The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'll start with this post. I wasn't taking sides, GF. Honestly, the weird digs at Melinda bug me; the weird suggestions that Brian Wilson hates touring bug me; the over-the-top anti-Mike-Love obsessiveness bugs me; the over-the-top pro-Mike-Love defensiveness bugs me; the calling people trolls or idiots bugs me; the 'payroll' thing bugs me; the complaints about moderators bug me; and the general all-around aggression bugs me; and the calling for people to be banned for any of the above bugs me.

I think any and all of the above has driven people away.

Normally I don't mind if a thread goes genially off-topic, and there's nothing ungenial about asking for info about ticketing or whatever. And being useful to fans interested in a show is a good thing. But waging a battle is not the same as asking for information or genial chit-chat. The thread that the current battle is being waged in is particularly public-facing and I think everyone battling in it is doing a disservice to Brian Wilson and a disservice to this site. I also think, as a mod, you should be particularly sensitive to the latter.

I'm not interested in engaging in the battle, but I think it should be removed from that thread and it should take place here.

Thanks Emily. The discussions going on about moderation activities or lack thereof should be discussed in here and not ruin the enjoyment of the other threads. I agree with what you said above and is what I was talking about when I mentioned consistency

I like this idea a lot...thanks Emily.

It's too bad those who were calling for such a thread either missed or ignored the explanations and clarifications given as recently as early this past week and going back at least 6 months or more. So, hammer away in spite of the explanations already given. Should be fun.

Again, GF, I'm not taking sides. I really don't care about the explanations or about whatever the original problem was that called for explanations. I just think that it's uninteresting and, more importantly, unpleasant for people looking for Brian Wilson tour commentary or information to encounter pages of argument, as Iain Lee said, without regard to who's right or who's wrong.

And my point is there is one very recent example where there were people coming to the board to find info on, discuss, vent, and share thoughts on the unfortunate developments with Scott B that happened recently. Somehow in that discussion, where I did not post a word, the issues of my moderation of this board came up. Did anyone have a problem with that discussion that broke out being off topic from where fans were coming to get info and discuss those issues related to Scott?

And beyond that, direct and definitive replies were given in that thread to the same questions about me as a moderator to some of the same people who were asking the same questions a week later in the BW tour thread. I'll copy and repost them here. Basically the record has been set straight time after time, yet some either do not accept the words of the moderators and in some cases the board's admin, or just want to keep harping on the issue in hopes I will or won't do something that I'm alleged to have been doing regarding banning people, or other mod issues. It may not be the answer some want to hear, but it's the truth, unless some feel that Charles, Billy, me, and months ago Klaas when he was a mod are simply lying about the whole thing.

Which is it?

In my opinion, the incessant whining and complaining about moderators is pathetic. Those of you who engage in it: sorry. But seriously. It's just not important. No moderator (to my knowledge) has ever done anything particularly bad. People are people, so probably inadvertently someone was treated differently than someone else. I don't care. This is just a message board. It's a pastime.

Far, far, far, far, far worse than any possible inequitable treatment of members is the incessant, novel-length whining about said inequitable treatment of members that ends up polluting every single fucking thread. I mean, the complaining that only Brianistas or anti-Brianistas are favored or banned or whatever? Grow the f*** up! It's idiotic, not to mention childish. ("Dad, he's on my side." "If you two don't shut up, I'm going to turn this car around...")

Whatever. I've talked sh*t about every member of the band on some issue or another. I've never been intimidated (which is funny to even imagine, being intimidated by a message board mod!), warned, banned. (I think somebody warned me once, years ago, for being an asshole. But that's fair, since I'm an asshole.)

Feel free to ban me for my thoughts on the subject, mods. I won't complain about it. ;D

Oh, and I think the mods are fine. Actually I'm not sure who they are, aside from Billy and guitarfool2002. It doesn't much occur to me.

Speaking of which, when will replacements be found for Klass and/or Lowbacca?

I certainly had and continue to have an issue with that...I unfortunately have been dealing with my own issues, but I did have a problem with it clogging up various threads, like the Bennett thread and now the Brian tour thread. So, I do support the creation of this thread, and just personally speaking, if I see it pop up on the main board again, I'm moving the discussion here and issuing a warning. And yeah, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be hashed out, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let it take the focus off of Brian any longer ,because it ALWAYS seems to happen in a thread devoted to whatever Brian's doing.

And to add to that real quick, I know the Mike/Bruce band threads get hijacked too, and I'm looking at that as well, but I'm speaking specifically about the Brian threads turning into moderator attack threads.

And the issue I had was the same people then posting the same questions in the BW tour thread that had already been addressed and answered to a point where the answers should have been definitive enough to end all of it...yet the same questions that were answered a week ago came up again, today, and along with that I take heat this time for going off topic in addressing some of them? If this on-topic/off-topic issue were such a pressing issue to warrant another thread, where was the outrage during the Bennett thread or any one of dozens of threads that go off topic? No one voiced a concern there. They also got answers that seem to have been ignored.

It wouldn't seem be an issue either way, and not only were the same questions that were answered being raised again as if the answers given didn't matter at all, but going "off topic" in a discussion became a major issue as soon as I was accused of being the one to do it? How about the threads I had absolutely no part of, not even posting a single word that veered off topic into challenging the moderators...different standards?

Well all of it, really...all of it should go here, and probably should have in the first place, but can't change that now. And speaking strictly for myself, it's not that it became a major issue when you were accused, it's more of a 'oh God, not this again'. Frankly speaking, some of the posts also made it seem like I'm not doing anything, or that I have no say in anything (which is bullshit), and I got tired of seeing that, too. So yeah, all of it can go here, and I'll be pleased as punch if it never shows up in any other thread again.

Just my two cents.

My thought is how much damage has already been done? I've been labeled the reason why the board went to hell, been accused of banning people I don't like or don't agree with on my own whims, been accused of bullying other moderators, hell I've been accused of any number of things that have been refuted time and time again, and also been the object of a campaign among certain board members to discredit me that has reached who knows how many people, in spite of the fact that the claims behind it were false.

How's that for fun times? Even that has been chalked up to being my fault, or suggesting "I deserved it" or something.

Fun times indeed. It's a shame the truth can't be accepted as the answer which should end all of this stuff. It should have ended months ago.

GF, I noticed the issue in the Scott thread too. I hadn't yet reached the point that I was entirely fed up. But I have now. I am not targeting this at you alone. I'm targeting it at ANYONE engaged in this ongoing meta-struggle. Please keep board politics out of the topical threads. If people are fighting about Mike Love in a Mike Love thread, well, it's still tiresome but there's nothing to be done about it. But to argue about moderation in a BW or ML thread can be redirected. I think if people bring up board politics in a BB topic thread, before you respond with explanations, you should redirect the conversation here. Then explain away.

Billy, it got restarted in there by Craig, not any of us. He had to answer for his buddy Debbie, instead of letting her answer for herself. Then she had to defend him from the Conspirators. No one brought that up but Craig. I'm sorry Billy, but Craig doesn't take criticism very well, whether for his personal views or those of being a mod. The biggest difference between the two of you is that, Billy, you know when you have to take a neutral stance when you do your moderating duties, where Craig will take sides and fight. I will tell you, this is why some folks think he is biased towards some posters and unbiased with others. He is too polarizing a figure to have everybody on board with him moderating. As you can see, I am not the only one bringing this stuff up. People who rarely ever say anything, are having issues with his moderating. When feuds break out, no matter your personal preference a moderator needs to step in to get things under control, not jump into the fray. Folks see that and question what is going on. It may all be a perception problem, but if it lingers, it will continue to be a problem that won't go away easily.

I restarted it, just like you thought I banned Andrew, I banned Mikie, and I did any number of things that I or any one person here didn't do alone. I don't answer for anyone, whatever that was supposed to mean is way off base.

if you respect Billy as much as you say, why don't you listen to what he has already said and accept as the truth what he has repeatedly said to you about all of these moderating issues you keep bringing up? I will repost them here just to make sure it's on the record.

You're blaming me for not stepping in somewhere when there have been upwards of four mods registered as mods since I joined, and you hold me alone responsible for not taking action you'd like to see taken? Not just that, but after being told by at least three of those mods that it is indeed a consensus among the mods before action is taken, yet still point your finger of blame only at me?

Yes, I absolutely will challenge that because it's ridiculous.

Consider this under the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" category. I actually did make this an issue in a discussion I was involved in (no rules against moderators engaging in discussions and offering opinions, if there were we'd all be banned), and as a result there were complaints up to and including hints of "misbehavior" based on this, and what rules should be in place for moderators who misbehave.

Start at the top of this page I'm linking to, scan through and tell me that what I did there and took criticism for doing is along the same lines as what is being asked for now in terms of trying to keep political and personal issues out of threads so they stay on topic to the discussion.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23292.600.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23292.600.html)

For making a post about staying on topic there, I caught sh*t for it. For not making a post about staying on topic, I caught sh*t for it to the point of people posting followups about misbehaving mods. For engaging in trading opinions and debates as all mods since the board started have done, I catch sh*t for it.

DIYD, DIYD.

Specifically to Dr Beach Boy, here is a link to review. Start at the top and it;s only two pages to scan through. I'll post specific quotes as well.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.375.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.375.html)







Do you respect Billy's word and what he said specifically in reply to your issues in those quotes, Dr Beach Boy?

Short of getting me to somehow quit the board, I don't know how much beyond what Billy, me, and all mods previously have already said will be enough for you to get the point and stop harping on this stuff. As it stands, the quotes are posted above and others can be provided as well if you choose not to accept or ignore what is being said there, and I'm not quitting nor will I stop offering opinions and engaging in discussions since no other mod past or present has had a similar restriction or condition.

Believing and accepting the words of those who you claim respect for can matter more than just expressing your respect.

Longtime lurker, extremely infrequent poster. Just had to say, while it may not be popular to say it out loud, I agree with you Dr BeachBoy and it took guts to say it, though Im sure you'll get flak for doing so.

GF, you seem like a nice guy overall, so I dont want this to sound like bullying, personal attacks or ganging up on you. But I think you do tend to take things too personally and fan the flames rather than put them out when a mod ought to do the latter. If you were more willing to take criticisms, listen, not come down hard against those you disagree with and stay out of the petty feuds I think you and other posters would be much happier. And no offense, but the way you just responded to Dr Beach Boy just now kinda proves that point. I know my opinion around here means jack squat but...I digress.

I found that thread super confusing at the time, and it's still confusing. I also remember wishing there wasn't political sniping.
I'm not sure what happened there, but it's true that you will be damned by someone for doing almost anything. That's how it is. And I wish people here felt a little more shy about announcing their problems with each other. But they're not. And you're never (no one's ever) going to convince everyone not to have a problem with you. Everyone has someone who has a problem with them. And once someone, rightly or wrongly, does have a problem with you, it's really hard to make them change their mind.
My dad always said (echoing something in the captain's comment above), "it takes two to argue." Because he didn't really care who started it. He just wanted it to end. And I was furious when he said that because it's not fair to be blamed equally with the person who provoked it and, while it does take two to argue, it really only takes one to provoke an argument. But I see my dad's point now. There are two issues: the provocation and the argument. I agree that you've been provoked. That's one problem. The other problem is the argument. As a moderator, you need to redirect the argument to the sandbox.

Then as a person, go ahead and respond to the provocation if you want (though I'm not sure it will get you anything but high blood pressure.)

My problem is not with your engagement in an argument. It's with the location of their complaints, and the location of your response to their complaints. I'm pleased that drbeachboy brought his recent comment here, and I think that whenever anyone wants to make a critical comment about someone's behavior (as opposed to someone's on-topic opinion), it should be brought to the sandbox. Got a complaint about bullying? Sandbox it. About trolling? Sandbox it. I think that would be a great board policy.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm adding: My perception is that there are two distinct issues - one is your activities as a moderator - banning and the like. With that, I think it's clear that you, GF, are one of a team making decisions and that people making comments about you being solely responsible for or spearheading those decisions are mistaken. Whether they will ever be convinced of that, I don't know.

The other is that you are very blunt, assertive and have strong opinions. There's nothing inherently wrong in any of that, and I usually like those qualities when they are tempered with some tact and a lot of intelligence. However, when one disagrees with a blunt, assertive and strongly opinioned moderator, one might feel silenced or like they'll get into "trouble" for stating their contrary opinion. I think a mod needs to make clear, repeatedly, when engaging in debate that the mod is not being a mod while debating but is just being another poster. I think a mod also needs to cultivate a sense that, while he has his opinions, he's strictly neutral when it comes to interacting with and judging posters.
It's kind of like being a corporate manager - you can't really entirely be 'one of the guys.' You have to make sure everyone feels that they are equal in your view. Showing a particular liking for one  or showing irritation with another is going to cause people to think you have favorites, even if you don't. Even if that particular liking or that irritation was a passing thing that doesn't have an effect on your general judgment, others are going to think it does. They'll feel sensitive to it. And they'll nurse that sensitivity until it's a grievance. It's not fair but it's how people are.

You need a consensus to moderate a thread and keep the peace? Are you serious? Oh, brother!

Now *this* is the part of moderating a board, any board, that sucks.

Do you want to tell them or should I explain it instead?

Address the issues Billy addressed to you. Do you believe Billy and what he said? If so you've been wrong about me and my actions for months. Now the subject changes?

I'm 100% serious - If I'm expected to step in whenever someone criticizes something you might support, then where was the call to arms for the past 10 years before I even signed on, or where is the same call for any other mods or admins to step in over the past year? Why don't you ask where everyone else was as equally as you're challenging me constantly on why I don't defend whatever it is I'm supposed to be defending? I'm not the only mod, I have never been the only mod. But I'm supposed to be the one to act wherever you see a need for it?

How much more do you need to hear from Billy or anyone else before you get it? And as I'd estimate most if not all of the board members who come here are adults, why is there so much of a requirement in the first place for someone to keep the peace around the clock on this board when adults should be just as capable of treating each other respectfully, debating if not arguing points without making it personal or engaging in name-calling and the like, and in general keeping the peace amongst themselves? You shouldn't wait for someone to come in a lock a thread in order to put out whatever flames certain members started themselves.

I expect you to be a moderator. If you don't want to do your job, then let someone else do it. Don't make excuses and through Billy under the bus. If Billy says you do your banning as a group, then you do your banning as a group. It still doesn't mean you didn't initiate any of the bannings. They all seemed to occur after you had run ins with each of them.

