I agree, and the fact that the angle doesn't only point one way is a major reason we need collaboration on this.

I completely get that, and that would suck. I, for one, would not be able to deal with the stuff you have to put up with on a daily basis because I can't stand pointless drama, so I really do feel for you.

My intentions were not to be "on your case" about anything and I certainly didn't "jump on you." You took my post as offensive when I was in fact just commenting on the whole discussion scenario involving a plethora of other members, rather than YOUR personal actions as a mod :( That's what saddens me, posts are being responded to so defensively (not just my post, but others posts and other posters) and I think that is part of the problem.

I wonder how things would be different if people stopped immediately looking for a reason to respond to posts with such hostility. Like I said, no one on this forum intends to cause such drama so why are we constantly seeking it? It sucks.

I agree with this. I understand some sort of action was needed and perhaps it had to be a choice between different evils and finding the lesser one. What's sad is that our members get riled up to the point where that is necessary.

I agree. And not only does it discourage Sopsych from posting, it discourages me from posting as well and, I would assume, other people.

I agree with these points as well :)

I agree, Sopsych's posts are generally on topic. He hasn't broken any rules that I've seen. What derails the thread are people's reactions towards him.

I won't claim I always do it, but I feel like I quite often write responses in which my intention is to soften or at least not escalate hostilities. Sometimes, I got the perfect nasty retort in my mind :p: but I know posting it will only make matters worse and so I don't.

Some very good points here that I think hint at the root of it all. The culture here is a result of the environment here. We can't just flip the switch, as you mention. We have to create an environment which fosters a social culture where people moderate their own replies more when they want to post in anger.

The only way to do that, I think, is by moderation. I think moderation is also the only way by which Vegangelica's list of points could be achieved.

What's ironic is that you now worry that your post has caused offense and you now have a bad conscience.

I get that. Sometimes, a situation demands action and there are no good alternatives. Any action is bound to cause a negative response. It's sad that the job is like that.

A lot of the MB drama is a result of anger on the forums. I wonder, why are people so quick to anger here? Is it because we've been here too long and got too comfortable and now feel a sense of entitlement to get angry whenever we want? Or is it because it is an effective weapon in the social competitions around here?

Something many may not consider much is that anger is a way to control a social situation. When people get angry with me, it is usually because they take offense at something I write as part of a discussion. We're discussing with rational arguments, but then it suddenly turns hostile with ensuing name calling etc. What happens then is the rules of the game changes. Instead of trying to win the discussion using reason, it is now about ridiculing eachother. Or it can be about sabotaging the entire discussion. Maybe the one taking offense wasn't able to win a discussion with rational arguments so they decide, consciously or unconsciously, to take the discussion to a different level or sabotage it altogether with some "righteous anger". Perhaps what's important is suddenly not the point being argued, but how the arguments make others feel.

So I think a lot of the forum anger are attempts at controlling the discussions.

The Sopsych situation here is a result of the same. Some members here don't like Sopsych who is a newcomer here with provocative opinions and so they start to act out. The goal of many of those angry posts will be to derail the thread, cause a ruckus, and hopefully blame everything on Sopsych. When a moderator comes in and bans Sopsych or otherwise take some action against him, then that goal is achieved.

This goes on a lot around here. Do you mods realize how you are being used/played?

Look up the rules on baiting. Sopsych's posts being on topic isn't the issue. The issue is not that he has a negative opinion that others don't agree with. It's the fact that the way he is interacting/communicating with people and not even paying attention the points they are making when they have made them numerous times in various different ways. It is almost like talking to a child and re-telling them in different ways why they can't have said toy. I'm just using that as an example. I'm not calling Sopsych a child just that his behavior exhibits it at times.


It's strange how much you defend Sopsych and I definitely feel like it's because of how much he praises you. It's something that you are doing subconciously. I know you aren't the vain type and you probably don't notice you are doing it but the main issue with Sopsych who is NOT a newcomer. He's been around since 2011 with this same rhetoric. He has worn down people's patience for him. A large majority of the time he only shows up when issues like this thread is going on to criticize the mods and talk about how they aren't doing their job up to his standards. He also states which mods that he doesn't like and feels like they should be a mod in general. I really don't understand how you guys can't tell who Sopsych really is based off of that last part but I won't go into wild speculation here. Sure, he has made some music posts because he has 600 something odd posts but look at his posting history and the posts that he has made in different threads. Do some research and you will find all the answers that you need.

He's not a new member. He's been here for two and a half years. It looks like you've only noticed him now that he's spent a whole thread praising you to the heavens, but believe me he's been antagonizing people and derailing threads for quite a long time. People are tired of it, that's why you see the responses that you see. I mean don't you think it's a little odd that even someone like Fred, who gets along with everyone, has chimed in and told him to knock it off?

Do you realize how you are? Just because he blows smoke up your ass doesn't mean he's worth defending.

We're not talking about trolls through, we're talking about people like Trollheart or Unknown Soldier and others like them who are really making an effort to post some good stuff and who have never been an issue in regards to their conduct in all the years that they have been members of the forum. And they are getting frustrated over a guy who continually dismisses their efforts yet openly says he has no intention of contributing to the forum himself.

