@Troll

So glad you got it man :)

you're right
this could easily have turned into an argument for the sake of an argument and we would still be going at it for no reason lol

And that's part of the problem, nobody is taking the highroad
we keep looking for sh*t to prolong the arguments and sometimes this ruins threads seriously, ive seen threads here were ppl attacking each other overshadows the subject of the very thread
And me as a semi noob not knowing the ppl involved in the argument see it as childish an unnecessary

For me i don't care how smart your insults are to the person at one point you need to drop it cause its not solving anything

i understand confrontation is bound to happen sometimes but we also need to let sh*t go at one point for the sake of a peaceful community

now i say "we" cause honestly i myself im not above it but i try to remind myself that i need to be above it.

@BD

that part was a generalisation and an assumption based of what ive seen here im not attacking anyone directly

I'd be fooking screwed then, wouldn't I? :rofl:

You know, I'm just as bloody guilty as you! I saw your comment and thought that was what you were talking about --- certain members, just the idea of criticism --- but decided to go with Francis's idea. So bad me for also jumping, and my apologies, BD.

On another note, your classical thread is jumpin'! Well done!

Here's another slightly derivative idea.
What about someone (nominate different person each week) choose a totally new and unheard album, regardless of genre, and then anyone who wishes to participate does the same and everyone gives their opinions, good bad or indifferent of the album? I know Chrysalis is doing something along those lines, but this would be an album nobody has heard. Preferably something brand new, like this year.

i like this idea as well, though i would prefer if the user wasn't nominated i would prefer if we arrange it by turn like we make a list of the ppl that want to participate and each week the next person gets the spotlight

Banning someone for one incidence of name-calling is excessive, I agree; however, I don't feel that calling some member a "troll" in public helps create a community where people will feel comfortable sharing their opinions, so I can understand why that other forum has put a stop to it.

I feel that name-calling, including labeling people as "trolls" on the boards, should not be allowed at MB. If a member decides he feels someone is a troll and starts labeling her as such, then I'd like a mod to delete his comment (he can always report his opinions to the mods in private), and remind him to refrain from name-calling (this would simply be a warning). If he did this *again*, then he would get an infraction. If he persists in using name-calling because he can't or won't control himself, then he'd get a second infraction. Third infraction would lead to a temporary 'hiatus' (temp. ban) of a week or whatever the mods usually would do after 3 infractions.

The word "trolling" is used in the rules, which say that "trolling" is not allowed, but this mention of trolling in the rules does not mean that people can or should go around accusing each other of being trolls on the boards.

I feel that accusing someone of being a troll is a type of flaming and is a much harsher indictment than saying you feel a person is trolling. If I say to someone, "You are a troll; you're worthless here on the boards, and all you do is stir up trouble," that is different than saying, "You do a lot of great things here, but sometimes I feel you are trolling people and trying to get a rise out of them."

I see at MB that people sometimes use the word "troll" to mock and devalue other members. This is the reason I feel MB members (who include mods) should not be allowed to call someone a troll on the boards when they want to disparage that person's opinions.

What mods say in private while discussing if a person is trolling is your business, but when those accusations spill out into posts about a member, I feel that just adds to the creation of a hostile environment.

Here is our community's first rule, for reference:

• While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, trolling, purposeless inflammatory posts or members deliberately provoking another member into committing any of these acts.

^ This is the one sentence that is supposed to prevent escalating hostilities on the site. It's open to a lot of different interpretations and can be context-specific and subjective. I recommend that mods and the community decide roughly what they feel constitutes "rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, trolling, purposeless inflammatory posts, or members deliberately provoking another member into committing any of these acts," because at present it isn't clear where the lines are.

For example, currently we don't have any rule specifically against name-calling. Usually I see mods calling people out for using name-calling.

Is calling someone a troll an example of name-calling? If not, why not?

There is no rule that we like each other here, but I interpret the intention of the first rule at MB as meaning that we should be civil with each other when we disagree. For me, that means criticize ideas but don't call people derogatory names because of their ideas.

You can always still say them in your mind even if you don't say them to the person directly. That's what I do! :p:

Maybe Loathesome Pete's New Album thread can be used as reference for that idea!!

I feel like you're really splitting hairs here. Should we also forbid people from referring to people who advertise as "advertisers"?

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.

Calling someone "wrong" to invalidate their response is also different than saying they're wrong at a point in time. Should mods start infracting people for using the word "wrong" too? Seems pretty over the top to me.