The Constructive Ideas Thread

[Trollheart]

It's not fun at all, Lisna! You think about it: do you really want a rampaging bunch of ancient resurrected threads that can't be stopped bursting into your house, holding you hostage, taking all the music knowledge from your brain and then discarding you as they run off to search for other vulnerable members? I know I'm glad I have a shotgun! Any thread older than a year that tries to get through MY door is gettin' both barrels!

[Burning Down]

Speaking of ancient threads, some newb or someone else has been going around reviving polls that were last posted in like 7 years ago. Is there a way to stop those threads from being bumped?

[Paedantic Basterd]

Originally Posted by Burning Down

Speaking of ancient threads, some newb or someone else has been going around reviving polls that were last posted in like 7 years ago. Is there a way to stop those threads from being bumped?

Can a mod still close the polls on old threads?

[Burning Down]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Can a mod still close the polls on old threads?

Yeah, as well as just locking the thread. It's just annoying because they can't all be closed at the same time. Maybe I'm just lazy lol

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Burning Down

Speaking of ancient threads, some newb or someone else has been going around reviving polls that were last posted in like 7 years ago. Is there a way to stop those threads from being bumped?

^ Yes, those threads that get bumped just because someone adds a vote are kind of annoying.

Originally Posted by Trollheart

It's not fun at all, Lisna! You think about it: do you really want a rampaging bunch of ancient resurrected threads that can't be stopped bursting into your house, holding you hostage, taking all the music knowledge from your brain and then discarding you as they run off to search for other vulnerable members? I know I'm glad I have a shotgun! Any thread older than a year that tries to get through MY door is gettin' both barrels!

^ Yeah, perhaps you´re right -it´ll only take a couple of us to be bitten by a zombie thread and we´ll all end up shuffling around like, well, like zombies.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Burning Down

Speaking of ancient threads, some newb or someone else has been going around reviving polls that were last posted in like 7 years ago. Is there a way to stop those threads from being bumped?

I remember this gripe from a year ago or two years ago or one and two years ago. It basically ended with people asking if poll updates could be made to not bump threads, but of course that's a technical change so therefore impossible.

[VEGANGELICA]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

I think what she means is using "troll" to invalidate someone's response is different than saying they're trolling at a point in time.

Erica please tell me if I'm getting this wrong.

You understood me perfectly, Hufflepuffster.

More specifically, I feel it helps the site greatly when moderators don't let members gang up like a lynch mob on another member and call him a troll to invalidate his responses because those members don't see the value in his opinions and want to squelch them.

Also, I feel the more polite that moderators can be while dealing with people whom they feel are violating a rule (whether trolling, or disrupting the community in some way), the better it is for the site. When moderators do feel someone is trolling or disruptive, I really applaud the times when they remain polite in their public responses to members and don't try to shame them.

I imagine that staying emotionally detached and rather impersonal as a moderator can be hard to do when frustrated and feeling criticized, but I think that such moderation best encourages people to share their opinions at MB.

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

We do act on blatant name calling, as soon as someone does it they're either warned to tone it down or given an infraction.

The problem isn't that we're not acting on this, the problem is people are exploiting grey areas to get away with it.

Let's say for example you post something and I reply 'I don't think you know what you're talking about' then gone of to say why and then ended the post saying 'LOL Vegans' I've not actually done any namecalling, I've also gone on to say why I disagree with you in the proper way, some might say the post is hostile in nature but others might say I'm just giving my opinion and that the little thing at the end is a harmless joke.

We're not psychic we don't know if people are going to respond well or badly to a joke and to eliminate any doubt we'd have to ban the whole forum from doing it.

The part in bold is great!

I'm concerned more about preventing outright name calling rather than implied putdowns, but I can see how the gray areas are difficult and next to impossible to moderate, yet can lead to escalating tension and ill feelings among people.

Do you and other moderators feel that the moderation team might benefit from having a clearer, agreed upon way of dealing with issues you face here, such as how to reduce tensions/drama?

For example, if I'm understanding Janszoon correctly, he doesn't feel that preventing people from calling a member a troll is something moderators should do, yet you yourself have deleted such posts, which I feel was a great example of moderation:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

The moderators aren't calling people trolls, not only that I seem to recall deleting posts from members that called yourself one as well.

^ I feel that your deleting posts by members who were calling another member a troll was the perfect decision to try to deescalate the increasing tension. Thank you, Urban.

[Burning Down]

I'm not ignoring the entire post but thought I would address this point first.

