reasoning, logic and debating prowess. You've said (and done) everything I was going to, but far better than I ever could.

Tore, I'm disappointed. Your frankly blinkered attitude here to sop makes me cringe: it's almost like you're looking for ways to defend the indefensible. I can't understand why you would believe that someone who constantly winds people up here is not a bad influence, and I think the mods have show incredible restraint in not banning him. I truly don't understand your position. If this were anyone else I'd doubt you'd be so supportive. I must agree I echo GB's sentiments about your purported new Eden: if this is the idealism that would drive it, then I'll stay here thanks.

Well, to be fair, I like it here and I was never going to move. But your unexpected attitude here has convinced me I made the right decision.

Trollheart, I am convinced that you're simply misunderstanding or misinterpreting my position on this. I am discussing this from the angle of principles, but I think those principles somehow continue to get lost in the communication. If you want, we can take it to PMs and discuss it there.

edit :

My idea for a new site is also being misinterpreted. I am not suggesting a site in which I somehow rule what goes and what doesn't. Either way, my ideal forum would be one where people are held accountable when they break the rules. That's basically what I ask and it seems strange to me that people find this to be some sort of unreasonable idealism. I thought it was universal!

Tore, until you can apply your principles in a practical manner, they're so much hot air when it comes to solving the immediate problems of MusicBanter, or indeed the immediate problems of setting up a new forum.

If this were a forum that needed not worry about such practical concerns, then I and others might be more willing to consider the more philosophical points you're raising about interpersonal interaction, but at present we don't have that luxury and your insistence on making the discussion about that is really making it seem like you're simply building an ivory tower. Perhaps it's time to take that discussion (Which is worthwhile, just perhaps not here, and perhaps not now) to a seperate, more hypothetical thread, while we discuss more immediate or practical-minded suggestions in here?

I think it has real relevance here and now. As I wrote, this thread is about drama and hostility, right? This thread has generated lots of hostility and drama, right?

What is the general reaction to it? That it's Sopsych's fault. But that doesn't explain the number of other threads that get derailed by bickering. The simple fact of the matter is that the common factor for the drama and hostility that goes on on these forums is not Sopsych. By looking at this particular situation from an objective point of view, we could perhaps learn something about how drama arises, what feeds it and how it can better be moderated. But any attempt at that fails because people are still only interested in blaming Sopsych for it all and acting defensively. Regardless of my attempts at discussing this, I feel my posts are simply being disregarded as white knighting the guy who blew smoke up my ass.

Please try to understand?

Watching this conflict from an analytical point of view, I've made some observations.

• Newcomer with unpopular, somewhat uninformed and provocative opinions start discussing
• Other members get irritated by him and many start acting on their anger. They escalate the conflict and some of them break forum rules.
• Moderators join in the conflict on the side against newcomer.
• Situation escalates to the point where moderator feels he has to moderate thread by moving posts to a separate thread.

This is just matter-of-factly.

Do we want MB to react like that to situations like this? Perhaps some do, but I don't and I believe I can think of practical ways to go about this in the future that would lead to less hostility and drama should the situation arise again in the future. And that's what this thread is about, right?

Tore, sopsych himself pointed out in one of his first posts in this thread, that he is not, nor does he consider himself, a newcomer. Stop representing him as if he's new. Everyone apart from you, INCLUDING HIM, has already accepted and/or pointed out the opposite.

Secondly, everyone pointed out to you already in many, many different ways that he has a history of doing this, an attitude problem when he does it, an ego the size of a small planet, etc etc. All of which are VALID reasons to be pissed off with him.

You are massively, hugely oversimplifying this argument in order to make this into everyone ganging up on some innocent child who doesn't know better that nobody knows, and you are getting to the point of being genuinely frustrating because you are dealing with some impractical, vicious circle of endless philosophizing and NO actual action being taken.