I dont think I said anything mean spirited, out of line, or unwarranted in my post. I didnt even call for you to step down or call you a bad mod. I merely pointed out some issues Ive had and others too, with your style of moderation I think could be improved. And since any criticism of the mods here is usually shot down regardless of what it is, I thought DrBB deserved a fist bump for at least having the balls to say it and stick to his guns when others give him a hard time for it. I think youd do well to listen to constructive criticisms more than just get defensive and angry with people. Thats so of all people of all jobs and walks of life.

Who is the conspiracy theorist now?

This is beyond ridiculous, it's reached the point of bordering on sick.

This on a board where no one else is held to a similar standard?

I have listened to constructive criticisms and replied to them, but I refuse to be called to task for things I didn't do, for things other mods share equal responsibility for and have for a decade while I'm being singled out after a campaign to get a replacement for me failed, and I will not allow campaigns designed to dismiss or diminish me to fester especially if they're based on false information.

I ask again, do you want to step up or should I explain what's going on so everyone is getting the right version of events?

No one else is a mod tho.

Not sure what you mean by "step up" but I think youd do yourself a lot of favors if you maybe just explained your side of the story (whatever that is) ONCE in a big comprehensive post and then maybe just refered people there, to that URL, anytime you see them misinformed. And debate with anyone who spreads misinformation to that thread to discuss it. But repeatedly going after people in threads, dismissing all criticisms with "you wanna step up?"/"well how do you think the board should be run, are we gonna ban people for XYZ" type personal challenges or throwing responsibility for decision making unto the posters, making it an all or nothing 'either we do nothing or bad everyone' dichotomy just doesnt help the situation and isnt the decorum a mod ought to have. Your aggressive reactions in situations like this very thread to pretty mild criticisms/suggestions is proof that youre a little too thin skinned and quick to attack for many people's liking as a mod. Im friends with a few people who post here outside the board who've said the same to me in confidence. Im not saying all this to be mean, its just an appeal to you for your own sake to maybe relax a little bit. I think itd be good for you personally and the board as a whole.

A little honesty would be a nice gesture too. In recent months you posted "you are all a bunch of idiots" after Andrew was banned. Prior to that you did indeed publicly call for me to step down as a mod, then later apologized to me for being a part of all the stuff that went down related to that. At no point did I ever disrespect you nor do anything outside normal discussions which would have made you so concerned about what I did or didn't do, in fact I was someone who reached out to you off the board because I dug a lot of what you were saying and didn't like to see what was going down.

And I already have repeatedly explained my side of the story, which is the same version Billy, Klaas, and Charles have been telling since December and earlier, yet it continues to fall on deaf ears and have absolutely no effect on those trying to accuse me of whatever they think I'm to blame for doing or not doing. I've done exactly what you suggested and nothing I have said, or at this point nothing Billy or the other mods/admins have said, has had any effect at all on those out to blame me for the problems on this forum.

I'll add another layer to this. I went back and did a rough estimate of what exactly I've been involved in doing on this forum since I'm being singled out as the reason why things supposedly went to hell.

In the last 6 months, I've contributed to roughly 20 threads. of those 20, several were Sandbox topics like the cat pictures and conspiracy theories. Of the remaining ones, several were threads I started which were either links to or copy-and-paste posts of interviews from magazines or online articles. Further out of the remaining ones, the topics were all specific to what I either know best or am most interested in discussing, i.e. the Smile era, legal issues, or topics loosely centered around those including music and guitar stuff.

So out of roughly 500 topics posted in the "On Topic" main board in the last 6 months, I was personally involved in or posted to less than 20. That equals around 5% of all the topics posted in the last 6 months on the main forum which had any involvement from me.

And I'm the one to blame for the board's issues?

I've been told by someone that several insiders now stay away from this board because they consider GF to be a bad mod.

I've been told things about several insiders too. We should compare notes.

Yes, I did. It was half a joke, and half "outsider gives a reality check." If it actually hurt yours or anyone elses feelings Im truly sorry. I just thought the whole situation was ridiculous and felt someone ought to say so in a brutally honest humorous way.

Ive never said I wanted you to step down. Not sure where thats coming from. Or what you mean saying you reached out to me. We've never conversed, and I only started posting here a bit ago, and only do so infrequently. I have little to add most of the time, and frankly the way some threads go Id rather not get involved much of the time.

If thats so, why not just direct people to the posts where you earlier discussed it then? Maybe have that in your signature? Just constantly going down in the muck tho isnt becoming of a mod. It makes you look like a scrapper when a mod ought to be neutral and above that kinda thing.

I never said youre to blame for the state of things. But I know personally I do take issue with a few of your methods, as do others. Im just giving you a bit of advice what you could do to improve the perception you carry here. Emily and Dr BB have done likewise. You could either listen and learn or get defensive, make post after post arguing about it, and ironically proving the legitimacy of said criticisms. Id hope youd choose the former but I guess not.

Are these insiders moderating a BB's msg board?

No, doing other things insiders do.

What I would like to bring up is something a few of us mod types were kicking around in conversation, just loose talk and idle chatter like workers grabbing a soda and snack in the break room during a long shift.

Some things came up in those chats like which of the newer registered members could be "Mike's Beard", who had been banned in late December and then bragged on the Hoffman board prior to it being locked down how he managed to evade the ban, re-register on this forum under a new account and alias, and use IP masking tools in order to get back in under the ban.

It was kicked around, just casual conversation, no big deal.

You wouldn't happen to have any opinions on that, would you Mike's Beard... oops, I meant opinions on Mike's Beard, would you? Sorry for the slip of the tongue.

Just asking. ;D

Really? I mean, it's disappointing enough but none of this is what I expected. It's one thing to be lied about, it's worse to be lied to.

THIS.

That is pretty much exactly how I've been feeling!

Im not sure what youre going for, but whatever it is, have fun. I spoke my peace and was trying to politely point out something you might try doing to quell the concerns other posters have. Its your decision whether to listen or not. Its things like this, disagreements or friendly criticisms turning into annoying back and forth or in this case, I dont even know what, which is why I usually dont post in the first place. Again, thats not to pin everything on you, but its worth noting that as a mod you are an authority figure and your behavior sets an example for others to follow.

Seriously, just be cool and come clean and let the chips fall as they may. Unless someone managed to hack into an existing active account, change the name, and start posting completely unbeknownst to that original poster who might have no idea what's going on, it's not right nor is it honest to keep this going any longer.

Last post, because I never expected this to go on for so long, I just had a quick pointer I thought Id make, and hey Im willing to admit fault, perhaps it would have been better to send it in a private message. If its embarrassing to be called out in public I apologize but I didnt think it would come off that way. But seriously, can you not see how lame this looks? A member, very politely, points out a few issues some may have (and do, quite frankly) with the way you come off. Rather than take the advice, or at least even making a show of being appreciative but then going on your way, or asking the board how they feel...you get very defensive and now accusatory. Over something that wasnt intended as, and didnt need to be, a big deal. And this is ironically what the issue was in the first place. You basically just proved DrBB's criticisms had merit in this thread.

Anyway, maybe Ill go back to lurking and leave you to your business. I personally dont care what you do I just meant to help you out.

#1- I'm not whoever this mike's beard guy is.
#2 - Whatever you may or may not know about insiders has nothing to do with the word that you have driven some of them away from this board.

I'll take criticism and help but not from someone who isn't being honest about the most basic things like who they really are. I'm genuinely sad it had to reach this point and I hoped it wouldn't.

#1...Really? Check this out:





Spellchecking could have prevented this. Nice try, though Mike's Beard. Only person on the board who misspelled "regardless", under two different accounts.

Now onto the work of moderating this board...according to the rules just revised as of May 4th, #10:

I misspell a word and this makes me someone else??
Maybe you should post that in the conspiracies thread.
This has gone beyond the bizarre.

It certainly has.

Once last word before I bid you all farewell.
Craig, you are the most overbearing, blowhard, bellend I have ever come across.
Debbie, Brian dumped your saggy ass decades ago- move on.
Rab, NPP is still a big steaming pile of dogshit.
Billy, have fun in your sheltered accomodation, loser.

See you all under my next alias
MB.

And this is what mods have to deal with.

Someone was gonna say it: "thank f*** he didn't mention me!"

Haha.
Well, that was dramatic.

Adam Densborough strikes again.

And that, my friends,  is why Mike's Beard was banned in the first place

As has always been the case, there is the truth and there is everything else. How did (or does) this simple concept ever get flipped around to where the "everything else" was believed and defended more than the truth, and those dealing in "everything else" were believed over those telling the truth...

So much for the validity of the claims about this board and the moderation which were being scattered from board to board if "China Pig" was a source of those claims. In fact, I'd say it pretty much shatters the whole damned lot of those claims, but I'm obviously biased. I guess we'll need to stay tuned to see what develops on the other boards.

A direct appeal to ZenobiaUnchained:

That whole ugly and absurd episode that just happened with China Pig had no business infecting this board in the first place, and as a result of the blatant lies and deception which played out here over a few hours any if not all credibility coming from that source has been destroyed, unless lying to that extent is acceptable behavior among board members. Once the lies are exposed as lies, that's it - Say Goodnight, Gracie - it's a wrap.

Can we end this before it gets ugly? If I didn't give a damn I wouldn't bother, but consider coming clean and putting it to rest. I'd rather you be the one to do it. And if there is any misunderstanding about anything, I'll gladly 'fess up and take whatever I have coming. But it's not right to continue the deception.

I can't wait for the book to come out.

Is Rocky writing it?

Yeah GF had the right idea of who is an asshat! :hat

Copied this quote from the Brian touring thread as I didn't want to muck up that thread any more than it has been:


Some people here see a correlation between the time when you got here, the bans that subsequently took place, and your stance on Brian/Mike. They connect some scattered dots and automatically assume that you are the cause of the bans.

I've made this point at least twice lately, and every time it has been seemingly ignored by those who continue to question your moderation here: C50 tour (and "breakup"), new Beach Boys album, MiC boxset, Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin, In The Key Of Disney, Buddy Holly Tribute, No Pier Pressure, The Smile Sessions boxset, new Pet Sounds boxset soon to be released, Pet Sounds tour, Good Vibrations Celebration tour, Jeff Beck tour/sessions, barrage of mature/humble comments by Mike about Brian, Christmas single by Mike, Mike Love auto-bio (and documentary) announced, Brian Wilson auto-bio announced, Major Motion picture Love And Mercy announced and released. Think about the weight of any given one of the above listed events/items. Then realize that most of these things have taken place in the last 4 years.

We are passionate as hell fans here. Everyone here loves this band, we love the music, we love the history of the band - which is why we spend a ridiculous amount of time posting and lurking on this forum. We all have deep-rooted beliefs about this band and the members of it (some of these beliefs are based on falsehoods, other based on personal experience, others based on books/articles we've read). We are passionate about those beliefs and fight with conviction to convince others what we believe. Take any one of the items listed in that paragraph above and you'll see that each have the potential to draw out some sort of heated discussion. Sometimes those discussions turn into arguments, and in those arguments some say or do some really stupid things...bannable things.

People started unjustly blaming Guitarfool for the influx of bans here (even though those bans had mostly to do with the events/items in the above list), Guitarfool defended himself, then people called him confrontational because he defended himself. I watched as Guitarfool was needled by a group of posters here in nearly every thread he posted in about 6 months back. Hell, his moderation was called into question on another "forum" by a slew of people.

Thanks to these bans this forum has lost A LOT of incredibly interesting, passionate, and (depending on who you talk to) good people over the last 4 years. Again, I have to say that I miss RunnersdialZero a whole hell of a lot. This forum isn't the same without him, and I think this place lost a lot of insight and comedy with his removal. I feel the same way about Mikie - he added a lot to this forum. That being said - these two people broke board rules...Enough for Billy to say that he hasn't seen anyone on the perma-ban list he wants to see back here again.

You guys are pissed at Guitarfool for supposedly "fanning the flames" when you're not really realizing how many times he's had to defend himself based on falsehoods and lies (and Adam, thanks for proving this point in this very thread).

This proves my point about you. No conspiracies, you are not good and you don't listen to the people you serve. You ought to run for public office.

Amen, brother.

Aw, how sweet to be mentioned, even if the poster is remarkably illiterate.

I have no axe to grind with anyone. I don't associate with any other members. I like all Beach Boys equally for their outstanding contributions. I sort of understand why people try to defend Mike over Brian or vice versa but find it a pointless endeavour.

I completely agree with the above statement though, again through unbiased observations. And I do think that if Guitar Fool is a mod over on Brian's board, than it just adds fuel to the fire, whether or not it has any bearing on his duties here.

Maybe GF could take a sabbatical. Bring in someone new for a period of time. Chances are nothing will improve and then he can say, "hey I ain't the problem" lol

I won't be taking a leave or dropping out. No reason to. What happened so far in this thread was you saw one poster saying he wasn't Mike's Beard, then coming back and signing off as Mike's Beard after throwing a few personal insults.

He was one of the loudest voices and a presence on both Hoffman's board and Beach Boys Britain when the topic was me and my issues with moderating this board. Blame me, point the finger at me, it's my fault...up to his alias account saying "insiders" were staying away because I was a bad moderator.

Add it up - Is there any trust in the word of someone who can't even be honest with this community in general? Lies on top of lies, and it played out here for everyone to see.

So when you browse and read Hoffman's board or BBB and see comments from him, consider the source.

To further add up something else, in the past 6 months I've posted to roughly 20 out of 500 topics and discussions on the main board. That's around 5%.

If I'm the issue and the reason why the board went to hell, the numbers don't add up to that claim. If the board is apparently going to hell, look at the other 95% of posts and the posters like Mike's Beard who can't be honest about the most basic of all facts, his own identity.

Then tell me I'm the cause of all the problems. Me and my 5% of the topics I engaged in since November.

Then look at who was involved in the great plan (which continues to fail) to have me removed or voted out as a mod.

Skip the book, take it direct to television. The opening theme song could be "Liar Liar" by The Castaways. Closing credits theme, "Lies" by The Knickerbockers.  :)

I'll tell you something Craig, I haven't asked anyone in here to remove you, except yourself. You seem to be blinded by the very bright lights that surround that mirror you look into every day. In your posts, you have not once admitted to one fault laid before you, even down to the novella's that you continue to post in here. And maybe you really don't see it, but just read what has been posted lately. More people see it than just me, yet you won't even take the advice when it is warmly handed to you by the people who have tried to stay neutral. Your style of moderating may work nicely at BrianWilson.com, but not here. I would hope that you think enough of the members in here to take their recommendations and act on them.

And please explain why a slight criticism of a Brian Wilson track warrants a giant novella length response.  The man's been making music for 55+ years.  Not everything is going to be a winner. 

