Urban Hat€monger ?

If people think I'm going to sit around shaving pixels of people's avatars because they're too big rather than do something more constructive, like post on the forum then they can forget it.

You want to complain about 2mm of avatar on a forum that's supposed to be about music then go ahead. I think that says more about the person complaining than the mod.

As it's been said, this place has guidelines not rules, And i'm so bored of having a rule for this, a debate for that blah blah blah when just a bit of common sense would do just fine. The whole point of the avatar guidelines was people were asking for avatars that were about 5 or 6 times bigger than what people have now, they succeeded in doing that, so the guideline worked. So why do we need another fucking drawn out debate over basically fuck all.

__________________

GuitarBizarre

The bottom line as I see it:

1 - Urban is always upfront, but something about his conduct, and others, right now, smacks more of "You criticised someone I like, and therefore you are bad, what have you done that Urban hasn't?", than it does of "This is an established understanding and nobody has ever possibly had grounds to criticise urban about anything ever before"

2 - Ki is acting butthurt with his threats to leave. Whether he meant the thread or the forums I don't care, he replied immediately after I did, so he's a hypocrite either way.

3 - Tore is right on the money here. Frankly speaking, whether or not Ki has a point criticising urban isn't the issue, or at least, it isn't anymore. We all agree Urban isn't deserving of some sort of lengthy personal attack.
What is now the issue is that as much as Ki's first couple of posts were pretty much being an arse, every post against him has beem just as much so, and while I jumped in with the thing about him leaving in the middle of that, at that point I thought the argument had reached a middleground and Ki was just being melodramatic.

Since that point, people have continued to throw barbs at Ki and he's continued to respond to them.

Its all rather childish, frankly. Urban comes off as being a defensive ass and I can't help but read his posts, and his avatar as almost an ad hominem, stating "Look how far above you I am, I don't need to address anything you've said, I'll just make out like you're a whiny biotch. I'm just going to mock you."

On the other hand, Ki comes off as trying to appeal to some sort of crowd as if he's a huge victim in an argument he started, which only makes it look as though the urban crowd are justified in attacking him, despite the fallacy that creates.

4 - The whole thing about the avatars is ****ing stupid, both as a criticism from Ki, and the defense from Urban. Its always been presented as a rule. Outright. Tore even quoted it.

Do I give a **** about 2px larger than something should be? No, not really. In fact I never noticed Urban's avatar even WAS a larger size, and I think Ki trying to make it an arguing point is really, really nitpicky.

But if you're going to argue that you don't have time to resize avatars, that that's too much work for you and too much to expect, then all I end up thinking is this:

Its not a defense to try and act like your alternative is to resize and waste your own time. Your alternative isn't that. It never has been. Your alternative is to just not bloody do it if people can't get their act together and resize properly. There's a rule in there that says outright you don't have to do it AT ALL. Why do you need to basically make one up, in order to "Save yourself the effort of resizing"?

The simple answer is you don't, and I really can't fathom why you'd ever act like that.




Finally, I like the flexible moderation here. I really do. I think it works and I think 90% of the time **** runs fine.

But the rules, the way they're written, and the way I understand them state "Here is a bunch of unacceptable ****, you will get banned for, but we can't cover every eventuality, so we reserve the right to decide ad hoc what else is unacceptable, just in case you think you're being clever by trolling through skirting the rules here"

I don't really understand why people seem to think that translates to "Here is the guideline, but don't take it as read or anything, I'm sure its ok if you step outside of it, we won't say anything at all."

I don't expect people to get punished, or chewed out, or given slaps on wrists even, for resizing their avatar wrongly, or disagreeing with each other or whatever, in fact I don't even reasonably expect that their request isn't approved or their argument isn't allowed to conclude.

But I would definitely expect at least one sentence explaining "Just so you know, you're a little out of bounds here, no worries, just so you know for next time", rather than "Well, we're flexible, so its ok"

__________________

GuitarBizarre

Also, if I have one criticism of Urban, of my own, then its this.

For a lot of this, Urban has been defending "Flexible Moderation" and "Common sense" approches to dealing with members.

In his recent post history I see a few instances of him dealing out ultimatums, laying down laws, and in this very thread, basically this whole page is filled with Urban asking Ki to back up various criticisms and points with some of the most defined, most binary, black and white examples possible.