Were I a mod at this point Tore, I would be telling you to take your discussion to another thread, so that we can sit the **** down after god knows how many pages of pointless back and forth, and actually analyse a practical, practicable suggestion and its IMMEDIATE feasibility or potential dangers.

What you are doing cannot fit into the remit of "Immediate candidate for implementation or action", and for that reason it is utterly, completely irrelevant to the entire concept of a thread wherein we try and solve an immediate issue. YES, your position might make some sense on a practical level IN THE FAR FLUNG FUTURE, but for right now, you're creating no less a derail than sopsych was.

You have accepted already that sopsych for the foreseeable future cannot contribute without engendering animosity. There is precisely zero reason for you to continue defending him if you have any intention or hope of bringing a practical solution to any problem the forum currently faces in any respect. Not only that, you call for an analysis of what may ENGENDER animosity or poor feeling towards other members on this forum. Defending sopsych is not that analysis. It just isn't.

How about instead of telling us all how wrong we are to do anything that anyone has done for the past 20 pages, you stop being his defense attorney, and start being a forumgoer who wants to tell us EXACTLY, and IMMEDIATELY, what the ****ing problem is, and SUGGEST. SOMETHING. TO FIX IT.

Hold on one minute, I don't think that's fair in the slightest.
I never sided on anybody's side in fact I warned people earlier in this thread not to make it about one person. I also deleted posts that were inflammatory about him as did other mods.

It wasn't until he said that he had no intention of doing anything himself and casually dismissing other efforts that I called him out on trolling, and the reason I did that was because as a moderator I was under the impression that pointing out when someone was crossing the line was my job. I did it to others earlier in the thread and now I was doing it to him.

I don't see how any of this is sided against a newcomer.

He's NOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTT AAAAAAAAA NEWWWWCOMMMMMMMERRRRRRRRRR

I know he isn't I don't see the point in arguing something that really isn't an issue just for the sake of it.

GB, calm down dude :p:

Yes, it can. To prevent situations like this from arising in the future, I suggested that moderators give warnings not to let things escalate. I suggest that they do not openly take any side or call anyone a troll because it will only fuel the conflict. Doing so may be okay when it is a clear cut case, but this has too much greys in it.

A moderator calling someone a troll and not acting on it undermines that moderators authority. When a mod calls someone a troll, I think it should be a near undeniable fact that the person is, in fact, a troll and that appropriate and just moderation is about to happen.

I also suggested that people should be more aware of how their actions here may either escalate or soften a conflict. Like others here have said, be the change. Take the high road now and then. Help make MB friendlier. Is this irrelevant and derailing?

Sopsych this and Sopsych that. Can we leave the guy out of it from now on? My arguments don't really need Sopsych. His situation can be used to illustrate a point, but as I've pointed out to you a number of times, it's about principles and what members and mods can do. I can use other non-Sopsych drama examples in the future to illustrate the exact same points.

Your observations seem to be neglecting some key points:

1. The member is not a newcomer. They're someone that changed their name. Their join date and post count should be sufficient for discerning this information.

2. Other members resort to frustration after multiple attempted reasoning fails, and since other members are ALSO PART OF THE COMMUNITY, their input is just as valid. Whether their reactions are acceptable or not is really the question here, but we cannot question their reactions without also questioning why those reactions take place in context with the situation, which isn't simply that someone has an unpopular opinion, and IS that such a person is joining a COMMUNITY debate about behaviors where such a person frames their position in such a way as to be progressively antagonistic in response to the community not agreeing. Perception is just as important as intent, and you seem to be disregarding the wider perception because you're not seeing past your own. I challenge you to make an assumption about community reactions had Sopsych framed his debate in a way people would be receptive to, rather than defensive to. And you cannot simply fault the defensive reactions without also faulting the causal factors. It works both ways. For instance, you are framing your position in a way that does not antagonize others, yet you are pushing an unpopular opinion. It should be obvious why you're getting a different reception, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you're Tore. If you had the same attitude that Sopsych has displayed, you'd be getting the same reactions he did, whether that's a failure of behavior or not.

