Mike's band

[guitarfool2002]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

Meanwhile you're going to go around in circles rubbing salt in what is effectively, your own wound. Okay, I feel sorry for you, but is it going to go away because you're doing this? Nope. Sort it out with the other mods and set out VERY CLEARLY a new set of rules to adhere to and make sure they're followed by one and all and stop these ludicrous threads that exist only to underline that Mike is a dick because you know how they always end up.

Smilin Ed, I'll ask you in all seriousness, and with an eye toward suggesting how to respond in the future. The terms people posting here found offensive were written by the author of that published article, it was part of his piece. When it became an issue, people's message headers began to change to take out what they found offensive - you don't need a moderator to do that.

So this article rubs people the wrong way, but what would a moderator do if the article is posted with a link for discussion here among fans, and that's exactly what the fans here were doing: Reading, discussing, and debating. The first post in the thread was a link to a published article, not a blog or a fan essay. The title of the thread was a phrase coined by the author of that article, and when it began to rub people the wrong way, it was changed to something acceptable.

Should the moderators lock or delete a thread any time a published article critical of a band member is posted to this board, if the results are as predictable as you're saying?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

[The Shift]

To John Manning:

If you're comfortable going into the gutter in order to support whatever it is Andrew has been doing and getting away with on this board, that's truly sad.

To get into the issue of "cozying up" to a moderator at a gig in any way is truly pathetic, and you've crossed a line. Is this stuff that you're doing either with or for or in support of Andrew Doe worth it?

If I ever want to know what it feels like to sell one's integrity and decency in the name of destroying other people, I'll know who to send that PM to. And who to copy on it.

Was it worth it?

You'll have to clarify this post please. Parts of it I think I can get a vague handle on but overall I haven't a clue where you're coming from.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

But see, its this kinda double standard that creates an atmosphere of discomfort, not knowing where you stand, "playing favorites" etc. The rules ought to be the same for everyone, not brushed aside when it doesnt affect you but a public shame fest when it does.

Exactly, they should be uniform guidelines that affect all members equally. I agree.

The rules should be followed.

So should the calls for respect and decency toward other people have been heeded prior to the very same people making those calls deciding to go on a public shame fest, and not even have the guts to do it here where the people in the firing line had a chance to respond...and this went on for a week.

If you want that kind of behavior on the board, like I said, you know where to go.

AGD was very upfront about his grievances on this board, this thread in fact. When his and our grievances were not addressed, it was his right to vent outside the board about it. I've personally done the same--not on that forum, but to friends in this board I know outside it. I'm of the opinion that what someone says outside these walls shouldn't be a focus. If anyone else took outside correspondences and posted them en masse for the purpose of starting a public fight, I'd be saying that should be a bannable offense. And for a mod to do so is a whole other level of bad. It's your job to keep order and limit drama--not bring it to the forefront and involve us in your personal beef with AGD. As far as I can see, he's broken no rules, you're just furious at him and acting like that counts. The only person who debatably has is OSD and you seem determined to deflect the growing discontent against him at al l costs against all reason. Anytime there's a call for action you throw the decision/responsibility on us in a rhetorical, condescending manner and refuse to take action.

[The Shift]

From the rules:

5.5)  Do not post contents of private messages on the board without permission from the sender. 'Private' means exactly that.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm sure the mods had a good reason for invoking that situation.

I see it differently:

If Andrew was banned, would this be a poorer place as a result? Yes.

If OSD and/or Smile Brian were to be banned, would this be a poorer place? Far from it.

I rather suspect Andrew stays because of the perceived value - perceived by the mods, as the rest of us didn't know about this arrangement until you (GF) chose to make it public - of Andrew's contribution to this board.

That's a very different kind of favouritism to the kind contained in the allegation in the copied post from another board that OSD gets to stay because he cosies up to a mod at gigs.

That issue needs answering for the moderation here to retain credibility.

Cozies up to a mod at gigs, huh? Pathetic, John.

You were asked but turned the gig down. Now you're doing this?

I was asked in a PM, and I understood the contents of such should remain private.

That gig is a far cry from the gig mentioned in the post you chose to copy here from another board. I assume you had similar permission for that, too?

This is toe-curling stuff.

Are you going to address the allegation that you and OSD are pals in the physical world? And explain why that might not affect your judgement as a mod, when so many board members are requesting action over his constant trolling?