I believe that posters should be able to post honest opinions - good, bad, or indifferent -  about the music without mods jumping in to say an opinion is uneducated or agenda-based. 

With respect, Mike's Beard doesn't post on BBB to the best of my knowledge.

As for being honest about identities, it has been suggested in previous threads that people maybe ought to be obliged to post under their own real names, then they might be less inclined to post reams of tripe while hiding behind some pseudonym.

Kinda interesting the usual suspects switched from hammering Billy to Craig.....

It's probably because there's a cross-board multi-platform conspiracy of conspirators to conspire.

Nobody asked for my opinion, but here it is anyway:

I have been a member of several message boards throughout the past 20 years or so. Most have had a minimum of four *active* moderators at all times--often spread over several time zones to help better cover 24 hours of the day. Since I began lurking (two years ago) and joined (almost one year ago), Billy and Craig have been the only two active moderators that I have been aware of. When one of the two moderators is seen by some (fairly or not) to be biased and abrasive, you have an absolute dumpster fire on your hands. Moderators have thankless, difficult jobs, it is outrageous that this board (and the moderators) have had to endure just two active moderators for this long. For being *just* a message board, why does it take so long to delegate new moderators? Why not give a couple board members a trial period or interim tag as moderator? After the trial period, it may be determined they aren't a good fit for the team or they may determine that is more work or a bigger hassle than it is worth.

One more thing, some of the threads veer quickly into off-topic conversation, as mentioned this has occurred both in the M&B tour and BW tour threads. Why not create new threads and move the off-topic discussion there. I understand why the Scott Bennett thread was moved to the Sandbox, but that seemed like the epitome of an on topic thread that had to be moved due to a lack of moderator action (deleting off-topic posts, moving off-topic posts to the Sandbox, issuing warnings for inappropriate posts, etc.).

Again, just my .02

I'm quite aware of the "great plan" as I was approached elsewhere about what a problem mod you were (read:  Brian defender, instead of being a mod calling Brian's fans "jihadists" as did one of your predecessors).  Yet people love to mock anyone exposing slimy, behind-the-scenes efforts as "conspiracy theorists."  I guess it's easier than accepting the reality.  

Now, re:  those other boards:  Hoffman is so massive I don't think anyone screens the liars, multiple IP address posters, racists and misogynists there on a frequent basis, so those banned from here, and often from BW but not always, flourish there.  Hopefully, this time no one posting both here and there will take this as my personal attack on them - well, unless they fall into those categories.

BBB is a sad little joke.  Some of the multiple-identity posters there (and there are so few posters on that board that they're easy to spot) are so obviously people banned from here.  I won't name who Nicko (whatever set of numbers he chooses) really is, but he's all over the place there, I'm thinking with other id's as well - unless there are others as stupid as him, which is possible.  I know who the pathetic little whiner is, but I'll leave it at that.  

And the woman who runs the place, well...She's still running her sad little story that Brian is "frail" and "shouldn't be forced to tour," only now through others (or possibly she has more than one id there - it wouldn't be hard as the sole moderator). She's been chanting that mantra for 12 years now.  I guess Brian's not that frail, nor forced - d'ya think?  If she outlives him, she may get to say, "See! See! - many years later and not so believably.  I'm wondering what her posting history might be as well.  What name(s) might she have used here and on BW? I only managed to spot one on BW, but I haven't been on these boards that long.

GF - Sadly, people who care about the truth and insist on it, even when it's not polite or comfortable, are crucified on a regular basis.  But I guess you're already aware of that.    

Posting under one's real name has its hazards.  So far, I've survived, along with my "dumped, saggy ass."  Of course, sometimes, it just makes a person chuckle (like that idiotic statement).  I think everyone knows who Craig is, if that's what you're attempting to imply here.

I need to add something...posting under my own name is not an option, being that half the time I'm posting here from work.

I think that if someone were to mine my posts they could identify me, but I'm not entirely comfortable posting under my full name on a public message board. It is true that some seem to use it as permission to offend. And I'm not referring to GF, just the general tone of the internet vs. reality.

Billy, I understand. If I posted from work I'd be in sh*t. For that reason, I don't risk posting from work, at all - don't want to risk losing my job. Also one of the reasons why I declined Craig's invite to be a mod (great honour though that was) way back before things got properly heated.

I will not take criticism nor suggestions from someone who is doing the online equivalent of looking into my eyes and lying to me. The person who posted knows exactly what I'm talking about, and has been given several chances to set the record straight but is instead sticking to the lie. When someone lies that blatantly to me, my respect for them is gone.

It's very telling how you think it's a bigger priority to implore me to think enough of the members here while saying nothing about the board member Mike's Beard/China Pig who not only lied to everyone about who he was, but did so to evade the ban, broke the board rules, and on his way out insulted two moderators and several members with his farewell message.

I'm all for consistency too. Where is yours?

And you seriously need to consider putting and end to whatever this obsession has been with me or the way I moderate. It's impossible to get you to accept or believe anything despite repeatedly telling you the actual truth, and now you move the goal posts to how I interact with members and moderating on BW?

Did you ever ONCE step up and admit you got it wrong, or were mistaken in something you said in any of this, after both Billy and I told the straight-up truth about any number of issues you raised?

Never. Not once. Zero.

If you want to take the word of liars like the guy who was just banned and other members who couldn't follow the basic board rules and showed disrespect to the community by lying and trying to evade and break the rules, that says it all. Hearing multiple moderators explain all of this stuff to you seems to have no effect. It's whatever I did or whatever you like people to think i did that is the worst "offense" and is responsible for destroying the board.

How about those who lie repeatedly as demonstrated for all to see in this thread?

And I get chastised about showing respect? Please.

Thank you for posting this. That is one of the reasons why some members simply cannot post under a real name, and who choose not to. I'm glad to get some common sense logic into the dialogue about this issue and hopefully end it using common sense, because some have tried to make it an issue to harp on in the past.

Marty, I'd ask you this: If in whatever job you do or are doing there were people who you found out had organized an effort to come after you across multiple departments, and using lies about what you do or have done and distortions of the truth start telling your co-workers these lies in an effort to have you removed or replaced somehow from your job, would that be fair? If you have proof they did it, would that make it even more serious of an issue beyond hearing about it in general?

"Fair or not" doesn't apply here. When people lie about someone and start spreading those lies, it's not a case of weighing the lies as fair or not, it's a case of people telling lies.

Is the act of people here telling lies about other members acceptable on this board? If it is, I'd like to know how that factors into the idea of cleaning it up, clarifying the rules, and making it a better place.

I've been trying really hard to think of a more effective way to say this. But I can't.
I think a few separate issues are being convoluted. I think GF has been unfairly targeted by some posters. But I think there's a separate issue, a more complex and subtle one, about how a moderator interacts with posters. It's one that I'm having trouble sorting out my own thoughts on, because of course a moderator should be free to post his/her opinions, just like other posters, but there's also the point that a moderator needs to maintain an appearance of objectivity, so if a moderator has very strong views on a controversial subject, how is that to be balanced? It's a difficult question, but pertinent.
I also think that these two separate questions have tangled themselves. Probably GF is stinging from the incorrect and unfair accusations. So perhaps it's best to drop the topic until the dust has settled over those?
I don't know. I'm concerned that this is now a circle, in which GF's responses are validating the concerns which are validating GF's responses based on an outside variable.

* This originally posted with incomplete text because I did something screwy. Sorry.

 

I still do think it's an issue Craig. The posting at work thing might be a reason, but I honestly think that, if posting at work puts your job a risk, and therefore your family's welfare, then simply wait until you get home and post from there. In my case, as bread winner for my partner, two kids and a CD addiction, I wouldn't dare risk it. Nevertheless I respect everyone's right to weigh up the risks, consider the consequences and come to a different conclusion.

If you're on a work computer, your company can also see what has been visited or sent through the internet, pseudonym or not.

I understand, but not long ago there was almost a call for people to post under their real names, and in different situations and different professions that might not be acceptable for some members who choose not to broadcast their real name. It's their choice, ultimately.

And ultimately it comes down to a system that works perfectly fine and accommodates everyone unless some decide to abuse and break the rules, as we saw happen with Mike's Beard and several others. The rules aren't that strict nor are they that difficult to follow, and posting under a screen name works fine for those who don't come here or to other forums with the intent of ruining it for everyone else.

It's an awful lot of energy wasted. The internet is serious business.

As a moderator, I have to make myself available.

The issue shifted more to objectivity only more recently after the lies about banning people and other supposed bad behavior from me as a mod failed in light of the truth being told. If the 5% of the threads I've posted in since November are causing these issues and I'm to blame, I'd be curious to see the opinions on the other 95% of discussions that I didn't get involved in, and all the posters who didn't even engage in the 5% with me.

Unfairly targeted only scratches the surface. Perhaps those who were involved could shed more light on what they were doing and why if you'd ask them. Try Facebook since one of them just got banned.

And try reversing a series of lies that have been repeated so often they became the truth.

Someone else got banned? Or are you referring to Mike's Beard/China Pig (?)?

I think, btw, that fuel was thrown on the objectivity fire when someone (forget who) pointed out that you also moderate on Brian Wilson's board. When some here were accusing AGD of being on Mike's payroll (blatant nonsense … would Mike let go of money so easily?!?!), this revelation looked unfortunate in light of the fact that the board's two prime trolls, LOSD and his young familiar Snail Brian, appeared able to attack Mike with impunity.*

For the same of clarity, then - purely honesty and clarity, note -  can I ask whether you receive any form of remuneration for your work on that board? CDs? Free concert tickets? Upgrades (m&g, soundcheck) to concert tickets? Etc etc - or is it purely voluntary with no reward?


* I have noted, at long last, an apparent reduction in their misbehaviour. If this is due to a restraining order, then you, GF, and Billy are due a note of grateful thanks!

Actually, I was the one who brought up the banning of AGD on Hoffman's board. Probably not the right thread to do it in, but there you go. And I've posted on there, on and off, for ages. No-one dragged me there. I don't know Mike's Beard. I don't agree with his vehemently anti (recent) Brian stance, though I do suspect it's driven by the persistent and unchecked anti-Mike comments. Mostly I stick with the visual arts threads over there and I seldom read BBB because of its stupid interface, so I have no idea what went down until I read the complaints here.

My two cents - I think what pissed off a lot of people here is the mind-numbing way threads are derailed by a handful of people pushing their anti-Mike/Mike agenda, after which, we get correspondents going way over the top to piss them off in turn. The regularity with which this happened - and happened beyond all common sense (i.e. no credit for Mike as a vocalist, band leader or lyricist during those years when the band made their name and when they were a genuine creative force. I mean, I get all the other stuff: the comments about Brian, his negativity towards Dennis, the 80s (ugh!); his endless self-justification and self-promotion which ironically matches some of the stuff I see on this board  ;D But... he could sing and Brian wrote for that voice in the mix and he could write - even  for Dennis) has frequently been raised by posters. And, of course, it's still going on, mostly by the same people. Remember AGD's thread on 1964. One post completely skewed it until it finally got back on track - and it wasn't even by one of the usual suspects.

Wow. The claws are out.

This is a really unfortunate point of view. Seems that when folks complain about this board at BBB, it's out of order and cowardly, but when folks complain about BBB here, it's okay?

The lady you're referring to is a gem. Years ago she realised that the UK fan base was disparate, consisting of pockets of fans or even individuals scattered across the country. Stomp was largely unattended and silent. She worked hard to establish BBB as the place for UK fans to gravitate, and brought together the UK fan community with events, pre-show meet-ups, a newsletter etc etc etc.

It all came together when Brian started to undertake more and more tours, and that sense of community contributed significantly to the incredible vibe at the RFH for the Pet Sounds gigs and the Smile gigs in 2002 and 2004.

She's had so much love for Brian and his music for years, and her infectious enthusiasm for it all has spread to many many other fans. Please don't belittle that, or attempt to undermine it.

If you do have some personal issue, at least take it to her board and do it to her face.

I'm really disappointed that this inter-board rivalry is allowed to go unchecked but hope it'll be nipped in the bud.

Who is part of this conspiracy to remove guitarfool as mod, besides AGD?

These are good points. It may well be that there was no issue before the lies about banning people. And I'm certainly aware of the problem that people eventually believe ridiculous assertions if they're repeated enough; but for people who aren't involved and not paying close attention to what's going on, it's uncomfortable to come across a mod expressing so much hostility to posters. I understand that the hostility might be earned, but not everyone understands that. I didn't understand it, say, yesterday. And it's never going to be that everyone understands it, because most people aren't really here to learn about the board politics. So the appearance to someone not involved in board politics is very negative.
I've also felt that sometimes when you address me, it's a little hostile. It might not be, but it comes close on the heels of a hostile post to someone else. If in your head, the tone is different, I can't hear that. I'm just saying that it can be intimidating and off-putting to by-standers, even if you're right because they don't know the story.

On the other hand, perhaps I'm going on about a solved problem. I expect that since it's now contained in this thread, it won't be a concern to casual readers.

I will say that while the Mike battles are extremely tiresome, I wouldn't want the mods to start censoring them.

Hi! ;)

I think this is very sensitively put and eloquently stated. I wish i could match that!

The overly defensive-cum-aggressive tone adopted can come across as a red warning light to those not in on whatever's going on behind the scenes. I'm torn on this: while on the one hand I believe in clarity and transparency, on the other hand I believe mods should be able to get on with their role without interference. When a mod's effectively posting along the lines of "It wasn't me, it wasn't me! I've got evidence that you can't see!", however… well, it's gonna get my hackles up.

I hope this is taken in the spirit of honesty in which it is offered.

I ha e a moderator related question. This has no derogatory or negative meaning behind it. Just a simple question . Since there are only two mods at the moment, how does a final vote or decision regarding a board issue be determined? If Billy and Craig were to each have opposing views on how to handle a situation, how is it resolved, since there is no third vote?

There are a lot of issues to address and answer. Please be patient and I'll try to address each one in time.  I may tackle the quick ones first.

Good post. I think BBB is pretty balanced, albeit limited in traffic. Reading it for 16 years, and I sure don't see an anti-Brian agenda from Val. Recently people who I assume attended Brian shows have put in their thoughts, which again, seem non derogatory. Some people felt he was looking or sounding tired. Some say he sounded great.

Another great post John, yes worth clarification, and it doesn't have to be a condemnation of GF in any way.

Honest answer: I cannot think of a moderator decision we made where Billy and I didn't agree. When Klaas was more active as a mod, there was at least one issue where there was disagreement, which meant no action was taken. Another issue involved whether or not to take action, and we simply did not agree on the reasons why.

