Mike's band

[Emily]

my pointless post was pointless.

[Andrew G. Doe]

You have a point...

[Andrew G. Doe]

It may help, but if you can prove that banning two posters out of several thousand and convincing a mod to step down will cure the ills of this board, you're sorely mistaken.

More of my two cents again...

Nobody is getting banned right now.

Up to $3.17...

[Andrew G. Doe]

Somewhere on this board I read a post from Billy concerning the fact that while OSD and SB are annoying and like to cause general merry hell, they haven't actually done anything that is considered a ban-able offense. I would strongly suggest that a future "trolling" rule be implemented, wherein purposely derailing a thread purely for the fun of it would warrant first a warning, and then banning if the warning is ignored. I would also strongly suggest adding a board rule stating that mods are not exempt from board rules. 

That is indeed going to be looked at.

Great to hear! Trolling can cause a good thread to quickly go to hell via endless bickering. I honestly feel it's a serious issue that has not been addressed.

Posted this before, so it's not new or inflammatory (unless you want it to be, of course), but I think the Wikipedia definition of a troll and their actions is as good as any for our purposes:

"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement."

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

For those who might be wondering (both of you...), I'm laying back out of the resurrected "Mike's Band" thread, partly because I'm laughing too much to type properly, partly because someone doesn't need any further help in digging a deeper hole than they're already in. But mostly because I'm not dumb enough to rise to the obvious bait.

Should Billy or Klass be dropping by, my formula for World Peace & candy bars is...

1 - completely re-write the rules, in collaboration with the rest of the board: as they stand, some are a bit vague. The duties and responsibilities of a mod are similarly codified. Trolling is defined.

2 - the rules being approved by the board, a general amnesty is declared so that everyone starts afresh with a level playing field. All probations are wiped out, those currently banned are invited back.

3 - the clock is reset to midnight, and we start afresh. Board rules are applied stringently, but fairly. No mod can act in isolation.

4 - in line with the fresh start an election for fresh mods: the existing mods can put their names forward, of course.

Not going to happen, but a man can dream...

Im posting AGD's ideas from Rab's goodbye thread here for posterity. Along with Donny and I believe it was Sam's ideas, I think these are a good start to get things back on track. I suppose the last point is the least realistic, and depending on the circumstances least necessary, but I agree that I didnt even know we had a fourth mod and thats not a good thing. I think he should be demoted, and a certain other mod either step down or seriously reconsider their approach from henceforth.

[Andrew G. Doe]

As I stated in the Other Thread, a full fresh start (and (your deity of choice here) knows, we need one) includes newly elected mods... who may very well be the previous mods. That's the joy of a democratic process - you often end up with what you had before.  

[SloopJohnB]

"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement."

The nature of the subjects discussed in the board has led, and will inevitably still lead to arguments and people being upset. This doesn't automatically characterize trolling. Your definition doesn't, either, and leads to another problem - how to characterize with 100% certainty "inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic" and "deliberate intent of provoking". Mods would still have to judge a member's actions on a case-by-case basis. So, back to square one.

And that's fine by me. Let the mods decide what's appropriate and what isn't. I see some people criticizing them but, as a moderator of a large messageboard myself, I can say they're doing a mighty fine job.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Fair point, but at least it provides a starting point. Let's see what Billy concocts.

[AndrewHickey]

"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement."

The nature of the subjects discussed in the board has led, and will inevitably still lead to arguments and people being upset. This doesn't automatically characterize trolling. Your definition doesn't, either, and leads to another problem - how to characterize with 100% certainty "inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic" and "deliberate intent of provoking". Mods would still have to judge a member's actions on a case-by-case basis. So, back to square one.

And that's fine by me. Let the mods decide what's appropriate and what isn't. I see some people criticizing them but, as a moderator of a large messageboard myself, I can say they're doing a mighty fine job.

The problem is that, at the moment, there is no rule at all about inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic posts, so the mods aren't judging those actions at all.