You have no right to address that kind of question to anyone, not only will I not dignify it by addressing it, but shame on you and whoever is doing this with you for thinking bringing someone's personal life or whatever they do off the board has any bearing on what happens here.

Sad, and pathetic.

This is the board people want?

Now John Manning, who knows best what the board needs, puts in place a challenge where information he got from someone about who I may or may not have seen at a live concert is in some way relevant to anything going on here.

That's what you want? See John Manning.

John, who have you been cozying up to this past year? is that in fair play as well, or is it just the mods? Who have the other mods been friends with, should we ask them too? let's do it.

Pathetic.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

From the rules:

5.5)  Do not post contents of private messages on the board without permission from the sender. 'Private' means exactly that.

For some moments in life there are no words, nor emoticons

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Okay, I need to say something...going to make this clear that this is being posted from myself as'Billy Castillo the human being' and not as my position as a mod.

1) The ignore function is going to solve a lot of problems going forward

2). The board rules do in fact need to be updated, and I'm working on it as we speak. Or type. Whatever. As it stands, there is too much gray area, and things need to be cut and dried.

3). Everybody needs to be held to the same standard. Regardless of if they're a brand new member, honored guest, me...anybody

4) As much as I despise seeing people go off on each other (as someone once told me here as an insult, I'm as bleeding-heart liberal as is humanly possible), I'm glad we're hashing things out. But I swear to God, after this runs its course in this thread, I better not see this become an issue again from anybody.

5). Speaking JUST for myself, if someone has a problem with ME on how I'm doing my job, PM me. Let me know. I'd appreciate it if it was done in an adult, respectful manner, but whatever. Cause honestly, that's how things should be done. Not posting about how the mods 'suck' in the middle of an otherwise good discussion. Not going to quote directly or mention who said this, but in another thread where there was an actual honest-to-God discussion on an album, somebody actually said something along the lines of 'careful..you're going to get banned for disagreeing with the mods', or other swipes at us. If said poster has ever voiced his/her concerns about the job we're doing, I have *never* gotten any such PM, and I don't think GF or SH have either. So yeah, that comes across more as an attack rather than a valid criticism.

Just my two cents.

[guitarfool2002]

From the rules:

5.5)  Do not post contents of private messages on the board without permission from the sender. 'Private' means exactly that.

Right, John. Get some friends together to try to ban me again. Nice try.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

From the rules:

5.5)  Do not post contents of private messages on the board without permission from the sender. 'Private' means exactly that.

In all fairness, that rule is referring to directly quoting private messages, which was an issue during the early days of this board years and years ago, before I became a mod.

[guitarfool2002]

Hey Billy, name people you may have run into or spoken with at gigs you've attended, or just in general. We need to make sure John Manning has all the details necessary to ensure you are fit to be a moderator.

Sound about right, John? Happy with that?

Go spread sh*t about me again.

[guitarfool2002]

From the rules:

5.5)  Do not post contents of private messages on the board without permission from the sender. 'Private' means exactly that.

In all fairness, that rule is referring to directly quoting private messages, which was an issue during the early days of this board years and years ago, before I became a mod.

As The Fonz used to say, "Exactamundo".

[Mike's Beard]

All this sh*t because GF cannot handle anyone questioning him without going off on one.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Hey Billy, name people you may have run into or spoken with at gigs you've attended, or just in general. We need to make sure John Manning has all the details necessary to ensure you are fit to be a moderator.

Sound about right, John? Happy with that?

Go spread sh*t about me again.

At this point, the whole situation is just funny. I really feel like Im watching a trainwreck here.  Like, this all started because you took offense to being called thin skinned and took that as untrue slander, but like...y'know...I mean....whadda ya call this?

[The Cincinnati Kid]

All this sh*t because GF cannot handle anyone questioning him without going off on one.

Exactly.  It's really sad and pathetic at this point. 

[Smilin Ed H]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

Meanwhile you're going to go around in circles rubbing salt in what is effectively, your own wound. Okay, I feel sorry for you, but is it going to go away because you're doing this? Nope. Sort it out with the other mods and set out VERY CLEARLY a new set of rules to adhere to and make sure they're followed by one and all and stop these ludicrous threads that exist only to underline that Mike is a dick because you know how they always end up.

Smilin Ed, I'll ask you in all seriousness, and with an eye toward suggesting how to respond in the future. The terms people posting here found offensive were written by the author of that published article, it was part of his piece. When it became an issue, people's message headers began to change to take out what they found offensive - you don't need a moderator to do that.