3. Moderators can have their own opinions, and the fact that they might line up with the majority of people in a discussion does not mean what you're making it out to mean. I understand why you would make such a correlation in favor of your own bias, however, it should be pretty clear that an unpopular opinion is simply going to be unpopular for the majority, just like yours is right now. The only reason your posts are moved to their own thread is because they're framed along the discussion of this thread as intended, and are not antagonistic, in reference to the perception of the community, which is what mods are here to look after. If the entire community was in here on the same lines as Sopsych and yourself, then and only then could you point at unfairly defensive moderator behavior looking out for their own interests. You know we're not robots, and we are also part of the community. Just because we happen to align ideologically with the majority points only to statistical probability, not subversive behaviors. And, also, it should be noted that this is a discussion that really requires moderators to be a part of, so our positions are relevant here in the broader discussion.

4. Situation escalates to the point where a moderator felt the need to separate a divergence in discussion from spoiling the intent of a post. Which clearly has not been effective. The ineffectiveness of it is the only thing you can fault here, and it's on all of our heads.

If we want to discuss how to improve this place, anyone that knows anything about how people react to criticism should be careful to make sure that their efforts don't undercut their intentions, and this goes for all sides. We would all be better off if we focused on what we can do better, rather than what we're doing wrong. The sooner this happens, the more receptive individuals will be to the kind of discussion we really need to be having here.

Labelling him as troll is what I think of as siding against him.

This post above is one I wholeheartedly agree with.


I think regarding how you guys moderate, I wish members in general had more respect for the rules and the moderators here. I think you guys labelling people as trolls just as any other member might without there being any visible consequences to that labelling, that undermines your authority. I also think that when you ask the community how you should moderate in a given situation, that also undermines your authority. Instead of decisive authority, we see insecurity. Moderators gain authority and respect by being decisive and fair.

I am sorry if this offends. I'm just being honest here. I think one of the reasons why it is difficult to moderate here is that there basically are few rules and guidelines that tell you how to do the job. New mods are given their position and are expected to figure it out. Different mods moderate with different approaches and overall, it seems a little inconsistent .. perhaps even a bit unpredictable - and far too lenient.

I think a more secure, visible and defined stance regarding rules and more consistent approach to moderation will give more respect to rules and moderators. A good place to start could be to define some rules and guidelines you guys can agree on. Some protocol that you abide by and which tells you how to do the job. A higher level of authority that you can refer to, if you will, and which might give you some rules to go by in situations so that you are no longer insecure about what to do and how to approach things.

Unless I've missed something I have only seen moderators ask him to stop trolling the thread. I've not seen one call him an actual troll.

There's no reason to call someone a troll. We can just ban them, since it's against the rules.
However, if we don't want to be so drastic, it's a bit hard to tell someone to stop trolling by avoiding the "T word". Using such terminology is effective because everyone knows what it means and you don't have to go any further. If a mod thinks someone is trolling, they will say so and that will be a warning before any further steps are needed.

I don't see why it's necessary for a mod to have to beat around the bush in this regard. If we think you're trolling, we tell you to stop trolling. Trying to be "PC" about something like this is ridiculous.

Also, if mods aren't supposed to "side against" anyone by calling them out on a problem, then I guess our jobs are useless.

Difficult sentence :p:

I don't want to refer to the previous situation out of respect for the anger and irritation it causes in some others as well as wish for that anger to not further blind people to my points.

So instead, let's say Hitler is here and I troll him because I think he's a douche. If I troll, I accept that and am prepared to take responsibility for it. I would accept it if a moderator took some punitive action against my trolling. If my trolling of Hitler contributed to derailing a thread, then the derailment of that thread is on my conscience too. I can't blame Hitler for my own actions. I don't want moderators who blame Hitler for my actions.

If Hitler breaks rules, I should report him. If he is a continuing disturbance on the forum, I can express those views as long as I act within the rules. I can also tell the moderators about how I feel. In any case, it is their job to deal with Hitler, not mine.