I have no problem with the mods using their judgment. That's what they're for. But right now, every single topic to which Mike is even tangentially connected gets derailed. And in the case of a couple of regular posters, that derailment is completely content-free. You could replace them with a very, very small piece of JavaScript and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Even though I called for two posters to be banned earlier, that's not actually my preferred solution. My preferred solution is for them to start *contributing*. Rules against trolling might -- just might -- bring that about.

[wilsonart1]

Merry Christmas Andy!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I haven't looked at the whole thread but personally, I don't agree with the way that the article makes its point.

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

I haven't looked at the whole thread but personally, I don't agree with the way that the article makes its point.

 

[smile-holland]

In case one wondered. I’m still around, although I haven’t been very active these last couple of months.  Just like Billy, I've been occupied with some private issues, which (obviously) got my priority. This is one of the causes of my absence on this board, although I did check the board from time to time.
 
My 2 (Euro)cents...
 
I think it's sad to see what has become of this board. It's by far the most popular one, with a lot of active members, yet, also the board with it’s reputation of members being straightforward, explicit, and sometimes plain rude. I’m a great supporter of freedom of speech, but I’m no fan of the downside-effects we sometimes see on this board. Granted, there's nothing wrong with 99% of the posts, but it's that 1% which is currently spoiling the fun for a lot of people here.
 
I don’t think it's fair to blame one certain moderator for the way this board is moderated, or the way things are going on this board in general. We all have a responsibility in keeping this board a pleasant and civil place to visit, with room for different opinions, even if they sometimes differ dramatically from others.
When it comes to enforcing the rules, Craig has been doing his utmost best to do everybody justice, even if his style is not the same as mine or Billy's. A lot of this was on his shoulders alone as both Billy and I have had little time to do a proper job as a moderator. Even more than that; I get the idea that, despite his full agenda, even Billy has done way more than I. Anyway, simply because Craig was overly present, that's still much better than not being there at all. So you can blame me for my part (or lack of it).
 
How to continue? Billy, Craig and I are currently working on an update of the board rules.  And we're looking for reinforcement for the mod-team. Which undoubtly is going to be a tough task. I'm sure there are a several members suitable for this job, but with the current issues, I do hope that anyone wants to take the challenge...

And I really really really hope that we all not only not only respect the other members’ opinions (as hard as that can be), but also think before we post ourselves. Take that Indian wisdom we all know: “the smile that you send out, returns to you”; the same happens with trolling and harsh comments.

[Marty Castillo]

I will only say that moderating a message board is a difficult task indeed. It demands a lot of self-control and balance. Guitarfool seems like a great guy, his posts are well-informed and I've learned a big deal reading them. Nevertheless, he has often showed an obsessive quality, an ever-present tendency to take things personally and not being able to let go. The latter traits are a hinder to any moderation attempt, as he often ends up in the center of the mayhem he's supposed to put a stop to.

Re-opening a thread in order to channel one's own grudges has nothing to with the activity of a moderator. It is against building a peaceful environment and mature discussion. It is all about using the tools a moderator has access to in order to make a personal statement.

Moderators have crossed the line and paid for it in the past. I think we're witnessing yet another line-crossing.
And it is doing this board no good.

I chose not to open this thread for a couple days because I recalled it being locked for good reason. I, regrettably, read through the new posts over the past hour and very much agree with Autotune. I actually felt like this board had calmed a bit since that action was taken, but it seems this just poured gas on the embers.

[guitarfool2002]

Issues needed to be raised rather than swept under the carpet. Perhaps one item to add to the discussion table is how the mods handle issues where the board rules are violated. I took the position that these dealings should be kept private and off the board, between the moderators and the individuals involved, out of respect for the parties involved. If an explanation was requested or required, there are numerous threads where one of us posted a rundown of what happened and what action was taken. This was out of respect for all parties. However, the amount of speculation and assumptions about these events have now almost become the facts in light of the actual facts. And some choose to use those to attack decisions and the people who made them.

If it would be better to put everything out into the open, that could be an option, and it would definitely prevent those who would run with the assumptions and the theories rather than the actual truth of any given situation.