You are welcome to your opinion but I feel in this case you are totally wrong. When members who have never been any trouble to moderate and who are always respectful to other members start getting annoyed about someone that's a clear sign you need to do something about it.

Jans, even if you forget about Sopsych or step back in time a little, I think my post is just as valid. People use drama and anger to control discussions here and sometimes, getting mods involved is a part of that tactic. Members sometimes want to escalate things to the point where mods have to intervene.

Rather than just disregard my argument because you think I have smoke blown up my ass, do you really think this does not happen?

edit :

It is okay to get annoyed of course. I just think that trolling (ex. as it is against the rules) is not okay, even when it's a productive, long time member doing it against someone unpopular. Sometimes, it is important that the same rules apply to everyone.

In your post now, it seems your attitude is excusing towards the behaviour of members who have been here long and are generally productive. I have also been here long, but I am willing to admit that I may need a reminder on how I should act around here now and then and I accept that telling me is part of the responsiblity that comes with the mod job.

Yes, I agree that people do indeed to that. In fact that's very much the MO of the person we are discussing. Notice how, despite my attempt to remove the derail, he still succeeded in making the conversation focus on him.

I'm not saying I excuse it.
I'm saying I would take a look at why it was happening.

We have some site rules. They basically lay down the ground rules for the interactions that go on here.

From what I can tell, he operates within the rules, but the people who get upset with him have often been breaking them. Rules were broken in order to escalate the situation. As enforcers of the rules, what should you do?

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Sopsych. No really, I don't. But people doing so should still be expected to stick to the rules.

Tore, I love ya man but I have to agree you're being blinded here to what sopsych is doing. He hasn't offered a single solution that doesn't come with a condition, he seems to think that everyone is waiting with bated breath for his mythical "great threads" and telling us he won't make these legendary threads unless we change things the way HE wants them changed, and he's restating the same points over and over again. He really seems to have a thing about some mods. TBH --- and just to make it clear, I do NOT think this is the case but just hypothetically --- he's so "into" you as a mod that were I not sure it was not the case I might think he was your sock puppet: it's that odd. He has nothing bad to say about you -- and neither do I --- and that's fine, but mods like Pedestrian, Jansz, Vanilla don't seem to matter to him, and you know and I know the incredible job they're doing.

I personally think the derail split thread was a great idea, though I did notice and say here that unfortunately it ended up pulling all the discussion from here before it was closed, so perhaps didn't have the expected or desired effect. But it was I think a good idea, an attempt to calm things down and return the thread to its topic. Let's not forget that duga started this but it also ended up being taken over by Sop.

I'd like also to take issue with Veg (welcome back by the way but): why do you always stand up for the aggressor, or I guess you'd say the underdog, without considering the other side? It's all very well to say so-and-so is being victimised but if you take the time to do your research into that person you'll see he or she has brought this upon him or herself, and I think it's grossly unfair to suddenly paint them as the injured party without any balance on the other side. Sop has been crying about change here for at least months but hasn't done a single thing to achieve it, then when people do he sneers at their efforts. He ignores salient points and dismisses others, and repeats his mantra like a robot. It's hard to have patience with someone like that. I think you're a great debater but you should really try to focus your, shall we say, defending, upon those who actually deserve it. Not everyone who you see as being oppressed here is a victim; some make their own bed and you shouldn't be helping them sort it.

It's very frustrating for members who want to enjoy this site to have someone constantly complain without offering solutions, and worse to have someone then say, effectively, there there, did the nasty members upset you? Never mind: I'll stand up for you. That's all very fine and good if they deserve it, but sop has by now used up every reserve of sympathy and patience most if not all of us here have, so to come on at this late stage and start defending him makes me wonder: have you read the whole thread through? Do you know what you're dealing with, and what you're trying to defend?

Yes and my point is that arguing an unpopular opinion is not against the rules. Trolling is.

Here we've been discussing how the forums tend to be clicky and full of drama and hostilities. But what about this situation then? Isn't the conflict between members here and Sopsych also indicative of the very problems that this thread is meant to bring up? Yes, indeed it is. It seems obvious to me.

But instead of realizing that is is, most seem more interested in simply placing all blame on Sopsych. How can we turn this into a friendlier environment if even the people discussing the problem suddenly can't see it when face to face with it in the very thread meant to bring it up?

I agree

Yet you're insisting that some members have been trolling, a lot of those members would say that Sopsych is trolling.

I have told both sides to stop and have deleted posts to deal with this.
This clearly hasn't solved the problem

So I'll ask the same question I asked in the other thread that nobody answered.
Do I get rid of the bunch of members that are contributing who are getting fed up of having all their efforts dismissed?
Or do I get rid of the person that's dismissing all those efforts and has openly said that they have no intention of doing anything positive?

That's how things are right now.

Yes, we have rules, including a rule against trolling, as you well know. Should people be allowed to break that rule as long as they praise you personally or do think it should be enforced?

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.

I think his opinions are genuine opinions that he holds. I don't think his goal is to irritate. He just voices his opinions here like others do.