I am hoping that by using this example, I am making clear the point that it doesn't really matter who it is I'm trolling or why. It could be the world's biggest asshole. The point is I should be held responsible for my own actions. I want to be held responsible for my own actions and if I do troll, I like to think that it is a choice that I take while knowing and accepting the consequences that choice may entail.

That was my point. Accountability and responsibility where it is due.

edit :

Again, this seems defensive and like it misrepresents. For example, I am not suggesting mods don't take sides. They take the side of the rules they should enforce. What I am suggesting is that moderators moderate members rather than argue with them. If you have a problem with Sopsych, give him warnings in a PM, not in a public thread because that will only rouse more anger towards him which again will be disruptive. And why would you argue with a member about whether or not he trolls? It is your call to make. If the moderators join in in singling out a person, even if that person is wrong, moderators behaving that way may unintentionally legitimize anger or even condone acts like trolling or name calling. For example, if moderators ask a person publically to stop trolling, then they have established that the official stance of the mods is that this person is a troll. That does have an effect on the social interactions here.

I'm not sure what to make of this analogy, but you know that in our rules we have a stipulation about people inciting others into breaking rules. In this case, we would not only place responsibility on the rule breaker, but the person intentionally antagonizing another into such an action.

Simply being an icon of being hated, or whatever that might be in this community is definitely not inciting, as you obviously know since HHBH is still here. But there's a difference between being unpopular and using that unpopularity in order to antagonize.
The problem is, how do we determine whether they're doing that or not? Well, we simply look at that person's interactions over a period of time and make a judgement call. There's no hard science to this, and part of our duties as mods are to make those judgement calls. Fortunately, we also have a resource and it's the community. We can base our judgement calls on what kind of effect a person is having on the majority. And since the community as a whole is what we're here to protect, it's very hard for us to feel guilty about doing what's better for it, and I, for one, do not apologize for looking out for the community as a whole.

So, really, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, unless you're trying to say that people here are trolling Sopsych, to which, the only instance I've seen was deleted appropriately.

The point about accountability was one I tried to make pages ago, but which has so far only been met with misunderstanding as far as I can tell.

The reason I brought it up is that when we discuss drama, hostility and how it arises in our community, it doesn't really help us to simply blame other people. When we contribute to that drama, we can't simply focus on what other people have said and done. We also have to look at how we behave. We have to accept that we are parts of the dramatic machinery and take some responsibility in regards to that fact.

I would agree with this. We shouldn't be arguing, but instead should be just handing out punishments for whatever crimes.
But the thread was meant to be a discussion between everyone. How will the mods, who are also members, make their positions known on the issue we're trying to solve, if we're not allowed to point them out?

Of course, it's still a thread that's under the scope of our rules, so we still have to enforce them. But of all places, we wanted this to be a place where we could discuss ideas. Unfortunately, it got out of hand, which was why the thread split. There's your example of moderators moderating.

Regarding your troll thing... let me use my own analogy.

If a person walks into a store and steals an item, then someone yells "shop lifter!" and he gets caught, are they wrong for doing that? Are they socially stigmatizing the shop lifter? After all, they did shop lift. Like you said, it's down to the personal responsibility of those taking an action. Others should not be penalized for enforcing a rule by calling a goat a goat, rather than a hair 4-legged mammal with horns.

Having jsut watched Match of the Day, can I try to frame this in a football context?

Let's say we're all in a team. They're doing okay; not great, mid-table maybe, possibly sliding closer to the relegation zone. (This is soccer, American members use your own interpretations. It amounts to the same basic thing) Manager calls all the team --- subs and all --- in and asks for ideas. Lots of guys have them. A player, let's call him Joe, is known for not having played much and not been involved in many matches. He's never been on a winning side. He thinks the team sucks. He's simmering.