[guitarfool2002]

To clarify what Klaas wrote above, if Klaas was unavailable, all decisions that affected this board were made with Billy and I agreeing to do what was done. We are in contact with each other and discuss when it's necessary to make a decision. There was not a rogue moderator situation where either Billy or I acted on something without discussing it and agreeing with the decision. To those who either assume there were cases that a mod did something out of spite or acted alone, or even worse that mods were bullied into doing something, that was never the case. That should close the book and end speculation and the accusations of moderators acting alone, or worse, out of spite.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Nice to see after all that's gone down today you still haven't lost your condescending, lecturing tone.

  WTF

[Micha]

You could replace them with a very, very small piece of JavaScript and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Maybe they already have been replaced with a Java script?

Andrew, whatever statistic you put forth, there are more posters that have problems with each other too, just not those monothematic ones. So, removing the monothematic ones wouldn't cure all ills of the board.

[guitarfool2002]

I would also strongly suggest adding a board rule stating that mods are not exempt from board rules. 

Where did a moderator violate board rules?

[guitarfool2002]

my pointless post was pointless.

No post is pointless, except in hindsight, as long as you decide what's pointless or not without outside influence. Post what you want on your terms, as always.   

[Marty Castillo]

To clarify what Klaas wrote above, if Klaas was unavailable, all decisions that affected this board were made with Billy and I agreeing to do what was done. We are in contact with each other and discuss when it's necessary to make a decision. There was not a rogue moderator situation where either Billy or I acted on something without discussing it and agreeing with the decision. To those who either assume there were cases that a mod did something out of spite or acted alone, or even worse that mods were bullied into doing something, that was never the case. That should close the book and end speculation and the accusations of moderators acting alone, or worse, out of spite.

So, essentially, a moderating team of four, is actually three, but truly two.

This just magnifies the obvious, there is an immediate need to add new and more moderators. I'm not asking for an iron fist, but it is too big of a job to be handled by two people. It also leads to a feeling from some that they can't get a fair shake if they have a poor history with one or both of the moderators.

[guitarfool2002]

To clarify what Klaas wrote above, if Klaas was unavailable, all decisions that affected this board were made with Billy and I agreeing to do what was done. We are in contact with each other and discuss when it's necessary to make a decision. There was not a rogue moderator situation where either Billy or I acted on something without discussing it and agreeing with the decision. To those who either assume there were cases that a mod did something out of spite or acted alone, or even worse that mods were bullied into doing something, that was never the case. That should close the book and end speculation and the accusations of moderators acting alone, or worse, out of spite.

So, essentially, a moderating team of four, is actually three, but truly two.

This just magnifies the obvious, there is an immediate need to add new and more moderators. I'm not asking for an iron fist, but it is too big of a job to be handled by two people. It also leads to a feeling from some that they can't get a fair shake if they have a poor history with one or both of the moderators.

That is being discussed right now. As far as personal biases, that goes in every direction. If you don't like a decision, then it's easy to blame whichever moderator you think brought a bias into the mix. If you like a decision, you can credit that same mod for putting aside all biases.

Truth is, as I already said, EVERY decision made that affected this board was made in agreement with the other mods, or in those cases when Klaas was unavailable, the decisions were made in full agreement between Billy and I.

I hope that ends the current trend of suggesting anything but that, which is the truth of how it always happened and will always happen. There is no rogue moderation on this forum.

[AndrewHickey]

You could replace them with a very, very small piece of JavaScript and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Maybe they already have been replaced with a Java script?

Andrew, whatever statistic you put forth, there are more posters that have problems with each other too, just not those monothematic ones. So, removing the monothematic ones wouldn't cure all ills of the board.

No, but it would improve things a great deal. I have arthritis, asthma, migraines, and a bald patch. Curing my arthritis wouldn't get rid of the bald patch, but I'd still quite like a cure.

[Micha]

You could replace them with a very, very small piece of JavaScript and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Maybe they already have been replaced with a Java script?

Andrew, whatever statistic you put forth, there are more posters that have problems with each other too, just not those monothematic ones. So, removing the monothematic ones wouldn't cure all ills of the board.