As far as tallying up votes, in light of Lowbacca leaving, there really hasn't been a decision come to a discussion where Billy and I did not agree, so it hasn't come up. If it does, Charles could ostensibly be the tiebreaker if necessary. But though we may disagree on some related points or whatever, I seriously cannot remember a situation where Billy or I had a serious objection with each other on whatever action would need to be taken.

So hopefully that explains it, and also puts to rest the complete lie that myself, Billy, or whoever else acted alone and banned people "at the flick of a switch" as one banned member once suggested I would do.

Thanks for the explanation.  :) I was just thinking that not having a "tiebreaker" vote could potentially cause problems on the board. But I'm glad you and Billy seem to work well together.

I might not have been clear… I was more concerned about Debbie's gutless attack on Val that any anti-Brian attack from BBB (which would, anyway, be a nonsense).

I too can vouch for Val's efforts over the years John.  Maybe DKL and Val have met over the years and, as you say, there's been a falling out.

Me too! :lol

*This* is one of the long-running debates in general, removing any specific individuals or situations. I have written very, very often about this but unfortunately most of my replies have been in private messages to board members who had contacted me.

This is an "open forum" which has never been a tightly moderated forum. I have seen and read forums that are very tightly moderated, and the nit-picking that goes on can stifle any sense of conversing with the other board members. It's like the Seinfeld episode with the guy selling soup...you're there to get soup, if you say the wrong thing, "No Soup For You!".

Some people might want that, round the clock monitoring of posts and discussions, if someone steps away from the topic it's "no soup for you".

What drew me to this forum in the first place, and it was coming off the Smile Shop before that imploded, was how the conversations were freewheeling as much as they were on topic. There was no traffic cop directing you here or there. If we were talking about a Smile track and someone mentioned seeing something on TV the night before, it would roll along. Eventually it gets back on topic.

That's an open forum.

As I also said recently, many times I think to myself why are adults who are coming together to talk about a shared interest in need of constant, round the clock moderation and moderating? As much as an open forum exists, so can a sense of self policing. I answered certain members' PM messages complaining about this or that, demanding action be taken on that or this...and my reply was usually the same. It's an open forum. If someone offers an opinion that you disagree with, you can challenge it. If someone posts something you want to offer an opinion on, post that opinion.

This idea that people post something and are shocked to learn others disagree and post as such just doesn't make sense. If it stays within the lines of not getting personal against another poster, it's par for the course. I don't understand sometimes how or why the notion that a moderator should step in and act on demand because someone doesn't like what was said should be more ingrained into an open forum then the simple act of discussing and debating.

I also do not understand sometimes the calls for strict moderation over every thread when there are not many rules to begin with, and they're really not that difficult to understand nor are they hard to follow as a general rule. If more posters would come here for the reasons a majority come here, you wouldn't need the board cops to be monitoring 24/7. "It's all about the music" is the phrase often repeated, so where are the discussions about the music? So many get posted then disappear.

I can't say any more lest I piss off KDS and/or Dr Beach Boy who said I write long novelas. Fine - don't read them. Your choice.

But I would suggest there are just as many posters who enjoy this being an open forum as there are posters asking for constant monitoring and stepping in by moderators.

It is also very revealing how many people who want the constant monitoring will complain when action is taken which they disagree with by saying it's too strict, too many rules, it's unfair, etc....yet demand action be taken if it's something they want to see done to someone they either don't like or would like to see removed.

The moderators have to find that balance, that middle ground when making any of these decisions. It's not easy. But the job gets done.

And if improving the community is a priority, perhaps more efforts could be made by those who come here like Mike's Beard to play everyone for fools and flaunt the rules to instead take that act somewhere else.

And consider too - The next "target" of either the mob carrying torches or calling people before kangaroo courts of opinion could be anyone here who runs afoul of whatever the current most vocal mob is advocating that day. I've seen that happen on several boards that got ripped apart, and I'll be damned if it will happen here.

I am not on any payrolls. And yes, Mike's Beard/China Pig.

One of my unpopular opinions - nearly everyone I've suggested it to has rejected it out of hand - would be to eliminate the PM function of this board. I know why it would be an unpopular decision that would garner little if any support, but honestly a lot of the major problems going back to other forums I've seen have come from members who think doing things via private messages is a way to hide behavior and get away with it. It was disgusting to hear about some of the absolute crap that was going on. There would be the public face of things, then underneath something entirely different. Nasty stuff. The problem is - in my opinion - these messages are hidden by design. If I were to do or say something offensive to another poster via private message, who would know unless the recipient either reported it or informed a moderator about what they received? If it were a threat, and that poster was hesitant to say anything, it would simply be hidden in the privacy of the system and that poster would have no recourse.

As bad as some thought the derailing of various public threads was, there were even more serious issues going on that no one knows about, and almost all of them which no one will ever know about because they're private messages that were not reported.

I've heard too (actually, it was reported on several occasions) that insulting messages were sent, then the sender blocked the recipient's account so they couldn't respond. Is that the kind of system people really want? If so, then the majority speaks. But i think even the ability for a poster to fire off an offensive message to another poster, then block them from responding, is ludicrous. And cowardly.

So my take is, if you have something to say, and you're coming to a community to interact with other fans, say it on the board. Groups of people in all walks of life have as many disagreements and arguments (and yes, fights) as they do gatherings where everyone is happy and getting along.

To have a system where there is even an inkling of "I can get away with it because I'm sending a private message and no one will know", then to further suggest if the recipient says anything they are the ones violating the rules...to me it invites a lot of abuse and bending of the rules, as well as people doing things that are against the rules going unnoticed or unchecked for days if not years because no one else might want to report it for fear of being exposed or subject to more abuse, short of being banned for violating the rules if they say anything.

There are many boards where there is simply no private messaging enabled. If members want to contact each other off the forum, they can voluntarily hide or make visible an email address or contact info. If they do not wish to be contacted, hide the email. Admins and moderators can still get in contact with members if necessary, but this hidden getting-away-with-it mentality is not an option.

If you come to the board and have something to say, even an axe to grind or an argument with someone, it's in the open. You come to the forum, what you say is public as part of the deal.

In terms of trying to improve the board, or make it a nicer place, sometimes the main issue holding back the mods/admins or anyone else is they have no idea what has been said between members in private messages, and whatever issues or tensions may have been smoldering under the privacy of these exchanges can explode on the public board at any time.

I just don't like nor agree with the notion that people might think they can get away with things via private messages that no one will see, and therefore continue to operate with immunity from the "rules of the board" that everyone else has to follow.

It's yet again a case of the few who choose to bend and break the rules that ruin it for others. But I've just become sick of how this veil of secrecy has not only allowed people to do things that would warrant a ban if it were public, and think there is immunity within the privacy of the function itself.

I don't expect to get any agreement on that, but as positive as it can be when used for the purposes for which it was designed, the PM system might also be to blame for some of the issues that have affected this board negatively. I don't like to see people who are dishonest if not outright liars gaming the system and flaunting it. I also don't like to hear about possible bullying or attempts to coerce members to say or do something via private message based on something they said on the board that ruffled feathers.

That is not what it's for. If that's what it is or was being used for, maybe some of the recipients can shed more light on what was going on so positive changes and tweaks can be made to improve it moving forward.

Maybe - just maybe - some of the issues that are apparently ruining the board had been festering in private message systems on this board which had more of a negative impact on the community than the decisions or actions done in public. If so, maybe the system itself needs to be addressed.

I personally am against the idea of doing away with PMs.

This just isn't about what happened with the recent bannings. What I want to see is you treat the other threads in here the same way you treat the Brian threads. It irritates me that you defend Brian right down to auto tune on NPP, but never interject when members threadcrap on any Mike Love or Beach Boys threads. Again, I am looking for consistency from you and Billy too (just so you think I picking only on you). You chose to become a mod, so whenever you're in here, you are setting the example.

The guys that you, Billy & Chuck banned were all people that I had correspondence relationships with in here. That is no secret. And no, I don't think they are liars. Your friends and concert buddies continue in here unabated with their threadcraps and trolling behavior. With all of this, myself and any others who feel as I do seem to lose out on both counts. If I don't see action when they act up, then I will be sure you and Billy are made aware. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but I surely see what goes on here, on the board. I'll be sure to keep you abreast, just in case you miss or overlook their behavior.

What don't you get about Mike's beard and Mikie harassing other Members of the BOARD, not band members....

People harass each other in here constantly. Hardly a thread opens up that somebody doesn't get in a pissing match. They are far from the only ones who lost control in this place. Plus, you should be one to talk. You have crapped on more threads than the action in a gas station toilet

Why, we're so damn fortunate that we have people here like you :lol to faithfully monitor, with incessant determination, our *behavior*. You can't even spell the word let alone determine just what is or isn't misbehavior is on this board. Quit trying to be an effig cop :police: will you? You're not a moderator. You don't make the rules and as far as I'm concerned, YOU'RE a troll, ok? Maybe it's time for you to hide behind you're favorite rock-The Hickey Script. You'll be all safe and warm there, Johnny Boy.

GF, I really appreciate the time you're taking to discuss all this. I'm sorry to have called you out; I understand the feeling of stress you've been having; even without the added grief of unfounded accusations, the role of a mod here is really difficult. In this thread are good examples of the different ways people perceive problem threads and what should be done about them.
I just felt like your stress was beginning to spill out in inappropriate ways, which happens to everyone when they're deeply engaged.

Time for the doctor to write a prescription for himself for either a sedative or a laxative or both.  :lol

I'm feeling relaxed and regular. It's the really old guys like you that need their prune juice and stool softeners. I'm not quite that old, yet. ;)

A couple of opinions:
-I don't think it's a mod's place to suppress people's negative opinions about any of the band members. It's unfortunate that they exist and that there's such disagreement about it, but as long as the conversation is reasonably civil, silencing the expression of opinions wouldn't be right. Then it would truly be an agenda-driven board.
-The only woman posting here that I can think of off the top of my head who is completely open about her identity is Debbie KL. Whether women's discomfort with openly identifying themselves on an open board is validated by stats or not, it's real discomfort based on the many horror stories we hear on a regular basis.
-Also on the woman tip, I will leave Debbie to fight her fights, but I don't appreciate some of the ways people have referred to what she's said. Using references to 'claws' and implying that it must be some personal squabble seems condescending and sexist. Maybe just an unfortunate choice of terms, but some terms are loaded. Eta- Let me be clear here - this is my opinion I'm expressing. If you disagree, I'm not asking for censorship.
-Lastly, without pms, I wouldn't have been able to expand my relationships on the board to off-board. Again, I'm not comfortable plunking too much identifying information onto an open board. For that reason, I'm personally happy for the pm function.
 :)

Guys...

My name is Dirk and I am recovering Smiley Smile addict. If anyone wants to know who I am, all they have to do is ask. I have never hid it from Craig or Billy.

As to your first point. As opinionated as Craig is, how are any of us supposed to know when he defends a point whether it is as a fan or as a mod? If you take on the role of mod, then every time you logon in here you are the moderator. You can't pick and choose, because there is no way for any of the rest of us to know. You want to be a mod? Than that is the price you pay to be one.

I agree that a moderator should be careful to moderate his/her tone; like I've said before, it's a bit like being a manager; you can enter the conversation, but you always have to watch how you say things in order to set a model of free, open conversation without suppressing anybody or encouraging incivility. Just my opinion. Billy (I'm just going to call him that because  'Beef Skittles') and GF have both pointed out that a mod is still also a posting member of the community who doesn't lose their right to engage when they become a mod, and I appreciate that point. As I said above, my opinion on this is still 'evolving'. It's a little complex.

I have no problem with posting as a regular member, but when they get embroiled in an argument, then they should recuse  themselves from moderating in that particular thread.

I think one of the difficulties with this is that it's not a paying job. The only real reason anyone would be a moderator is that they are here anyway, enjoying engaging in the threads. If you take that away, then why would they be a moderator? 'Argument' is a soft term. One person's discussion is another person's argument.  So, I think a mod shouldn't really be arguing at all, if we mean angry arguing. If it's debating or discussing civilly, then it shouldn't be an issue. I don't think.
Let me point out here that, of course, this is not my board and I don't imagine that I'm establishing, or should be establishing, rules or guidelines for mods or posters. Nor have I thought extensively about it, as I'm sure Mr. LePage and the mods have. I'm just conversing and sharing my thoughts.

Reguardless, if you sign up for the job, then take what comes with it, if not, let someone else who is willing to do it.

Craig opinionated??? ??? He's a fan/mod and a good one. You've done nothing on here but state you're opinion on basically nothing but your distaste for him. To be honest, I'm surprised he hasn't tossed you out on your ear, man. He was chosen, thank god, to be a mod here and he fits here perfectly in spite of what you and your posse have to say. If all you're gonna do here is criticize a fellow board member then take a hike. Have a little respect for who's in charge here, man.

Real quick before I get back from break...

many forums, if you raise concerns about a mod, or worse, complain about him/her publicly, it can end up in a ban. Thankfully, that is not the case here, nor will it ever be.

?

My issue with GF isn't about this recent belief that he bans people on his own, but rather he tries to suppress opinions he doesn't like.  Just like with my ban he accused me of not knowing what I was talking about when I was talking about something completely different... changing the goal posts to suit his argument.  I even offered to take it to pm because there was no reason to have that silly debate waste space.  Turns out we were talking about two different threads.  Once I made that clear, he kept going asking if I've had my say, because it's foolish, not even acknowledging that I was talking about something else.  I know he was just dying to ban me at that point.  He got his way when Billy misunderstood something I said.  Thankfully, we talked about it since then everything's cool now.  That's why almost everyone loves Billy, he's willing to admit a mistake and listen to suggestions.  That's what makes him a great mod.

OSD, if he wants to prove my point, he can ban me. As for a taking a hike, you should have had your walking papers ages ago. You should be the last person to talk about respect. Your lack of it has caused many issues in here over the years. He is your concert buddy, so I understand your concern.

What is this 'concert buddy' stuff?

Legit question... I really don't know what you mean by that or are implying

Only Billy apologized?

I didn't try to reach out to GF, but I didn't think it would be worth the effort after all the things he said to me. 

Still.

Weren't there 4 (or 3) mods that participated in that group decision?

It seemed like it was just Billy and Craig.  Once Billy took issue with my post I was banned. 

I'm sure apologies are on their way and hopefully there can be some clarity/closure without anyone being called a liar.

I have a suggestion for Billy but maybe it is just a problem for me.  I can't get your handle to CC in PMs, even if I cut and paste it. I don't know if it is the punctuation and symbols, the PM system, or just me and my senility.