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

I'm concerned more about preventing outright name calling rather than implied putdowns, but I can see how the gray areas are difficult and next to impossible to moderate, yet can lead to escalating tension and ill feelings among people.

I think that members who feel the need to insult or do name calling really need to take a step back and learn some discipline. It's impossible for anyone here to predict when somebody is going to make an offensive remark in order to be able to prevent it from actually happening. If they do happen, they are swiftly dealt with as Urban stated. There is that gray area between complete censorship of negative opinions and freedom to express those opinions, and yes, this is what members tend to exploit, through baiting and instigation of drama starting with insulting remarks.

Again, it really comes down to self-discipline on the part of every member here.

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

You understood me perfectly, Hufflepuffster.

More specifically, I feel it helps the site greatly when moderators don't let members gang up like a lynch mob on another member and call him a troll to invalidate his responses because those members don't see the value in his opinions and want to squelch them.

When have you seen this happen in any instance where the offending member has not been summarily banned for being a troll? I can think of this happening with Dirty and Sopsych, and the reaction to start off with wasn't harmful - people only began calling them trolls when it became very clear that they were. The namecalling and outrage only ESCALATED, because the mod team were nowhere to be found and the troll in question continued to do exactly that.

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

Also, I feel the more polite that moderators can be while dealing with people whom they feel are violating a rule (whether trolling, or disrupting the community in some way), the better it is for the site. When moderators do feel someone is trolling or disruptive, I really applaud the times when they remain polite in their public responses to members and don't try to shame them.

You're just inviting the moderators to be ignored. They're not politicians. They don't live and die based on whether you think they're the nicest thing since sliced bread, their job is to stop trouble. They're not here to be your best buddy, the fact they're friends with us at all is a bonus.

I'm sick of people requesting the mod team be nicer and nicer and nicer and less and less confrontational. How forgiving do you want them to be? You saw the sopsych situation grow and spread out of all control until it dominated all chat on the forum, the plug.dj, and the thread was an unholy mess. It survived for over 40 pages and 7 whole days of ceaseless, fruitless argument and even when it WAS finally resovled the person at the center of it wasn't banned.

How about this? Instead of asking the mod team to be pandering, personalityless, weak-willed buffoons whose policy is to give everyone a million chances and ceaselessly champion the cause of doing nothing, we advise them to stand up and take responsibility for the job they're actually tasked with doing - Stopping trouble before it takes over and causes problems?

If anything should be clear, it is that right now the mod team is not doing that, possibly CANNOT do that, for fear of a major backlash over the idea they might actually enrage some of the self-entitled, arrogant fuckstains that this forum currently calls regulars.

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

I imagine that staying emotionally detached and rather impersonal as a moderator can be hard to do when frustrated and feeling criticized, but I think that such moderation best encourages people to share their opinions at MB.

The frustration you're talking about is roughly 80% Urban and Janszoon, pointing out in no uncertain terms, that the community here will backlash against anything they do because people are idiots and can't recognise what the mod team is actually supposed to do. People complain that people like Dirty get banned here. Can you understand how completely demotivating that is for the mod team, to see people arguing that Dirty should have been allowed to stay, to see them plead that he should be allowed back?

And the worst thing is that none of this actually gets taken onboard over time - There are people on this forum that to this day maintain they enjoyed having Dirty around. Why? HOW?

As a Mod, that must be the ultimate slap in the face - To have banned a member, who has then singularly demonstrated his ABSOLUTE unwillingness to contribute, his COMPLETE lack of morals, and his worryingly, SCARILY obsessed mindset, by having made SCORES, if not *HUNDREDS* of new accounts just to troll the **** out of these forums. - Over a TWO. YEAR. PERIOD. That's years, not days. Not Months. YEARS.

And then people ask you to get back in bed with the guy. They ask you to give him another chance. They say he wasn't that bad. They accuse you of doing your job badly for getting rid of him. Other people accuse you of doing your job badly because you didn't get rid of him MONTHS ago.

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

The part in bold is great!

I'm concerned more about preventing outright name calling rather than implied putdowns, but I can see how the gray areas are difficult and next to impossible to moderate, yet can lead to escalating tension and ill feelings among people.

What leads to escalating tension and ill feelings among people is this namby pamby, bleeding heart approach to conflict management. The mods can't ****ing DO anything, because someone like YOU, who has for literally YEARS been advocating the lesser and lesser efficacy of the mod team, always crops up to tell the mod team they're being too harsh, too unforgiving, too hardline.