When asked, he says he has some great talents if only someone would give him a chance on the pitch. Boss says ok, put your money where your mouth is. You're on next Saturday. Joe says okay, BUT I get to choose the team, I set the strategy, I'll accept no red or yellow cards or any decisions against me. Oh yeah, and I want the whole board changed to people I want running the club. THEN I'll play, and you'll see us win the Premiership.

What do you think happens? Think he gets to play, or that he's back on the bench, preferably on the transfer list?

Not terribly accurate I know, but it gives you an idea of the frustration we feel when one member --- and one only --- constantly puts down everything we do, nixes all ideas and suggestions, laughs at our efforts to improve the place while doing absolutely nothing himself.

You're playing week in week out with this guy. How would you feel? Honestly. And let me add, the whole team has explained the situation to him many many times but he just won't listen, so don't say you'd sit down and talk to him. It's been tried.

And in a broader sense, how good do you think having him in the team is for morale, and therefore performance?

Tore, you HAVE to hold sop responsible for this: he's the only one who has created the drama. People didn't jump on him right away; that came later after we had got tired of listening to his endless rants, sulks and refusal to face any sort of fact, while inventing his own to suit his agenda.

And again I realise that had the other thread stayed open, we would all be in there rather than here. So what is the answer? If people ignore sop what's that going to achieve? Nobody's gonna agree with him just to keep the peace, and he's already demonstrated that he's the type of person who will browbeat, or try to, anyone who gives him an inch. So he's not getting an inch. Or a centimetre, if you prefer. There's no reason on this good green Earth why the behaviour of people who have hitherto been innocent of any drama should be called into question, and his behaviour brushed under the carpet, the blame shifted and the whole situation skewed to make him the victim.

Of course you're allowed to point them out! I do think that admitting the difficulties you have with moderating undermines your authority, but on the other hand it is better to talk about problems so that we can come up with solutions.

I don't think your analogy is that great in that it's not illegal to call someone shop lifter, but it is "illegal" to troll here. But regardless, using your analogy, if shouting "'shop lifter!" is going to cause others in the shop to attack that person violently and trigger a fight, then it would be better to simply send a message to the potentially omnipresent police force so they can sort it out quietly. There's less chance of innocent bystanders getting hurt or traumatized and justice still gets served.

In other words, people should report!

I am not suggesting we brush disruptive elements under the carpet. But dealing with them - or getting rid of them - is a job for moderators, not members. If we heckle anyone off the forums, we should own up to heckling. It's that simple.

What sort of system of justice do you get if you hold people responsible for other people's actions? It's like the Dubais thread over again - putting someone in jail because someone else raped them. It's like a guy getting punished because someone stole his wallet. The guy who got his wallet stolen may be Hitler, but it's still about the principle of the thing. Without principles, we have no standards. Without standards, we have no moral integrity. Without integrity, you won't earn the respect you need in order to efficiently enforce rules.

In other words, I am not defending you-know-who as much as I am trying to point out that we have to take responsibility for what we choose to say and do.

Agreed, but the trump card is that moderators still have the authority whether or not it's undermined in some people's perspectives. And when we come up with solutions, we'll still have the authority to ensure those solutions are enforced. Sometimes letting people know that we're all humans with the same desires and limitations is better than making them think the authority is some unreasonable, unquestionable force outside the realm of collaboration. Especially when the mods here are very much members here who also have to live in the same environment.
It's not illegal to call someone out for trolling on these boards. It's "illegal" to troll. Just as it's not illegal to call out someone for shoplifting, but it's illegal to shoplift. I'm not sure why you didn't make that connection.

And regarding the other bit, while I would also recommend reporting, which most people do, in threads where the discussion actually involves the behavior, it isn't outrageous for people to let another person know what they think is going on, as it is relevant to the issue being discussed.

I just don't get it. Are you now saying that because we responded to nasty behaviour by sop that we should be held responsible, but not that he should be held to account for his behaviour?? To echo your own question, what kind of justice system is that?