No, but it would improve things a great deal. I have arthritis, asthma, migraines, and a bald patch. Curing my arthritis wouldn't get rid of the bald patch, but I'd still quite like a cure.

Well... isn't that basically what I said just with another example? I can't see any disagreement here.

[rab2591]

As a board, there needs to be enforcement of the rules of the road.  We all agreed to the rules-of-the-road when we joined.  Why bother to have rules if they are not enforced?

Those of us who make every effort to abide by the rules, whether it be posters or band members, and "disagree without attacking" - and are punished indirectly by having to tolerate this bad behavior.  It is driving good posters like "rab" off the forum at a time when such good things are happening in the BB/BW sphere

I was emailed this quote by a board member here, and I felt I needed to come back once and clarify one thing. Filledeplage, I did not leave this forum because board rules were not being enforced. DO NOT spread that disinformation. I made it very clear as to why I left this board and it has nothing to do with the reasons you mentioned. It has mostly everything to do with what I just spent 20 minutes reading in this absolute headache of a thread.

This fractious feud with Guitarfool (in this thread and a nauseating amount of other threads here) is a fuse that has been burning for the last three or so months and it’s finally reached the powder keg.

According to what Guitarfool wrote above the mods collectively decided that certain members should be banned for life. Note that Billy himself IN THIS VERY THREAD said that he hadn’t come across a name of life-long banned posters who he wanted to let back on. It’s not Guitarfool sitting in a castle tower rubbing his hands together scheming away at who to ban next. When a poster breaks a board rule the mods get together and decide what punishment is best. I mention this because animosity towards Guitarfool started just after the time when certain longtime members were perma-banned.

Per current board rules, Smile Brian and OldSurferDude haven’t done anything to warrant a ban. Which is most likely why Billy has stated there is an ongoing rewriting of said rules. And no doubt those rules will implement that trolling will not be tolerated (and thus if Smile Brian and OldSurferDude keep posting the way they have been they should be gone immediately).

Now with all of this in mind, why are mod elections still being talked about by Andrew G Doe? Why is Andrew wanting to bring back posters who were perma-banned by collective decision? Billy and Klass have already stated that they and Guitarfool are looking for a suitable moderator to add to the team. Billy has mentioned he hasn’t seen one name of a lifetime banned poster that he wants to see back here. You’d think that Andrew G Doe, who has lauded his support for Billy and Klass here and elsewhere on the web, would trust their judgement regarding these matters. But this current witch-hunt is all about getting rid of a moderator who has a track record of not putting up with garbage, and that seems to be very threatening to a group of posters who radiate cosmic amounts of it.

Andrew G Doe, you posted this definition of a troll:

“a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people”

According to that definition (and the rules you want to implement) you should’ve been banned YEARS ago (and in fact, given the three-strikes-you’re-out rule you should be gone anway). And then you post this to the yellow pages of BBB:

“As noted above, he's too thin skinned, not even close to impartial, pursues vendettas at brain-numbing length and is not above trying to disrupt a thread by introducing irrelevant points.”

You post these ridiculous and baseless statements PUBLICLY and you don’t expect Guitarfool to defend himself? You don't expect an argument from this? You are the one sowing discord here (and per your latest posts on BBB you’re still doing it). Guitarfool has been needled in many different threads by certain posters over the last couple months. He is fighting through a toxic wall of ridiculous inquiry and unsubstantiated accusations. I wouldn’t call that thin-skinned. From what I have read and heard about these last couple weeks, Guitarfool is not the Smiley Smile poster who is pursuing vendettas at brain-numbing length or is too thin skinned.

Anyways, Filledeplage, I recommend you read my farewell post again. Please don’t post that I left because board rules were not being enforced. I never said that, nor did I hint at it. My leaving has mostly to do with incidents like this petty squabble I outlined above (and the people and reasons behind those squabbles), as well as other things. Just wanted to clear that up.

Also, if anyone tried to PM me after I left, I blocked everyone before I posted my goodbye. No hard feelings. I just didn't want posters like Andrew G Doe contacting me. Most all of you I truly have the most respect for and I hope to see you around elsewhere!