That leads to this pathetic, messy state of affairs where the members themselves can scream blue murder at each other until they're blue in the face, yet the mod team can't do anything about it because they're not giving people enough chances, not letting people take responsibility for their own actions.

Stop suggesting the mod team needs to be nicer. Its complete, total bull****. What the mod team needs to do is get back to a position where someone, ANYONE on these forums has any respect for them. Right-Track never would have taken ANY of this **** about not banning people, and he's to this day the forums most loved mod or ex mod. Precisely because he knew what he was talking about, and didn't take ****. When RockGuitar101 tried to incite forum rebellion Right-Tracks response was to show him up as the charlatan he was. To mock him. To incite others to mock him. In one fell stroke he brought the forum together behind him before he swung his mighty mancunian axe down upon the head of the filthy troll, and the people REJOICED IN HIS BRUTALITY, CONFIDENT IN HIS RULE.

And the result was that it created what is to this day STILL the best thread anywhere on musicbanter.

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

Do you and other moderators feel that the moderation team might benefit from having a clearer, agreed upon way of dealing with issues you face here, such as how to reduce tensions/drama?

For example, if I'm understanding Janszoon correctly, he doesn't feel that preventing people from calling a member a troll is something moderators should do, yet you yourself have deleted such posts, which I feel was a great example of moderation:



^ I feel that your deleting posts by members who were calling another member a troll was the perfect decision to try to deescalate the increasing tension. Thank you, Urban.

The mod team hamstrings itself by attempting to kowtow to everyones ideas of how the mod team should run. Yes, they do need an agreed upon way of doing things, because the fact is the mod team we have right now is completely unable to act when needed, and instead shows up after dozens of pages of trolling have already taken place and everybody is already pissed off at everyone else. I think half of that is that half the mod team are way too passive and want to give people all the chances in the world, and the other half want to get **** done right the **** now. That's why people who are causing trouble seem to only get temp bans instead of perms, many days and pages too late into threads. - Because every ban is exactly what none of the mod team seems to want - a compromise that fixes nothing and takes so long to come to that nobody is happy.

[GuitarBizarre]

I should also point out, this whole discussion on whether members should be allowed to accuse each other of trolling, is so, so, so far away from being anything useful.



1 - People aren't complete wankers. They're not going to call someone a troll unless the person is actively participating in a debate in such a way that they are both disruptive and questionably sincere. Specifically, in their opinion, which they must hold confidently enough to MAKE THE ACCUSATION, the belief must be there that the other party cannot possibly be serious.

That isn't a decision people jump to to invalidate another's position, it's a position people take because they HAVE ALREADY TRIED MANY TIMES TO RECONCILE THE OTHER PERSONS ARGUMENT WITH LOGIC.

Yes, people who are butt**** stupid will call the wrong people trolls, HOWEVER, if it is clear to people that the person is NOT a troll (IE, Me being accused), then a simple warning that the accusation is wrong can be made by anyone on the forum and will hold EQUAL if not greater weight, than if that warning was made pre-emptively.

2 - To say someone is trolling, you are not throwing out some internet buzzword nobody understands or can reconcile with its meaning - It's not like accusing someone of being "A brainwashed cryptofascist apologist", where people might have no idea what that is or means. To say someone is trolling is a shorthand for saying one very simple thing:

"I believe that you are insincere in this debate, and out to cause trouble by adopting a stance calculated to offend others".

(I'll give everyone exactly one guess to think of a member who does that ABSOLUTELY ALL THE DAMNED TIME.)

To try and put a ban on people taking that position is to completely doom ourselves to a forum where nobody can be accused of seeking to cause trouble. Where the only method of even having that position taken into account, is the report button, so that the mod team can assume all authority over whether the user fits the bill of "troll".

That's not discussion. That's not self governance and it's not going to help one little tiny bit. (Unless you're actually a troll, in which case you're pretty much by the letter of the law being protected against anyone who might point this fact out in any manner which isn't carefully and specifically worded).

All it would do, in fact, is turn normal, reasonable members, into the bad guy, for voicing their opinions of a controversial or disruptive member. And in the process, it would take attention away from the actual problem of said controversial or disruptive member - IN OTHER WORDS, it sends the mods on wild goose chases to stop people being errantly mean to each other, in order to safeguard any special snowflakes feelings being hurt by mean people on the internet.

And all the while the people who are actually the damned problem get to play victim.