CC'ing in PMs seems to be intermittent for me...sometimes I can get it to work, sometimes I can't.

Get off your high horse, Doc. The only one I have absolutely no respect for around here is myKe luHv which is strictly my own opinion. I mostly stay away from going after fellow posters unless they do the same to me. Start calling me names and you're simply going to get the same back unless I don't give a rat's ass. You, on the other hand, are trying your pathetic best to weasel someone out of a job because you don't agree with him and that is pure, unadulterated crap. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time posting lengthy, wordy posts from your lofty perch. Why don't you back off and go volunteer your time to a more worthy cause than trying to upend a moderator on a message board, huh?

I think you might have to use the original name with which a poster registered (back in '05!). Subsequent pseudonyms don't work; only the original name.

:lol I think you'll find we were spelling "behaviour" that way for a few centuries before the word crossed the Atlantic for it and other elements of the language to be misshapen and transformed.

As for the Hickey Script, I don't use it. But its creation made me realise that I simply don't have to read any of your highly valued contributions to proceedings here, and my life improved there and then.

Hey, is that nurse calling? I think it might be time for your next suppository…

Ps: what's an "effig cop", Mr Spelling Queen?

So no favours? Gifts? Incentives?  It's done purely for the love of it? Just to be absolutely sure…

This. Consistency and impartiality seem to be the bedrock of fair play.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18532.msg484872.html#msg484872 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18532.msg484872.html#msg484872)

Sorry if my "claws" comment was unPC; it was an instinctive reaction to the shameful section of Debbie's post as quoted here, an unwarranted attack on Val, who rarely ever posts here.

I'll withdraw my "claws" comment.

Sorry for the multiple posts. That's it for today though - I'm off to work. Hi ho…!

I obviously don't post much, but I've been around this board since it's creation, and was a member of the Smile Shop before that.  I've enjoyed Craig's posts on the old board, and on this one, before and after he became a mod here.  I don't consider him a moderator as much as I consider him to be a knowledgeable, passionate fan of the Beach Boys.  A moderator's place on an open forum such as this is to enforce the board's rules.  Period.  When not in 'police mode', they should be able to discuss, passionately if desired, any subject with any other poster(s).  I consider them to be moderators only when they're considering a rules violation.  Otherwise, they're just posters who happened to take on the thankless task of monitoring what often seems to be a bunch of whining children.  Personally, I wouldn't be able to handle the job, nor would I want to.  Craig and Billy are outstanding moderators.  They're fair, yes sometimes passionate, and they seem like really nice guys.  My two cents worth.

Hickey script improved your life, you say? Must have been a rather drab existence for you to carry on everyday but considerably *normal* for a British snob.

Debbie - Val is a lovely person with whom I have corresponded for about 10 years and consider her a friend, as much as one can, without having met a person "in person."  

In all that time, it is my experience that she is a very kind person, and reflects before speaking. Her opinions are her own and in mine, does not merit being disparaged.  She is a musician in her own right.  I have no idea what informs her opinions and it is of no consequence.  It does not make her a bad person.  

  

whos val ? ???

La la la, la la la, la la la… ;)

Reading between the lines, she would appear to be a mod at Beach Boys Britain. But don't quote me on that. ;D

John, I have received nothing. I was given mod access October 26th 2015.

I hear that's how the hickey script works...

Guess I'm dumb.  What is hickey script?  - can't GIS it.

I agree. Very few people on this board know as much about music as Craig.And he has definite opinions. I ask, where was the outrage when Jason was outright insulting Brian fans?  Craig has never stooped to that level.  And to also suggest that he "bullies"  his fellow mods is insulting to the other mods.  The bans that had occured were all deserved. At least one of the banned parties had also been banned on another message board multiple times. Craig was not involved there at all.

What's it going to take to convince the critics because both Billy and Craig have been more than generous in talking about their duties.

Here you go: https://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/

Val Johnson-Howe, who as far as I know has shown nothing but love and respect and hard work for Brian and all the Boys and any opinion she expressed or anything she said I'm sure is said meaning the best of intentions for Brian.  I have never seen her badmouth anybody, let alone go to another board to do it.  

She is also owed an apology I think.

Excellent, LA! You nailed it.  :woot

Thanks, CM. I'm not that well-informed about these things. Googling her name, she seems an awful lot keener to help people than put them down.

It also would have been nice to see Mike's Beard apologize to Debbie for his obnoxious and disrespectful behavior.

Agreed, and thank you for a great post. It captured my feelings too. If people now want moderators to act more as cops to police a forum, it goes against what this forum has been since it started, and in my opinion, would negate one of the strengths of this being an open forum.

I'm not critiquing your reaction; just part of the wording. Sorry if that's annoying of me - but that's my instinctive reaction. :-)

Yes, they both should and I'm sure MB will....oh....wait.......I hope they both don't end up banned. Well at least one of them is still on board to apologize.

If apologies are being demanded, how about those who posted (or continue to post) false information or based accusations on false information which has since been proven to be untrue? If what was said previously in accusations or comments has since been shown to be not true, where is the mea culpa? If nothing is done to rectify any number of issues, it looks like the false information or lies are still being believed.

Do you think the ban of Mike's Beard/China Pig was justified?

Mike's Beard had plenty of time to apologize when he was posting here as China Pig.

Mike's Beard had plenty of time to apologize when he was Mike's Beard.

They all should apologize.

He and Debbie should apologize.

Yeah he wasn't a nice guy to anybody after a while.

I certainly consider GF to be a knowledgable, passionate and particularly interesting poster who's obviously done a ton of research and analysis. He also hasn't taken any mod enforcement actions that seem inappropriate, which is important to keep in mind. This is all about style which, as you say, perhaps shouldn't be a consideration. The level of vitriol seems not to match the concern.
Seeing the way this thread has gone has made me feel less critical of gf. The entrenched festering problems that posters have with each other seems to be the main problem. And they want gf to take care of that for them and are mad he hasn't. That's certainly not his job.
My only thing is that he can be intimidating on a good day, so when he's actually angry, as he has been dealing with these accusations, it can really be uncomfortable for the uninvolved. Eta, though now it's over here, not a problem.
I have been considering that mods should be held to a different standard of board behavior, that they are responsible a bit for setting the tone - but perhaps I'm wrong to think that.

Okay, Cam. In case I ever offended anybody here at any time of the day or night, in case I accused them of ass-hattery or of being a sh*t-weasel, or of posting on this board under an assumed name just to - ugh - spy on us or to spread dissension or of going on other boards to run down Brian, Mike or Lamont Cranston, I am really, really sorry.

Never write one word when 200 will do. Seriously, this has nothing to do with my message you quoted. I, too, had to put up with a pm from someone best described as a d*ckhead, but I decided to ignore it and him because his idiocy isn't worth the time. I'm talking about threads being derailed, not about pm tattle-tales. If you want to argue a point, fine, but don't use a thread about something else to trot out your views that figure A is a worthless piece of sh*t or that figure B hasn't written anything decent since The Lonely Sea and shouldn't be allowed out. It's just the sort of thing that makes me stop reading because I've seen it so many times. The board is reduced to schoolyard-level name-calling. Now, of course, we can add paranoia and desperate insinuation to this.

Thank you.

I will add I was a member here since the beginning, whether late 2005 or early 2006, I don't recall. In the 8-9 or so years I was a posting member before agreeing to become a mod, there was no such standard in place, and I personally had run-ins with moderators here on a few threads in the course of various discussions and debates that got heated enough to turn personal. There was also, a decade ago, a different ballgame in terms of what other forums existed, and I've already given a rundown of those. All of them have either folded or imploded, and the only three left of any consequence are this one, the BW board, and BBB. Coming into moderating this board, there was a frame of reference that included a history of moderating those boards that was in no way even close to the standards now being suggested for this one. Again as I've said numerous times, anyone describing the halcyon and peaceful days on these defunct boards is simply delusional. Some of what went on there would make the squabbles and dust-ups that went on here look like kids' play. Nasty stuff. And on quite a few of those boards, the moderators at various times did no different than what I for one am being criticized for doing here, and which to be quite frank about it, the moderator teams which came before on this board also did and to little if none of the level of calling-out the behavior or calls to change the daily operations as is being done today.

Relevant to consider too is that quite a few members not only here in this thread but also members who have since been banned have also been a part of these forums for well over a decade. Some in fact have a history of bans, warnings, and even outright removal from a number of other boards. In many cases, those actions were taken as a result of personal interactions with other board members. Is it surprising that some of the same behavior among these members has carried over to whichever boards they migrated to? And is it any surprise some of the same behavior has led to similar actions being taken?

Look at the example that played out right in this thread. Is there any justification or excuse for that kind of nonsense to be brought into a community? Consider too some of the previous lifetime bans. In one case a former member had a history that included being banned permanently from other boards for harassing other board members. Now these same people are going around on whatever remaining boards and social media will have them as members trashing this board and those who moderate it? It's no surprise someone will carry a grudge just as any worker might hold a grudge against a boss if they felt they were targeted and fired based on getting a raw deal. It's human nature.

But to have these comments and suggestions and even outright lies from these same people now being believed, repeated, and used as justification to call for change here? Consider the sources.

One solution might be for members to simply do a better job of self-policing. There are really not that many rules and regulations to follow, and they are simply not that hard to follow. A lot of it is dealing with normal human interactions and making decisions to engage or not. These issues involving various beefs and the desire to poke other members into reacting, and whatever else goes on - If the intent is to come here to do that to other members, it's just not the reason why the board exists, and if it crosses the line, it will be dealt with.

It's fine to make suggestions, it's welcome to make suggestions, but the level to which some of these comments has been reaching is above and beyond anything that anyone who volunteers to moderate this or any other forum should be expected to shoulder when agreeing to do the job. And these standards being asked for from those moderating are beyond what has existed on this board for a decade since it started, are beyond what was expected of mods and what was done by mods who worked any other BB's related forums, and are above what even the current and previous mod teams here have been expected to follow.

There are some issues which existed and which exist that are being pushed aside in favor of zeroing in on what some think are the "causes" for the board's problems, when they really are not. A lot of it comes down to individuals who simply choose to conduct themselves in a certain way, and who choose to flaunt the rules or consistently try to bend the rules in order to get away with it. And if it were solely an issue within this community, it would be one thing. But some of the same issues have followed members from board to board since BB's message boards have existed.

Smilin Ed, if I were as thin-skinned as some like to suggest, I would take your first line as a personal swipe since several posters who have had issues with me personally have used variations of the same comment to try to get a reaction. It's also been the case where other posters have dropped comments to me off the board telling me to ignore it, they're trying to provoke you. So I do ignore it, and I don't come back to escalate it. I write how I write, if someone doesn't like it I'm going to say that's their choice, simply don't read it. But I won't change how I write because of comments made by people who don't agree with what I do or say, and so far the comments have come strictly from those posters who seem to have issues with me beyond the surface.

It would be relevant to point out as well that comments which have been made and repeated about any number of band members for well over a decade continue to be posted. I've stayed away from trying to ask people why they didn't post, but I have to ask for the sake of discussion: There have been any number of similar comments posted and threads derailed on 'all sides' of the BB's spectrum, involving multiple band members. Were you as upset to see examples of other derailments and schoolyard-level name calling when it happened to other band members? Do you react as strongly when phrases like "the handlers" get injected into discussions that have nothing to do with handlers or anything related? There are people who when seeing an opinion they disagree with will offer a challenge in return. It's an open forum, unless there is a call to monitor and control what opinions people post rather than allow it to be a back-and-forth offering of opinions, it's everyone's choice to either read and respond or simply ignore.

There shouldn't need to be a board cop on duty to step in and remove comments, unless a majority of posters here now want censorship to become the standard instead of an open exchange. And it also opens up the issue of mob rule, where a group of people can decide what or who they'd like to see policed, and that next public target could be Smilin Ed H if you post something the angry mob disagrees with, or if your posts in general somehow manage to get portrayed as being a reason why the board is falling apart.

I don't think many here want that kind of board.

Just to expand on that a bit more, and it's only my opinion whether it's comparable or not.

I'm not sure what everyone's frame of reference is regarding American sports, but beyond music there are thousands of fan communities devoted to sports teams. Take one example, the New York Yankees.

When it was a hot topic, there were quite a few fans who had strong opinions of Alex "A Rod" Rodriguez. Fans either praised him or hammered him, sometimes mercilessly, whether it be his actions on or off the field. Not following each and every fan community or comments posted, would it not be expected when having such a fan forum to have fans being very opinionated on a player who was as much talented as he was a lightening-rod for criticism? If there as a game where A Rod didn't run out a play, or pulled up short on a defensive play to allow a hit instead of charging the ball, some fans would call him out for not giving his all, and others would defend his choices made in the heat of the game.

Would there be an expectation of whoever monitors those boards to delete all of the negative opinions being lobbed at A Rod in the name of making the community a more friendly place, or allowing the real fans to not have to wade through the negative comments when they want to read about A Rod's gameplay from the night before? I'm sure there were challenges also made to the negative commentators such as "You must not be a true Yankees fan if you think that way about A Rod", but among communities of fans are any of those challenges really valid when fans are offering opinions on what they see? Maybe some fan who has been following the Yanks for decades has issues with something an individual player like A Rod had done, would the community be expected to erase that fan and any comments in favor of only those who think A Rod should be standing alongside Ruth, Mantle, Jeter, and Gehrig in the Yankees Hall Of Fame lineup?

It suggests there is either an unrealistic expectation that fans when they get together to talk will all agree on the same thing, or it suggests all fans wearing a Yankees cap will bite their tongues and not offer an opinion on A Rod or whoever else because they're part of the team whose cap we're all wearing. Beyond that, whoever is running those fan communities would be expected to censor those fans who have issues with A Rod, and then bring that aura of censorship onto the board.

It's the choice of censorship versus allowing fans to express their opinions whether it be online chat rooms, boards, or even call-in sports radio shows. If Yankees fans want a place where everyone is expected to be 100% in praise of A Rod or any other Yankees player, despite what he may or may not do on or off the field, I don't think such a place exists. But that's part of the deal going in, isn't it? Any fan can debate with any other fan's opinions.

Should there be efforts made to sanitize fan communities from any fans who don't agree up and down the line with whatever someone else thinks they should agree with? It removes the entire nature and design of these communities and forums.

GF,

I understand this point completely. 

And I don't think that you, or any mod, should sanitize the SSMB. 

But, if you're not looking to sanitize the board of negative posts, why the long diatribe-like responses when somebody posts a mild criticism of a Brian Wilson track? 