So this article rubs people the wrong way, but what would a moderator do if the article is posted with a link for discussion here among fans, and that's exactly what the fans here were doing: Reading, discussing, and debating. The first post in the thread was a link to a published article, not a blog or a fan essay. The title of the thread was a phrase coined by the author of that article, and when it began to rub people the wrong way, it was changed to something acceptable.

Should the moderators lock or delete a thread any time a published article critical of a band member is posted to this board, if the results are as predictable as you're saying?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

There's debating and there's being a parasite. I think you're being a little disingenuous here, in that you know that the level of debate is often crude to put it mildly when it comes to anything Mike-related and now we have people going off on an opposite trajectory, bad mouthing Brian, partly, I suspect because said poster thinks he's a bit of a gadfly, though God knows there's little evidence of it in his posts. And some of the worst offenders have already been gloating or otherwise on this thread. Surely some of that nonsense can be reined in by being stronger with the worst offenders - after you've rehashed and re-established the ground rules and let everyone know where they stand? There's so much to learn from the people who contribute to this board.

[guitarfool2002]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

Meanwhile you're going to go around in circles rubbing salt in what is effectively, your own wound. Okay, I feel sorry for you, but is it going to go away because you're doing this? Nope. Sort it out with the other mods and set out VERY CLEARLY a new set of rules to adhere to and make sure they're followed by one and all and stop these ludicrous threads that exist only to underline that Mike is a dick because you know how they always end up.

Smilin Ed, I'll ask you in all seriousness, and with an eye toward suggesting how to respond in the future. The terms people posting here found offensive were written by the author of that published article, it was part of his piece. When it became an issue, people's message headers began to change to take out what they found offensive - you don't need a moderator to do that.

So this article rubs people the wrong way, but what would a moderator do if the article is posted with a link for discussion here among fans, and that's exactly what the fans here were doing: Reading, discussing, and debating. The first post in the thread was a link to a published article, not a blog or a fan essay. The title of the thread was a phrase coined by the author of that article, and when it began to rub people the wrong way, it was changed to something acceptable.

Should the moderators lock or delete a thread any time a published article critical of a band member is posted to this board, if the results are as predictable as you're saying?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

There's debating and there's being a parasite. I think you're being a little disingenuous here, in that you know that the level of debate is often crude to put it mildly when it comes to anything Mike-related and now we have people going of on an opposite trajectory, bad mouthing Brian, partly, I suspect because said poster thinks he's a bit of a gadfly. And some of the worst offenders have already been gloating or otherwise on this thread. Surely some of that nonsense can be reined in by being stronger with the worst offenders - after you've rehashed and re-established the ground rules and let everyone know where they stand? There's so much to learn from the people who contribute to this board.

So should the article posted have been removed, or the thread deleted before it had a chance? Or what could the standard be to make that call moving forward? I'm just trying to get feedback and opinions on things like this.

[guitarfool2002]

Hey Billy, name people you may have run into or spoken with at gigs you've attended, or just in general. We need to make sure John Manning has all the details necessary to ensure you are fit to be a moderator.

Sound about right, John? Happy with that?

Go spread sh*t about me again.

At this point, the whole situation is just funny. I really feel like Im watching a trainwreck here.  Like, this all started because you took offense to being called thin skinned and took that as untrue slander, but like...y'know...I mean....whadda ya call this?

You're sure that's what I took as slander? I guess you know something I don't know.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I will say this...this is the only forum I've ever been a part of where the admins can have sh*t talked about without repercussion. Not saying I want that to change...I don't. The very llast thing I would EVER want is for this board to become a 'police state' type thing. I'm just pointing it out.

[guitarfool2002]

I will say this...this is the only forum I've ever been a part of where the admins can have sh*t talked about without repercussion. Not saying I want that to change...I don't. The very llast thing I would EVER want is for this board to become a 'police state' type thing. I'm just pointing it out.

Exactly. Not just that, but where lies can be told about them too.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

Meanwhile you're going to go around in circles rubbing salt in what is effectively, your own wound. Okay, I feel sorry for you, but is it going to go away because you're doing this? Nope. Sort it out with the other mods and set out VERY CLEARLY a new set of rules to adhere to and make sure they're followed by one and all and stop these ludicrous threads that exist only to underline that Mike is a dick because you know how they always end up.