Sorry Urban, I know you're a good influence on MB, but if you're going to ask super black and white things of the members here, and ask Ki to provide super defined, super black and white examples of you being contrary to the rules, and provide super black and white, super defined examples of ways ki's claims aren't 100% factual in a certain way, why would you then proceed to argue against the concept of black and white rulesets and super defined approaches?

We both know that the black and white option is two things.

1 - Its not an effective way to police a forum, because it allows people to skirt the very edges of the rules while still being douchebags. Thats why the moderation here is good. Because that **** doesn't fly.

2 - It makes it extremely difficult for Ki to actually voice his opinion constructively, because you're sending him on a wild goose chase for black and white examples, when his point would be better served by taking the approach you advocate towards your own moderation.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

I think you're taking two things that are totally different and saying 'well if it doesn't work for one thing it shouldn't work for the other'. Which I don't think is the case.
Plus I find it interesting you give 3 examples of where I'm being 'black & white' and yet I took no action other than asking the person quoted to either expand on what they were saying or get back to the original topic.

Also please explain this defensive thing, all i'm doing is answering various criticisms that any mod would do in this situation. You continually calling me defensive for doing that makes me think that you have some agenda or something.

__________________

GuitarBizarre

I'm saying that when you moderate you're all about interpretation and context, (at least, when you're not just throwing out ultimatums) but when you're criticised you're all about making the person who is criticising you, point out exactly where you crossed the line in black and white.

As for people complaining about the drama... did you not notice that like 2 or 3 pages ago was just an Urban Hatemonger LoveFest?

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

Yes because I was asking him to show me where I crossed the line in HIS opinion.

__________________

Scarlett O'Hara

This made me laugh so hard!

GB, all I have to say to you is tl;dr.

It's funny because back in 2005 I straight away chatted to Urban and was accused of sucking dick. Good to see nothings changed.

__________________

14232949

to be honest. the only cool **** on here is that Mankycaaant.

Guybrush

When it comes to your specific case and your avatar, it really doesn't matter that much (to me) because your name is already wide enough to widen the avatar/user info box into the space for the post area. The same goes for WWWP. Had your names been shorter, decreasing the width of your avs would pretty up the threads you post in, but decreasing your av sizes now just won't do much.

But otherwise, I find your comment on rules vs. guidelines interesting. A thing about rules or guidelines is that if a forum has rules or guidelines that everyone has to adhere to, then everyone is an equal. If special groups on a forum have special privileges, then that itself can be a source of tension and discontent (f.ex mods and regular members). I don't think it's dangerous to have some flexibility, like a difference in privileges between newbs and regular posters because it's the regular posters who are around to make up the community. But I do think it's a bad thing if different groups of people within the community enjoy different privileges. So in general, I think treating rules like guidelines is fine as long as everyone gets to treat them as guidelines.

So that means if a mod pushes those guidelines, it should be fine for everyone else to push those guidelines. Then it becomes a situation of whoever manages to stretch those guidelines the furthest, while still being considered to behave acceptably, is the one who sets the standard for what can and can't be done on the forums. He or she defines the moral tideline. That's something I consider a flaw of guideline thinking vs. rules because it will contribute with creating a more hostile environment.

So because of that I think it's better to have defined rules with mods doing their best to adhere to those rules. I think that helps nurture a friendlier community environment (which I personally prefer).

__________________
Something Completely Different

14232949

Here's a first batch. Will do more later.

Howard the Il Minded Duck: Very eccentric character, but game for a laugh, usually at his own expense. Takes a joke well, and listens to possibly the widest range of music possible.

Goofle: Listens to an unreal amount of music, not quite sure how he manages it.
Cool guy, with a taste very similar to my own in that he likes a lot of hip-hop.

Ki: Taken quite a bit of heat on here recently, but still one of the coolest members I've encountered. Not afraid to admit what he likes, or how he feels, and doesn't follow the same trends that many other posters do, I.E. internet fanboys hate on a particular band, so I must do to.
Still was a little surprised to find out he cross dresses, but everyone to their own I guess.

Salami: Kid needs to make a return soon, genuinely friendly guy who tries to make everyone feel welcome, like him personally even if I disagree with his musical taste.

Mr Dood: Another guy who listens to an unreal amount of music, turned me onto a few things and seems to have a sound musical knowledge.

Surrell: Seems like a cool enough guy, with a decent music taste although he appears to be under the impression I dick ride Kanye West, must be the hormones kicking in.

Norg: The only person on here that I actually dislike. Comes across as a massive douchebag in everything he says with his very ignorant manner and quite terrible music taste (dude marks for Linkin Park)