You characterize with a broad brush what I write as a "diatribe". That's not fair, is it? If I or any fan have an opinion, and if that fan is passionate about the topic they're writing about, whether some think it's too many words or not, those fans can come to an open forum to express the opinions whether in 10 words or 200. And, if a fan feels strongly for or against an opinion posted, it's an open forum which allows that dialogue to happen. It is not an open forum if fans expect to post opinions and not have others disagree with them, up to and including strongly disagreeing with them.

Sanitizing a board would involve deleting posts that someone has to judge as being worthwhile or not, and a lot of it would come down to the opinions of the comments and of the person posting them. It also involves sanitizing board members whose opinions are deemed worthwhile or not. Again I ask, consider what if the posts of a fan named KDS or a fan named KDS in general were to become the target of the angry mob, and demands were made to have you thrown out entirely, beyond having your comments deleted by a moderator. I've seen that happen, I've seen it on previous boards where a mob mentality takes over and someone the mob doesn't want around will be targeted until they quit or get kicked out. It's not what this place is about.

I've no issue with you, or anyone disagreeing with my opinions. 

It's the way that it's done at times.  When I said two weeks ago that I didn't like Runaway Dancer, from NPP, because I don't like EDM.  You responded with a long post about the true definition of EDM, basically say that my opinion is wrong because I don't know what EDM is. 

I'm a fan of heavy metal, but if somebody says "I don't like Led Zeppelin because I don't like heavy metal," I don't think I'd challenge their opinion with a long post about what really defines heavy metal and basically say, "Led Zeppelin's not heavy metal, so the reason you dislike them is wrong." 

I'm fine with disagreements and exchanging ideas, but I just think stuff like that can discourage people from posting true opinions. 

Mob rule? Cop on duty? You ought to write fiction, Craig. Your feature length post was totally unnecessary in regards my previous point. As is this: " Were you as upset to see examples of other derailments and schoolyard-level name calling when it happened to other band members?" You read my posts? You know the post I complained about that derailed AGD's thread about 1964?  It was a swipe at Brian not Mike. Remember? You have me pegged as a Kokomaoist? Seriously? Me? Far from it. You know who I'll be seeing this week, for the umpteenth time? Regardless of how allegedly 'frail' he is. You think I see the sh*t only coming from one side? Are you so paranoid you think this is a personal attack because you haven't been critical enough of the anti-Mike sh*t shovelling?

The board I want is one where we can discuss the music without the same bunch of idiots derailing it to say his well-polished piece about Mike being a turd or Brian being incapable of functioning on his own, both of which will be followed by the equally well-rehearsed counter claims.

GF the biggest problem I have with all of this is you don't practice what you preach.  You are all for open discussion.  Except you are not.  You and DKL resort to saying anyone who criticises Brian have an agenda.  You are like a dog with a bone.  Look at the recent Bubbs and Judd thread where to most of us here it was a case of why did you jump in and ruin the thread? Fair enough if you don't agree but don't suggest something more sinister at work.  Debbie was demanding to know why Bubbs changed his opinion.  The thread was a little tongue in cheek was how most of us saw it, but not you.  If you know for sure something underhand was going on share it with those of us who are not privy to that info and then we can see why you're annoyed.  

Also, witness Debbie's attack on Val and others.  Uncalled for but hey, Debbie can say what she likes it seems.  Again, if Val has done something and it's widely known in Beach Boys circles let us uninitiated know.  Otherwise it comes across as a crass attack on someone who hasn't even been part of the discussion on here.  It lacks class.  People like Val have worked tirelessly over the years to promote Brian's music.

I cannot control how you took that post or not. The reason why I posted it was to offer fans who may not be familiar with the genre yet have seen the label EDM used for any number of songs a background of the style and genre, with examples, and also a more accurate definition of what is considered EDM. Whether your post opened the door or not, or whether you felt I posted all that strictly directed at you or to say you specifically were wrong, I wanted to post information in order to clarify and also inform people of what was being discussed and how the label as it is or was being used well beyond your post or this board has been often inaccurate.

If anyone reading managed to learn something new about the genre, learn about the genre in general, or even checked out the video links to hear some of the familiar examples of what EDM is all about, I hope that happened because that was my intention. And using the label EDM for Runaway Dancer or any other example where it doesn't fit is to me like the Grammy award going to Jethro Tull for best heavy metal album, when most fans who know heavy metal would not have considered that Tull album metal.

Yep, I've seen this quite a bit when posters have been critical of NPP or any later day Brian Wilson projects. 

Again with the "feature length" crack? Whether you deem it unnecessary or not, that was my reply. If you can offer guidelines for me to write a reply to you, please do, it would help!  ;D

 Where did I refer to you as anything you're insinuating? I didn't paint you as anything, I later asked what if you were on the receiving end of a group of posters who thought you should be the one removed if it ever came to that point in the future, and the board had rules set up to allow that. It's not what the board is about.

My understanding was that Debbie had given Bubs or Judd or Studd their copy of NPP. If I gave somebody a gift and they did a 180 on its,merits, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

Yeah, that would make sense, because it would possibly come across as being ungrateful.

I received the Paul McCartney album Memory Almost Full as a gift.   I thanked the person who gave it to me, and I'm very appreciative.  

But, that would not stop me from saying that the album stunk.  Even to the person who gave me the album.  

So, I wouldn't think criticizing the album is an insult to the gift giver.

Now, had she given him a shirt, that might be a different scenario.  

(I'm in no way saying NPP stinks).  

It's your opinion that I ruined the thread, but one of the original posters asked for opinions and I was one of a handful who offered opinions. Again if there is an expectation when asking for opinions that everyone replying will be in agreement or have positive things to say, it's simply not realistic. Should those who disagree with what someone posts not be allowed to offer a challenge or debate? I asked "Dudd" why he changed his opinion, because I was interested in knowing what changed his mind, how is that wrong?

How can you try to say I'm not for open discussion when I've repeated numerous times the same viewpoint? Maybe you are one who is not for open discussion if you're finding fault with how I or anyone else replies and trades opinions in an open forum discussion, or maybe you simply don't want to see people challenging opinions on this forum.

Who is more supporting an open discussion forum if you're accusing me of ruining threads and finding fault with what I post or how I post it if you want an open forum? If something is posted that some disagree with, they can feel free to open it up to challenge and debate. Doing otherwise or expecting moderators to step in and control who posts what is pure censorship. Put that power in the hands of a mod or anyone else, and the open forum concept is gone for good.

Maybe that was exactly why Debbie asked why the change of opinion from when they originally received the album as a gift? It could be a simple as that versus trying to read anything else into the questions or the reasons behind them. It could very well have come across as being ungrateful.

This bit: "Were you as upset to see examples of other derailments and schoolyard-level name calling when it happened to other band members? Do you react as strongly when phrases like "the handlers" get injected into discussions that have nothing to do with handlers or anything related? "

This smacks a bit of living in a fool's paranoid. The assumption behind your phrasing is, I guess, that I only get worked up when I see criticism of one side. I don't. As for someone coming up with rules in the future that might lead to me being removed... For what? I wouldn't want to be a member of any board that wouldn't have me... (http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/images/smilies/groucho.gif)

I just used that as one example, maybe even choosing an example to offer requires treading on eggshells in order not to suggest some deeper meaning.

The question "for what?" is exactly what I'm getting at. What if the definition of "for what?" changes based on whatever group happens to be the vocal majority, and under board rules that some are hinting at creating, it happens to be Smilin Ed who runs afoul and gets banned? The "for what" often doesn't matter, in fact any number of reasons can be invented to justify what the angry mob hopes to accomplish. I'll say it yet again, that's not what this board is and it should never even come close to being that way. If there is an opinion posted, challenge it with your own counter opinion. Don't expect and definitely don't allow a group of mods to come in and delete opinions that the most vocal people or the angry mob disagree with as part of the board rules, unless you don't want an open forum.

I've always agreed with Groucho on that last point.  :)

No worries at all Emily you're right to pull me up, intentionally of otherwise. You're one of the good guys … (darn, did I just mess up again??) ;)

GF you know fine well what I'm saying.  But as usual you try to turn it around.

I'll clarify again:

I love a difference of opinion, it's what a discussion forum is all about.  You don't because as KDS says you want to have everyone round to your way of thinking.  The example he gave was another good example of the condescending tone you bring to the 'discussions'.  You can't accept people having a different point of view about Brian's work lest you accuse them of having an agenda.  You and I both know why you asked Bubs why he changed his opinion.  It was also clear with Debbie it was more than feeling scorned because she had given him the CD.  I'm sure she was implying dark forces had corrupted him.

I'm a big fan of the original 'V' sci-fi show from the 80s and I think it can explain what's going on here.  Mike Love has managed to get a hold of Diana's Conversion Chamber and is using it to corrupt people on this board.  It would explain the about turn of Bubs!   ;) (Apologies to those who have never watched 'V' and don't know what I'm talking about!) :-D

I'm not going to post anymore about this as it's going nowhere and I don't want to argue with people whom I've never met, never mind on the best message board for the best band ever.  ;D

GF and L-SOD apparently had drinkies before or after some Brian gig a while back. If I recall, it was virtually set up in the open, on-board. Not that it would have affected any moderating decisions, we all get together before gigs afterall. Someone else will have to dig out the relevant threads though cos I've been communing with Talisker th'night! :) thanks in advance…

Many thanks Craig, appreciate the honesty and the transparency that offers. I also tip my hat to you - moderating on two boards cannot be good for the blood pressure! :)

Christ, you guys need to get laid.

Are you offering? ;)

Nope. I already get it...twice a day, every day.

On prescription. Or by subscription?

It's a Love thang.

Playing the skin flute again? ;)

You must have me confused with someone else here.

The real beach boy?

If it ain't a nut and a bolt it's not a Love thang. :lol

I think they're too busy arguing to do that.

Basically, everyone here is Deadpool and this argument is skeeball...since, apparently, Deadpool likes skeeball more than vagina (or dick).

Am I on the naughty list?  >:D

Do you want to be?

Maybe....  :pirate :pirate

The last guy who ended up on my naughty list ended up in pieces at the hands of myself and two moody members of a boy band.

Hmmm....nevermind then.

Oh, you should have seen it! A moody teenager who looked like Ripley from Alien 3 and a chromedome from Siberia helped me beat a guy named after dish detergent.

One of the things that deters me from joining in some threads is this habit of posting unfeasibly long responses to points made in debates.

A few here have mentioned these lengthy responses to posts, and here's a perfect two-part example, that came, by chance (?) immediately after two other consecutive posts of yours, Craig.

I get to the stage where I just don't have enough hours left in my life to wade through these dissertations; this is, after all, an online message board, not a short story competition.

Okay, I'm perhaps being rude here maybe, but I interpret such lengthy posts as rude in themselves - they don't stifle debate so much as suffocate it. I mentioned it before, in a post (was it last year?) referring to "5,000 word responses" (or similar) and you reacted negatively and at the time I thought I'd been put on a naughty list – knowing you we're a mod, and given the prevailing atmosphere on the board, I feared you'd use that status to, well, get your own back, sooner or later.

Though that has never happened, rightly or wrongly that was my instinctive fear. I've never felt that way about any other mods (though I don't recall any others getting into the 5,000-word realm either!). It goes back to that "perception" thing that someone (was it Emily?) mentioned above.

Now, others here are also suggesting that these long-winded responses are irksome and I realise I'm not alone.

I know here's no rule about talking the hind legs off a donkey but – and I offer this as a constructive criticism – can I suggest that your posts are more concise, less verbose, so that it's easier for some of us to stay with a debate than nod off? At times I wonder whether its easier for you to suffocate an unwanted debate with inordinately long contributions, in the hope that it'll go away!

I hope this will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended; this thread seems like the place for airing issues, and the long posts thing is something that makes me feel uncomfortable on a board I regard as a second home - like the religious guy on the door who won't go away.

And while I'm on…

We never did get an answer to these requests:

… or is it archived but not really available?

'Twas I. And I do think it's important for a mod to be very explicitly clear that, if he does debate vigorously, the people on the other end of those debates are not consequently on a naughty list and don't have to fear that they will be. We've been discussing that a mod doesn't stop being a poster when he becomes a mod, and I think it's right that he should be free to participate in full, and express his views. But, he's also not 'just another' poster. He's a poster with power; more able to intimidate implicitly. So needs to go an extra step to ensure people aren't intimidated, I think. I think I've come to understand gf better in this thread, so I don't think I will feel intimidated in future but, GF, perhaps just take a little care, because someone who hasn't gone through a session like this with you may still feel intimidated by your modness when they disagree with you.

heres yer answer:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.msg576506.html#msg576506

Saw that at the time but it didn't really address the point other than to point out that it's NOT available to the proletariat. Which isn't what was implied. Screenshots? Really?

Or we could've moved the discussion thread to the main forum, but that would have been a last option

So, in relation to consistency in moderation, did we ever get a landing on GF reaming AGD repeatedly for offensive comments about Smiley board mods on the BBB board (Mike's Band thread, circa Dec 15) vs no apparent reaming of Debbie KL for making offensive comments about BBB board mods on the Smiley board (PS tour thread)?

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

I was defending myself against negative comments made on a forum where I'm not registered, where I never have posted, and in a situation where I had no idea it was even happening until someone mentioned it. I had every right to defend myself against both the attacks themselves, and since Andrew was one of the main contributors and the thread's starter on BBB and was also a member here, I had every right to call it out and defend myself on a board where I actually AM a registered member.

If Val wants to reply, she can do so. If a precedent is set by allowing something to happen, the consequences might not be agreeable but they're not unexpected.

I have willingly stepped up and offered answers to the questions being asked, addressed issues being raised by offering my own opinions, and in general made myself available to have dialogues with board members who are posting in this thread, despite the fact that some are more personal in nature than having anything to do with the issues at hand.

If my answers and opinions are not agreed with, that's fine. If they're not liked, that's fine. It is an open forum and anyone is free to agree or disagree and post as such.

But making the way I post and the way I write into an issue as it has been done here is out of line. I'm not saying that as a mod, I'm saying that as my own self in case that needs to be clarified.

I've been posting to several related forums for well over a decade, under the same screen name. If something comes up that I'm passionate about, or something important enough to me that I want to offer more than a 20 word Twitter response, I write how I want to write.

To have this aspect of what I do now called out is out of line. I will not change the way I write, and whether intentional or not, to have to read the suggestion that the issue has now become the way I write versus the actual content or opinion I'm expressing is out of line.