Smilin Ed, I'll ask you in all seriousness, and with an eye toward suggesting how to respond in the future. The terms people posting here found offensive were written by the author of that published article, it was part of his piece. When it became an issue, people's message headers began to change to take out what they found offensive - you don't need a moderator to do that.

So this article rubs people the wrong way, but what would a moderator do if the article is posted with a link for discussion here among fans, and that's exactly what the fans here were doing: Reading, discussing, and debating. The first post in the thread was a link to a published article, not a blog or a fan essay. The title of the thread was a phrase coined by the author of that article, and when it began to rub people the wrong way, it was changed to something acceptable.

Should the moderators lock or delete a thread any time a published article critical of a band member is posted to this board, if the results are as predictable as you're saying?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

There's debating and there's being a parasite. I think you're being a little disingenuous here, in that you know that the level of debate is often crude to put it mildly when it comes to anything Mike-related and now we have people going of on an opposite trajectory, bad mouthing Brian, partly, I suspect because said poster thinks he's a bit of a gadfly. And some of the worst offenders have already been gloating or otherwise on this thread. Surely some of that nonsense can be reined in by being stronger with the worst offenders - after you've rehashed and re-established the ground rules and let everyone know where they stand? There's so much to learn from the people who contribute to this board.

So should the article posted have been removed, or the thread deleted before it had a chance? Or what could the standard be to make that call moving forward? I'm just trying to get feedback and opinions on things like this.

To throw my 2 cents back in (I think I'm up to $3.50 right now), I think action should be taken once members start attacking each other. Posts should be removed, member warned, ect. Original thread stays up.

[Smilin Ed H]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

Meanwhile you're going to go around in circles rubbing salt in what is effectively, your own wound. Okay, I feel sorry for you, but is it going to go away because you're doing this? Nope. Sort it out with the other mods and set out VERY CLEARLY a new set of rules to adhere to and make sure they're followed by one and all and stop these ludicrous threads that exist only to underline that Mike is a dick because you know how they always end up.

Smilin Ed, I'll ask you in all seriousness, and with an eye toward suggesting how to respond in the future. The terms people posting here found offensive were written by the author of that published article, it was part of his piece. When it became an issue, people's message headers began to change to take out what they found offensive - you don't need a moderator to do that.

So this article rubs people the wrong way, but what would a moderator do if the article is posted with a link for discussion here among fans, and that's exactly what the fans here were doing: Reading, discussing, and debating. The first post in the thread was a link to a published article, not a blog or a fan essay. The title of the thread was a phrase coined by the author of that article, and when it began to rub people the wrong way, it was changed to something acceptable.

Should the moderators lock or delete a thread any time a published article critical of a band member is posted to this board, if the results are as predictable as you're saying?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

There's debating and there's being a parasite. I think you're being a little disingenuous here, in that you know that the level of debate is often crude to put it mildly when it comes to anything Mike-related and now we have people going of on an opposite trajectory, bad mouthing Brian, partly, I suspect because said poster thinks he's a bit of a gadfly. And some of the worst offenders have already been gloating or otherwise on this thread. Surely some of that nonsense can be reined in by being stronger with the worst offenders - after you've rehashed and re-established the ground rules and let everyone know where they stand? There's so much to learn from the people who contribute to this board.

So should the article posted have been removed, or the thread deleted before it had a chance? Or what could the standard be to make that call moving forward? I'm just trying to get feedback and opinions on things like this.

It's not about the article, it's about setting parameters for decent debate.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

Meanwhile you're going to go around in circles rubbing salt in what is effectively, your own wound. Okay, I feel sorry for you, but is it going to go away because you're doing this? Nope. Sort it out with the other mods and set out VERY CLEARLY a new set of rules to adhere to and make sure they're followed by one and all and stop these ludicrous threads that exist only to underline that Mike is a dick because you know how they always end up.

Smilin Ed, I'll ask you in all seriousness, and with an eye toward suggesting how to respond in the future. The terms people posting here found offensive were written by the author of that published article, it was part of his piece. When it became an issue, people's message headers began to change to take out what they found offensive - you don't need a moderator to do that.

So this article rubs people the wrong way, but what would a moderator do if the article is posted with a link for discussion here among fans, and that's exactly what the fans here were doing: Reading, discussing, and debating. The first post in the thread was a link to a published article, not a blog or a fan essay. The title of the thread was a phrase coined by the author of that article, and when it began to rub people the wrong way, it was changed to something acceptable.