I think you call it trolling when it really isn't because defining it as trolling gives you more power over it.

edit :

Moderate when the rules are being broken. Ask people to calm down when tempers get high. Perhaps you can mention that there is always the option of placing someone on the ignore list. Try not to get involved in the drama and don't resort to name-calling like openly calling a member a troll. You're only making yourself an active participant in the troubles you should prevent.

By not simply enforcing the rules, you are moderating from the point of view of your personal interests rather than the set of rules and guidelines that we're all meant to follow - and which you are meant to enforce.

If going into a thread about making the forum a better place and saying openly you have no intention of doing just that isn't trolling then I don't know what is.

Huh?
Did I not just say

'I have told both sides to stop and have deleted posts to deal with this.
This clearly hasn't solved the problem.'

I don't really see how that has anything to do with personal interests.

I call it trolling because it's trolling. Pretty simple really.

asking someone to calm down or saying relax/chill out when tempers get high especially publicly has a tendency to make people more agitated. I think this should be done in private through PMs.

I agree that "being the change" can make sense, but in this case I don't think it is enough. I don't know why Sopsych doesn't want to try, but I can think of reasons why I think it is not a lasting solution.

This is a harsh comparison because I generally enjoy MB and the community here, but being the change right now is something I generally see as a way to treat the symptom, but not the disease. It is better to treat the disease and the symptoms will disappear and you won't need to hold them in check with constant effort from every member on the forums.

The rules say trolls should be moderated. You suggest getting rid of the person who is getting trolled rather than the trolls. This is not in accordance with the rules, so what is it?

In your opinion he's being trolled.
In mine he's just as guilty as anyone.
so it goes back to my original question.

Considering the attack he's been under, I'm surprised he hasn't acted out more.

Tore, plenty of people have already engaged with him reasonably. you can dress this up as "anger to create power over the conversation" all you like, but the simple fact of it is he has a clear anti-mod agenda and mercilessly pursues it to the point of an absolute, abject refusal to even address the positive efforts made by others that are already making possible the change he insists isn't happening.

this has gone on long enough and as people, not arbiters of some rigid set of rules,we have to recognise that sop is the disruptive party,the one causing this particular problem, and moreover, the one who should be removed from the conversation until such time as he can actually take part in it without coming across as a condescending,holier than thou, baiting troll.

I've now gone back through the thread and read every post by him. I see he has some rather radical ideas, like the idea that mods should be voted for and that in order for them to stay on, they have to be re-chosen every year. He writes moderators should not participate in forum drama. He writes that he doesn't want to create more music threads in the current environment because they are likely to be subjected to bad behaviour. He suggests that moderators should delete replies which only consists of a picture.

They may be extreme opinions, but they don't seem particularly provocative or offensive to me. None of them seem trolly to me. It is not a requirement here that noone takes offense at our opinions, is it? It is clear that he thinks the current system doesn't work, but while most of us may think of the changes he suggests as a bit excessive, isn't the whole point of this thread rooted in that somehow the way things are done here does not prevent drama, hostility and clickyness?

In his first post, Duga writes the following :

Does this make Duga a condescending, holier than thou, baiting troll? What about me? I don't think our mods have been good at preventing drama, hostility and clicky behaviour lately either and I think they should protect Sopsych from getting trolled just as much as they should protect me or you from getting trolled. Or anyone else for that matter. I also think some of the mods have been mods for too long. It's a job that tires you out over time. You lose interest. For that reason, I think changing mods more often can be a good idea. Not to mention I think we should all move to a new site.

Does that make me a condescending, holier-than-thou, baiting troll with an agenda too?

I want to discuss these things seriously. If people take offense at everything and act on that, then we can't.

I find it amazing how all the Sopsych related threads were pulled from here to start a separate thread for him, so this could go back to how it should be. Since then that thread for Sopsych has been closed down and this one has gone back to being s Sopsych thread again :laughing:

After all that's occurred, shouldn't the guy be given an ultimatum now to either 1) Desist from his gripe on this thread and accept things how they are or 2) Go about creating some of the so-called more interesting threads that he feels the forum needs.

For me, the problem is not his opinions. It's how he keeps reiterating them after members have said they won't work for technical reasons or that they don't agree. It hasn't gotten through, it seems, and to keep saying the same things over again and ask questions that have continuously been answered by other members and moderators time and again IS trolling, in my honest opinion. The whole "schtick" (as Fred has put it) has become a farce now. Attempts by other members like Dr. Rez, AwwSugar, Trollheart, et al to create threads and foster and encourage music discussion is not all smoke and mirrors like Sopsych thinks.

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.

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.

My interest in Sopsych now is that I think the situation with him in a way illustrates the point of this thread. Our community is full of cliquey drama and hostility. It is us who make up the community who make it like that. How is it we collectively achieve that? Do we realize what part of our behaviour it is which causes things to be that way?

We have to be analytical and here's a situation to analyze.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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 :

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

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.

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 :love: :D

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 :p:)

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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!

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"
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!"

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!

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.

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.

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

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!"

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.

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!"

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!"

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"
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.

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!"

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.

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!"


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

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!"

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!"

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!"

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"!"

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

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

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!"

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!"

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?