I think this is an example of a time when GF as mod and GF as poster became blurred in the minds of some readers. I think what I've learned from this thread is to think of GF as a poster except when he explicitly states that he's talking as a mod. But I hope, again, that you, GF, will try to keep in mind that not everyone will know to do that. Sorry to keep harping on that, but I think that's one of the issues. If a mod calls someone out, people are going to think he's calling them out as a mod. Like in that case, you were calling someone out for board behavior. You're free to do that as a poster, but it can easily be thought that you're doing that as a mod. So then people think, why was A in trouble for that when B wasn't? The answer is that A wasn't in 'trouble' with a mod; just GF was PO'd as a poster. But that wasn't clear. Maybe a disclaimer of some sorts when that happens would help.

Eta: exactly as you did in the post you just posted. Perfect!

I'm surprised your username hasn't offended someone at this point. Really guys?? The length of his posts??

I know some of you dislike Guitarfool as a moderator, but take a step back and look at the criticisms you're throwing at this guy. It's beyond childish (though not in the least bit surprising).

Billy and Guitarfool: I honestly think that the AGD evidence should come out (in whatever form you deem necessary - via PM to certain members or a large post on this board). I also think you should do a run-down of EVERY ban that has taken place in the last 3 years and write out the reasons for those bans (though don't let Guitarfool write it, wouldn't want to disrupt the delicate reading preferences of certain members here). Bullshit like this very thread will continue to play out as long as there is any room for speculation about the bans that have taken place here recently. Just make a concise and clear post that goes over all this stuff.

Even if he did it as a mod I don't see the problem. His reputation (as a person as well as a moderator) was being completely smeared on another forum by a supposedly respected member of Beach Boys fandom. As a moderator he had every right to defend himself and his reputation as a moderator. I know AGD threw a tantrum because Guitarfool opened a locked thread to respond to that criticism/thread that took place on BBB, but people would've childishly whined had Guitarfool started a new thread to respond to the issue...it was a no-win situation for some people here. And you can say he could've responded to the criticisms via PM, but his reputation was being smeared publicly and he had every right to defend himself publicly.

It's been the same guys leading this charge ad nauseam against Guitarfool over the last year or so. Honestly, at this point there are probably far far more posts that petulantly complain about Guitarfool than there are "controversial" posts by Guitarfool.

I think you misunderstand my point. My point was not that he didn't have a right to defend himself. My point was that it might be perceived that he's saying, as a mod, that cross-board references are not OK. That there's a rule issue. Then, when someone else makes a cross-board reference and he doesn't respond, he's open to criticisms of inconsistency. In the former instance, he wasn't objecting as a mod because someone had broken board rules, he was objecting as GF because someone had been rude about him behind his back.
I think your last point is correct, but I think that there are some small changes GF can make, as he did in that last post, to save himself a lot of grief.

One change would be not derailing posts that offer even the slightest criticism of Brian Wilson or his music as if criticizing a song or poking some fun at an album is somehow an insult to the man. 

ie.  The fake review of NPP / The post about "Great Beach Boys Songs that Brian Didn't Write" 

Which "fake" review are you referring to?

This a complaint about GF as a poster, not as a mod. We're all free to snipe at each other for Beach Boys opinions, though I wish there was less of that all around.

The one Bubs posted a few weeks ago that got a lot of Brianistas all riled up. 

I'm a big fan of the NPP album, but I thought the review was pretty entertaining for the most part. 

I will tell you why, because quite a few folks got banned in here after arguing with Craig. Now, maybe it is sheer coincidence, but then maybe not. This was my whole point. He types a diatribe as to whether he is pro or con, then if you disagree, he keeps ramming his opinion down your throat until an argument ensues, then someone gets mad enough to overstep, then BOOM!, down comes the ban-hammer. Now, in Billy's defense, he may give his opinion, but he never forces it on anyone. If trouble does begin, he tries to diffuse it before it gets out of hand. To me, that is moderating. He still states his opinion and is involved in the thread, but can still separate the two when trouble brews.

Also, have you noticed that Craig has not admitted to doing even one little thing wrong? The guy thinks he is a perfect moderator. I have worked in my profession for 34 years and to this day, I still learn new things and try improve myself and improve on how I go about doing my job. He is hell bent in keeping his moderator position here and that is fine, but if moderating in here is really that important to him, then at least listen to your members when they tell you that you might not be so perfect and that you could make improvements that would benefit all of the members in here.

Hey everyone, we all are sometimes annoyed by other posters. Can we make this about moderation and not a free-for-all criticism of GF as a poster thread?

PS - this was not directed at Drbb's post above mine. We overlapped.

I have stated multiple times that is not how it works, and you keep making the same accusation. So, please be straight with me...why? Do you think I'm lying? Or do you accept what I'm saying as fact, and just are bringing it up to rile Craig up and create an argument for the sake of making him look bad? I seriously hope there's another explanation for it, because we may have an issue otherwise.

It wasn't fake at all. Bubs even said that what they wrote was how they felt about the album (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23762.msg576062.html#msg576062)...and the consistency with their prior reviews backed that up. I disagreed with much of their opinions, but I do respect that they took the time to describe in detail what they disliked about the album (unlike some other posters). However, calling some of the music ""turgid, worthless, safe bullcrap", and calling 'Runaway Dancer' a "stupid fucking pop song" isn't something that is going to incite some positive uplifting replies...especially for people who enjoy the album.

Many people found the review funny (even those who like NPP), that's fine. Others found it disrespectful, that's fine too. But some made it yet another opportunity to bash Guitarfool for making his opinion known. It's getting pretty old.

You two may make the final decision together, but you will never convince me that when threads start to breakdown, that Craig isn't influencing the action in that particular thread. In some cases, it is his continual posts that aggravate the situation. If thinking as a moderator that your own posts are inflaming a thread, if it were me, I would back off and let things calm down.

Rab,

I figured I'd reply without the quotes.  

My issue lies whenever one posts something negative about Brian's music, but somehow that's taken as a swipe at Brian himself.  In the same thread with NPP Review (OK, I didn't realize it wasn't fake.  My mistake), one poster said that "code words" such as EDM are used to disguise hatred for Brian, Melinda, et al.  And GF backed up said poster.  How is criticizing a song deemed disrespectful by a mod.  

I'm not bashing GF for his opinions.  As the Dr before pointed out, if you post something his doesn't agree with, it's followed by a long post from GF on why your opinion is wrong.  

Which is why I requested that the moderators write up a post describing each ban since Craig came on board and the details behind those bans. Again, I will say, A LOT has happened in Beach Boys fandom since Guitarfool became a moderator. Guitarfool has his own very solid opinions about things...as does everyone here. However he didn't force a poster to compare some Brian fans to suicide bombers. He didn't force Kittykat to lash out at an insider. He didn't force some posters to harass an enthusiastic member. He didn't force a poster to hint that Joe Thomas needed to throw himself from a high-rise building. He didn't force a poster to threaten LePage's family (though nothing to do with banning, it still shows what some people are capable of here). He didn't force some very f***ed up information about Melinda Wilson to be spread around. He didn't force Mike's Beard to use a proxy to sign back in to ridicule many posters here (and possibly tell a bald-face lie).

I know those are only a limited amount of examples - (that is why I think it would be important for the mods to list who has been banned and the reasons why) - however it still goes to show what the mods are up against. Many (if not all) people who were banned did some very dumb things that violated board rules...and they have nothing to do with Guitarfool supposedly pushing people into corners. Good grief.

Emily's post has me thinking. There are definitely people who have issues with Guitar Fool. Such is life. Emily's seperation of GF as mod and poster is something that bears consideration. Would it be worth suggesting that he post under two accounts? One as the obviously knowledgable and passionate fan that he is. An 'Associate' if you will. The other account would be GF the Moderator.
So, when moderating, he could do what moderators need to do. If there is a passionate topic, whereby someone might feel he is 'biased' or unreasonable, with his opinions, he chimes in under a 'poster' handle.
Yes, I realize it's still the same guy, and he won't flip the switch in terms of how he feels. But at least then maybe, If there is a reponse or decision made as moderator it can be criticized as such.
Just throwing it out there.

Probably because many people do see it as a swipe at Brian himself. If you had the opinion that one of the songs on No Pier Pressure was "turgid, worthless, safe bullcrap" would you say that to Brian's face? Probably not! Why? Because Brian would possibly take it very personally. And there's a reason for that...because it is mostly music from the mind of Brian Wilson.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that people can't have an opinion about this music one way or another, but it isn't that difficult to understand why some would see it as a swipe against the artistic integrity and talent of Brian Wilson...and thus a swipe at Brian Wilson himself.

A very decent idea. Also, if a moderator (as a normal poster) gets entangled in one of the many arguments that ensue here, then he/she should step away from making moderator decisions in that particular thread, at least if banning is involved. I realize that that would be impossible at the moment with only two mods, but once a third or fourth mod is added, then that would be a much more fair way to handle things when threads get out of control.

Show me the proof of where I did or said anything in that thread to "back up" someone claiming hatred for anyone, versus commenting in general on the misuse of labels in music.


If giving and debating opinions back and forth on a board like this is the very nature of boards like this, why are you making it an issue about the length of what I post?

I always debate on the public forums so everyone can see them. Should I instead hide them in private messages?

Yes, I agree that the mods should post the evidence. If nothing else just to shut the critics up.

But telling you or Craig that I don't like the song or the album isn't the same as telling Brian, it's telling you. No matter how you feel about it, we are still conversing with each other, not with Brian. I makes me worried if I am dealing with people in here who now think they are a proxy for Brian. Really?

Show me the proof you have of where this was specifically done, and I'll go back to check the archived mod discussions that happened around those ban decisions to review what I, Billy, Klaas if he was involved, and Charles discussed on those issues.

GF...this didn't come through like I hoped.  I did a copy and paste. 

"Thank you for taking the time to educate. Although it  seems to me that the actual use of  terms like  EDM, Disco, Slick, synthetic horns etc, when relating to the albums production  style are actually meant as not so subtle slurs aimed at The label, Melinda, Joe Thomas, Sebu, the other guest artists ,etc. Im only a part time visitor to this site,  but the impression that I get is that there is a  prevailing theory  shared by some  that Brian would have never actually thought of  ever doing  any of these things himself, left to his own device.  Only when working with Andy Paley and Scott Bennett can we be assured that Brian's actual brush strokes make it to the canvas. Even  when there seem to be obvious examples of  Brian's trademark  production  style on NPP,  such as a great moving pick bass line with tons of echo on it, the reviewer ( or again supposedly the reviewers) infer that it was probably one of the aforementioned interlopers trying to rip off one of Brian's old techniques. Techniques from the good old days before Brian was dragged to the studio and tied down while various handlers auto tune his vocals and force him to work with cruel and nefarious pretend singers like Zooey  Deschanel. Singers who Brian could not possibly have ever heard of before let alone actually like.  Zooey   has  done some pretty amazing cover versions  of Brian's songs. But  according to the this theory, Brian couldn't possibly have been flattered by that, or think she has a cute voice. Or watched her very popular show on TV, or seen any of her movies with his kids. Her collaboration  and the others had to be a bad idea conjured up by some label suit.  While I am at it, I also find the criticism of the lyrics on NPP another not so subtle attempt to dis credit or slur the album.  Specifically the albums collaborators. It's  as if there was meant to be  some hidden lyrical genius the rest of us are missing on TLOS .   "Goin Home  Im Goin Home Back to the place where I belong Found piece of mind one piece at a time."  Or  on the Paley sessions  " Some guy walked by hit me in the side Elbow is the thing that keeps me satisfied" .  Brian if you are reading this, I applaud your continued enthusiasm, your quirky lyrics, and the fact that at 75 you are not still wearing the same production sweater that you wore in 1965. You use different collaborators for different reasons and i enjoy listening to  all of your efforts without prejudice!" - poster

"I hope you post more often! Well said."  - GF

No, if I were to be lucky enough to meet Brian again, I would not tell him about the couple of songs I don't care for. 

But, posting a dislike for a song on the internet is in no way disrespecting the artist. 

I think that Runaway Dancer is a fairly disposable pop song.  How does that disrespect Brian Wilson? 

Even if you didn't tell Brian the comment it could be taken as a swipe against the artistic integrity and talent of Brian Wilson (and thus Brian himself) - thus people take it personally here on a forum dedicated to a band who's main contributor was Brian Wilson. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

So, disliking one song is a "swipe against the artistic integrity and talent of Brian Wilson"????

So, does that mean we're just supposed to blindly approve every single piece of music he's released over the last 55+ years? 

Right. I hoped Mr. Nash posts more often, and complimented his post. If you want to read into that any "backing up" of any one line or phrase he wrote instead of a general comment about his post overall, that's your call. At this point I can't change what you think even if I try to disagree with your assessment, I'll be challenged for not admitting I was wrong if I was or wasn't. If you need to look that hard to find more proof against me or whatever this is, I'm here to answer any further challenges.

So, you are telling me that if I tell you right now that I really dislike 409 and have so for 50+ years, that I have somehow offended Brian Wilson, David Marks, Mike Love, etc.? That's really pushing it. If that is what is going on here, then that really, really worries me about the type of people I am dealing with in here. Craig, do you feel like this what you are doing in your posts; being Brian's proxy? Is this why you defend Brian so vehemently?

Can we please not make this a thread to hash out EDM questions or to criticize BB opinions or opinions of BB opinions?

Half of that post was pure paranoia, and you said "Well said."  Sounds to me like you support such paranoia.  Even if that's not what you really mean, that's the perception.  

He asked for evidence, I presented it. 

Several issues here;

First, Dr Beach Boy: Show me the proof that members were banned as a result of disagreeing with me in a debate and I'll go back in the mod discussion archives to check on it for clarification.

Second, Dr Beach Boy: How does my sharing an opinion, defending it, and disagreeing with other opinions equate to being a proxy for Brian Wilson? What if I genuinely like something and express my opinion up to defending whatever or whoever is being criticized on a public opinion forum, is that somehow wrong?

Third, KDS and in general: Months ago if not a year ago I had also complimented "timbnash" on his posts and encouraged him to post more. My reasons why were about getting a working professional in the recording business involved in more discussions here to bring that perspective into some of the discussions, specifically recording and technical issues if he chooses. I like hearing the perspective of a professional who actually does the work many fans here talk about or ask about regularly, and it would be great to have that perspective available for those discussions. If doing that implies that I'm backing up or showing support for every word he or anyone else posts, I can only say it doesn't make sense to assume that based on liking someone's comments and hoping they post more often.

A lot of people push back aggressively at opinions they don't like.
Now, can we get back to the topic?

Just asking if you believe as Rab does, is all.

I will go digging for you at my leisure, not at your insistence, as I do have a life outside of this place.