And did you read my football analogy? What do you think of the situation when placed in that context?

Also, this thread has pulled mods' attention away from approving my latest post in "Classic Albums I have never heard" and... and .... it's ....
SLAYER! :D

Two points

1. I agree with GB, to the final syllable
2. The mods, all of them, have my earnest respect. I've been a moderator of another type of board (that also used vBulletin,) under times of member unrest, it is an absurdly difficult, thankless job and an impossible balancing act, and I think they're doing a great job. And I couldn't give a microparticle of a rubbery FUCK if anyone wants to call me a brown noser, I've been there and I'm really remembering those days right now. They're doing a fantastic job.

TH, I think you-know-who has to face the consequences of his actions for which he is accountable just like we all do.

Yes, indeed. My point is really just that the perception of the moderators influences how people behave. If they are respected or even feared, their presence alone in a thread could discourage rule breaking, just like you probably wouldn't want to do anything illegal under the gaze of a police officer.

Having more respect for your authority as moderators may improve behaviour around here in general.

In my own example, I specifically used myself trolling Hitler as an example of an action that I have to take responsibility for. Trolling, not calling Hitler a troll. I assumed you were making an analogy that you felt would be relevant in pretty much the exact same way.

The thing is, we have no problem with the ability to enforce the rules. It's that when we do, the complaints go from one arena to another. The issue is balancing this, not simply taking a hard line... not if we want a community that can feel free enough to discuss things comfortably, but also be personally responsible for not taking things too far. And I think this is not in the hands of solely the moderators, but the community in general, which you seem to be absolving any responsibility for.

But ultimately, this is beside the point. The original discussion presented here was about the community itself being prone to more drama than music. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that removing the source of drama is well within our abilities and should be well within our priorities. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be black and white, across the board. It just needs to be contextual, and we just need to balance decisions carefully, not haphazardly in an effort to become "feared", at the cost of expression.

When your analogy is placed against Sopsych trolling, it reinforces my point, which is why I was unsure what you were actually trying to say.

I too have seen the red text used for public notices, and I like it. Editing out inappropriate content would encourage third parties to police themselves and sometimes would reduce the need for deletions and the drama they can cause. Also, I like tore's suggestion of gradual implementation. I think changes should take place slowly, with formal punishment (infractions and bans) not possible for a while. Things could even be rolled out one sub-forum at a time, and perhaps at first some editing should only happen if members Report misbehavior. I don't want more bans around here.

The hard part is deciding to how to de-gray the gray. I think images are the first place to start. It should no longer be okay to post images to insult or mock members. Including posting pictures of trolls. In addition, it should not be okay to publicly accuse someone of trolling (in that case, the red text should be like "Please report that, with evidence, to a moderator instead of saying it here"). Another suggestion is to delete posts that publicly celebrate others' attacking words

An even harder part is that moderators would have to refrain from doing any of those bad things themselves. Otherwise, credibility would be damaged and people would disregard the rules.

I've been waiting to hear other ideas re post #355.

Generally speaking, I think the best way to get good behaviour is by encouraging good behaviour. I have the naive, positive belief that if people are allowed to become closer as friends, they will be friendlier. Maybe members meeting up in real life or hanging out on plug.dj or chatting with eachother over Skype would make people friendlier. I think it's too bad MB can't do more to facilitate that (ex. have a skype/plug.dj-ish chatroom as part of the site). If you have a simple karma system that allows you to +1 members for good posts, perhaps that could contribute to things getting friendlier.

People behave in part according to the environment they find themselves in and in this simple forum solution, there are not that many ways of promoting good behaviour besides moderation. I know I'm repeating myself here and sorry if you've heard it before, but I think a change of environment could lead to an environment with less need for strict moderation in order to achieve general niceness.

As MB is now, more power to more decisive and stricter mods seem to be the most feasible way of getting a more friendly environment in my opinion, but I wish there were better ways.

edit :

It may be social suicide ;) But I generally agree with this.