Should the moderators lock or delete a thread any time a published article critical of a band member is posted to this board, if the results are as predictable as you're saying?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

There's debating and there's being a parasite. I think you're being a little disingenuous here, in that you know that the level of debate is often crude to put it mildly when it comes to anything Mike-related and now we have people going of on an opposite trajectory, bad mouthing Brian, partly, I suspect because said poster thinks he's a bit of a gadfly. And some of the worst offenders have already been gloating or otherwise on this thread. Surely some of that nonsense can be reined in by being stronger with the worst offenders - after you've rehashed and re-established the ground rules and let everyone know where they stand? There's so much to learn from the people who contribute to this board.

So should the article posted have been removed, or the thread deleted before it had a chance? Or what could the standard be to make that call moving forward? I'm just trying to get feedback and opinions on things like this.

It's not about the article, it's about setting parameters for decent debate.

What would you consider to be a fair solution? This is an actual question...I would like us all to come to a consensus so we can move past this going forward.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

It's not about the article, it's about setting parameters for decent debate.

Absolutely this. And really...just make a decision. I cant speak for everyone but personally Im getting sick of this hands off approach and then when people express legitimate grievances this "well, what would you have me do?"/"should I just ban everyone then?"/"you want me to police opinions?"/"is that the kinda board you want?" throwing the decision on us in a rhetorical fashion. With all due respect, YOU are the mod. Its your responsibility to do what you think is best, whatever that may be, but as Smilin Ed says, preferably in a way that helps a good, healthy debate flourish. But seriously, make SOME kinda decision, instead of constantly deflecting back on us. I feel like thats what makes the whole situation so frustrating. Sometimes youve got to do whats best for the mission, even if it means giving your friend the hard news. Example: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi966984473

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Also I want to point something out...if anybody has used the 'report to a moderator' function...for some reason, I don't get the reports myself for some reason. It's why I mentioned I prefer PMs.

Gotta get to the store for a bit...hope the board hasn't completely imploded when I come back.

[Juice Brohnston]

This is going around in circles. Neither party is coming out of this smelling like a well-adjusted rose and you're feeding the idiots who like to pint fingers and be contrary.  Either piss or get off the pot.

The ignore function addressed the concerns, it's available for installation. if people need an online app to ignore something, there it is. Problem solved. When all this gets into trying to destroy someone personally over this stuff and ruin names for whatever goals are in play here, it's another story.

Meanwhile you're going to go around in circles rubbing salt in what is effectively, your own wound. Okay, I feel sorry for you, but is it going to go away because you're doing this? Nope. Sort it out with the other mods and set out VERY CLEARLY a new set of rules to adhere to and make sure they're followed by one and all and stop these ludicrous threads that exist only to underline that Mike is a dick because you know how they always end up.

Smilin Ed, I'll ask you in all seriousness, and with an eye toward suggesting how to respond in the future. The terms people posting here found offensive were written by the author of that published article, it was part of his piece. When it became an issue, people's message headers began to change to take out what they found offensive - you don't need a moderator to do that.

So this article rubs people the wrong way, but what would a moderator do if the article is posted with a link for discussion here among fans, and that's exactly what the fans here were doing: Reading, discussing, and debating. The first post in the thread was a link to a published article, not a blog or a fan essay. The title of the thread was a phrase coined by the author of that article, and when it began to rub people the wrong way, it was changed to something acceptable.

Should the moderators lock or delete a thread any time a published article critical of a band member is posted to this board, if the results are as predictable as you're saying?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

There's debating and there's being a parasite. I think you're being a little disingenuous here, in that you know that the level of debate is often crude to put it mildly when it comes to anything Mike-related and now we have people going of on an opposite trajectory, bad mouthing Brian, partly, I suspect because said poster thinks he's a bit of a gadfly. And some of the worst offenders have already been gloating or otherwise on this thread. Surely some of that nonsense can be reined in by being stronger with the worst offenders - after you've rehashed and re-established the ground rules and let everyone know where they stand? There's so much to learn from the people who contribute to this board.

So should the article posted have been removed, or the thread deleted before it had a chance? Or what could the standard be to make that call moving forward? I'm just trying to get feedback and opinions on things like this.

To throw my 2 cents back in (I think I'm up to $3.50 right now), I think action should be taken once members start attacking each other. Posts should be removed, member warned, ect. Original thread stays up.

Members including moderators? Who warns the mod? another mod?