You presented what you described in your opinion as "half of that was pure paranoia", then tried to say I was backing up this half paranoia you believe it was (not fact, just your opinion) by saying "good post". So first of all, whatever you call paranoia, that's the assumed truth that everyone reading should believe? And you pull one line out of a long post, suggest I was backing up that one line, and because you feel half of the remaining sentences were paranoid, I should have posted a disclaimer on every line so I'm not implying my full agreement on everything said...because you think it was paranoia that I am "backing up"?

This is silly, it really is.

We all have our own opinions. I even said in my reply to you or KDS that I'm not saying that people can't have an opinion about this music one way or another. I'm merely saying that some people here realize that Brian's music comes from his mind and from his heart, and when you call the music "turgid, worthless, safe bullcrap" you're going after musical notes and ideas that were swimming around in Brian's mind at one point - and thus it shouldn't be that hard to comprehend why people see that as going after Brian personally.

Also, KDS is the one that brought out of nowhere that people think that taking swipes at Brian's music is offending Brian personally - nowhere except for this thread (that I'm aware) has anyone ever made this claim. So yet again you drag Guitarfool into another argument that he doesn't belong in. Way to go Dr....Every one of your posts lately has been trying to drag Guitarfool down. Give it a rest man.

*edit. Just want to clarify that Judd and Bubs have every right to express their opinion and I do not think they feel any ill thoughts about Brian personally. I'm sure they both love this band and Brian Wilson a lot (which is why they are consistent members on this board). My point is that music is a very personal thing to Brian, and thus some people get very defensive when people go after that music. I think GIOMH is terrible, and there are a few things on NPP that I don't like - doesn't mean that I dislike Brian.

You made a statement with an accusation that both I and Billy know is not only false, but something that has already been discussed in depth and repeated numerous times. We all have lives outside this place, you're not alone. But if you insist on making accusations, show everyone the proof so it can be addressed and so the facts can be presented in return.

Show us what proof you have that members were banned as a result of arguing with me. Otherwise, don't make the accusation in light of what has already been said on these issues.

Seriously, I am really trying to determine with whom and with what I am dealing with in here. You scared me that you think like that. And I really never thought about it like that before. I was thinking we were all just long time fans who love the band, but not to the point where you personally take offense as if you were Brian, himself. If you guys really believe that you are proxies for the bandmember of choice, then that is a whole other tier above normal fandom that I am not willing to go. I am 58 years old and have been a fan since I was six, but my fandom is nowhere near that realm, nor has it ever been that extreme. I will thank you though, for opening my eyes and really understanding what I am dealing with in this place.

You're all making this much more difficult than it needs to be.  Treat Craig and Billy as if they were just normal posters.  Because they are.  They only put on their moderator hats when board rules are broken.  Don't break any board rules, and you shouldn't have to worry whether it's 'mod' Craig or 'board member' Craig, or Billy.  It's really as simple as that.

At my leisure, not your insistence. Since we are asking the same questions multiple times, as one poster to another, do you think you are a proxy for Brian, in here?

Breaking News!! Details at 11. :o

Message deleted.

Then you *really* don't know the first thing about me, if you think I'm that easily influenced. If that were true, you'd have been gone a long time ago. Just an fyi.

We were on topic.  You quoted a post I made five days ago.  

I think I have my answer anyway. He never gives you a straight answer. A simple yes or no answer will yield at least 3 paragraphs and then it becomes a table-turner and he just throws questions back at you. It's been 11 pages of it so far.

Show us the proof, Dr Beach Boy.

Am I a proxy for Brian Wilson? No. I am a fan of Brian Wilson.

Trust me, Rab.  I didn't bring this out of nowhere.  You can't make this stuff up.  Last spring and summer, I saw people who dared to criticize NPP get accused of hating Brian.  And, no, I'm not digging through 2015 threads to find them (I know GF will ask).  

I've been accused on BW's Forum of being a lesser fan because I don't worship at the altar of the Love You LP.  

And you just contradicted yourself.  You said you could see criticism of Brian's music as going after him personally.  Then, you said you think GIOMH is terrible, but that doesn't mean you dislike Brian.  

Well said

That's correct.
The topic is moderation; not GF's opinions on other people's opinions. I made this thread to get the moderation topic out of the BW tour thread. Do I have to make another thread to get the discussion of GF's opinions out of this thread? And I'm not just talking to you; I'm talking to GF and DrBB. The whole conversation regarding GF's opinions is off-topic. Which, normally, I don't have a problem with. But I don't like the notion of a thread I started being used to get into a B v. M feud. I hate B v M feuds.

GF is permitted to state his opinions. And you're permitted to object to them. And vice versa. It's just not here, please.

The criticism is mostly levied against GF.

It's all relevant to the topic Emily.  

Like I said, GF is entitled to his opinions.  As is any poster.  But, why would a mod discourage opinion and derail threads, while claiming to encourage an "open forum."?

If I am being challenged or called out, I will reply. That's only fair. I won't be called out and have it be one-sided as it has been in the past, then have my replies to defend myself be called out for even being posted. This entire thread has been full of more posts questioning me and challenging me beyond moderator actions as it has been people with questions about moderator actions. I've made myself available to respond, I hope to respond to some earlier comments as well, but I will not sit back and have accusations thrown at me, Billy, or anyone else without the opportunity to reply.

Sorry, I disagree.
LostArt said, "Don't break any board rules, and you shouldn't have to worry whether it's 'mod' Craig or 'board member' Craig, or Billy.  It's really as simple as that." I've heard the exact same thing said many times about the police, "don't break the law and you shouldn't have to worry about interactions with police" and I disagree. I think most people, if a police car pulled over to you and the officer started telling you something you did was wrong, would assume the police officer was speaking in an official capacity. I've been assuming the same of the mods. It seems I was wrong to do so, but I think it's a natural assumption and not as simple as LostArt says.

Because his response to the opinion is his opinion, which he is allowed to post. What I've learned in this thread is to NOT take it, when he expresses a counter-opinion, as a mod silencing opposition but as GF stating his opinion of that opinion. And his doing so is not pertinent to his role as a mod.

This is a message board, Emily.  This isn't the police.  Watch out when Billy puts his moderator cap on, though.   :police:

To be honest Billy, I don't know a thing about you! Like you, I converse behind a computer and we really know nothing else about each other.  I should have left along with the mass migration at AGD's banning. I think Rab finally opened my eyes to who I am dealing with here, especially with Craig. Quite the wake up call for me, Billy. While I don't think you are that way (who really knows, huh?), I don't want to deal with the people in here whose fandom is that radical. So, like all the others who saw the writing on the wall, it is now my turn to take leave of this place. To my friends in here, good luck and I am sure we will see each other on the Net and converse through email. What was it that Brian & Mike wrote? "I gotta find a new place where the kids are hip." Adios!

Of course. It's an analogy. My point is that I think there's a base assumption, if there's a mod telling you you've done wrong, that they are telling you with the hat on. Maybe they should end their post with exactly THAT emoji when they are modding. That would be entertaining and useful.

I hope you're leaving this thread and not the MB.

Or use this emoji for threads like these :deadhorse

I do know where you're coming from.  My dad was the chief of Police in a small Wisconsin town of about 1000 residents.  Everybody knew everyone else.  My dad did not have more than a few close friends in that little town, even while he was off-duty, and I believe it's because everyone else was afraid that they'd say or do the wrong thing. 

But I still don't believe that it is a good analogy.

Sounded like off-topic thinly veiled anti Police sentiments to me. 

Just my opinion. 

 :quote

Point taken.

(http://s33.postimg.org/sdmhpdbkv/Infinite_Loop.jpg)

I can see where you're coming from.

Without regard to the quality of the analogy - it was purely meant to illustrate my on-topic point.

ok. I'm done here. I've learned what I needed to learn and I've had my say. I'm satisfied.

Sorry.  There's no such anti Police stuff on the internet these days, it's hard to tell sometimes. 

If the point you were making wasn't anti Police, then I apologize. 

It honestly wasn't. It was just that we respond differently to a police officer telling us we've done wrong than we do to a non police officer telling us we've done wrong, unless something - familiarity, a disclaimer on the part of the officer, something - tells you that the officer is not talking in his official capacity.

When people call NPP a "steaming pile of dogshit" I think that is a dig at the hard work Brian put into the album, and thus a dig at Brian. When someone comes on this board to defend their statements that NPP was like Brian being a wheelchair bound grandpa being wheeled out and forced to make a speech at Thanksgiving dinner - I think that is personal against Brian because it goes against his integrity as a person. Music is very personal to Brian, and going after his music in a childish manner is going after Brian, in my opinion. Sorry if this ONE opinion is enough to drive you from the board lol. Also, what mass exodus are you referring to? Dempsey left the board, bgas? That's not a mass exodus.

You seem to blow every situation Guitarfool is involved with out of proportion because you have some creepish obsession with ousting him as a mod...it's really pathetic.


Agreed 100%. At this I bow out.

Granted its stronger language, but how is calling NPP a steaming pile of dogsh*t disrespecting Brian, but you calling GIOMH terrible just an opinion? 

Granted, I will acknowledge people saying NPP was made against Brian's will, or is a Joe Thomas album with Brian singing on it, can be disrespectful. 

But, just criticizing a song or an album, doesn't come across as disrespectful to me.

If you go to the restaurant, and order a dish that has an ingredient you don't like, and you say "this tastes like sh*t," its not disrespectful to the cook.  You just don't like the ingredient. 

I took it as the board. ???

Granted its stronger language, but how is calling NPP a steaming pile of dogsh*t disrespecting Brian, but you calling GIOMH terrible just an opinion? 

Granted, I will acknowledge people saying NPP was made against Brian's will, or is a Joe Thomas album with Brian singing on it, can be disrespectful. 

But, just criticizing a song or an album, doesn't come across as disrespectful to me.

If you go to the restaurant, and order a dish that has an ingredient you don't like, and you say "this tastes like sh*t," its not disrespectful to the cook.  You just don't like the ingredient. 
[/quote]

personally speaking on the first point, I think it's the wording. As far as the opinion goes, no issue with that. Heck, I despise Imagination with a purple passion. Granted, if I ever did talk to Brian about it, I would be more tactful (although he may actually be more blunt that  I'd be on it!)

As far as the second thing, both of those are incorrect regarding NPP.

Fair enough. Like I say, it was intended in the spirit on constructive criticism and I'd hoped it would be taken in that way but you've every right to defend yourself and reject the idea of taking the point on board.

You mentioned I was "out of order" three times in your reply; I'm going to have to assume that was poster GF talking and not moderator GF, and that the post won't be held against me in any future fracas on some kind of accumulator basis.

Nevertheless I'll be more restrained in future posts because that's my instinctive reaction.

We don't know all of the behind the scenes stuff, so all we know is what is on the board.  It might be the circumstances or wording of the notices.

In one thread, (all this is paraphrasing) one Mod said twice he was thinking about closing a thread to have time to think it through or some such and both times immediately/soon after a second Mod said he (first person "I", not "we" as in all the Mods) was enforcing a ban/timeout. It reads like while one Mod was thinking it through another Mod took unilateral action.

Also if a Mod is in a heated discussion as a board member and then makes an announcement in that thread as a Mod that his "adversary" is banned, it might create a suspicion I guess.

That's understandable, but when I have stated repeatedly over and over again how it works, and *still* being called into question, well, do you understand *why* it is so offensive to me?

Damn…

Uh huh, so sounds like a "No".

I recall while "defending yourself" you wondered why the BBB admins and mods didn't shut down offending thread - if you still carry these convictions, don't let this kind of behaviour happen here (naming & bagging people on other boards).

That is also understandable but possibly inevitable in the current climate.

I saw this thread and was hoping it was going to be a little more evenhanded rather than just a GF bash-fest.

The issue I have with moderation here is the posters who are allowed to continually derail threads with the same gripes or personal attacks on band members. Two groups I'm a part of on Facebook recently banned members who saw to it that every thread was another opportunity to restate for the millionth time how much they hate X,Y and Z for X, Y, and Z. Those group members were banned much to the relief of everyone, and civil discourse (and yes even heated discourse) was allowed to continue. If you think Brian sucks live or you hate Mike Love or think Bruce is a jerk or whatever, that's your perogative and I suppose stating it once is okay, but to pollute the board with that childish nonsense over and over again serves no purpose and doesn't further any discussion, and frankly should be grounds for banning.   

And for the record, I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with GF in PM's hashing out a few mundane things. Same with Billy.

But with regard to what I posted earlier, and taking into consideration that all mods must unite to make the tough decisions, I feel that this is an area where you've let us all down repeatedly. Nothing personal.

I'd like to know what rule the Cincinnati Kid broke to deserve a suspension in the "Why Do You Hate Mike Love?" thread and what the mod log shows in that regard.

Mass exodus ??? ??? Sounds like he's trying to convince himself that this time, and there have been at least two times he's said he's promised to leave for good, he's joining the people leaving here in droves. I think the mods here are the absolute best we've ever had. Look, if you can't deal with other people's opinions, then you're in the wrong place period. Thin skinned and looking for the perfect board that suits you to a T? I don't think so, but it far outdistances whatever is in second place.

he was suspended for 7 days , Aug of last year. Rules were updated earlier this year.

Definitely understand that, which is one of the reasons why I have been more active lately, even though it got me into a bit of trouble at work. For me,the one thing that I absolutely draw the line at is when band members, i.e. not Mike & Brian, but the band members...anyway...attacks on them to me should be off-limits, if it's a case where said member was being attacked just because they're in so-and-so's band.

Full disclosure on my relationship with Val: I thought that she was the real fan that you all claim her to be.  I invited her to a VIP champagne tour of the Pompeii exhibit at the British Museum in April 2013.  I had her to lunch at my hotel after.  She brought a little sunshine smiley-face pin and a copy of the BBB newsletter.  Fair enough.  Now about her total devotion to promoting Brian - here we go:
 
1)  I got a follow-up newsletter 2013/14 where there was an article from an associate of hers, Andrew Hickey, claiming that he’d heard from an "unimpeachable source" that he/she had seen a 5-word email proving that Brian’s “people” had ended the C-50 tour.  Third-hand hearsay, no less.  There are two serious problems with this.  First, a 5-word, out of context email proves absolutely nothing.  Secondly, if such an email was shared, it would have been a violation of BRI confidentiality.
 
2) Then, I discovered that Ms. Johnson-Howe had been prattling on about her medical background and how Brian was “frail” and shouldn’t be “forced to tour.”  She’s provided 12 years of this nonsense.  Clearly, he’s not been too frail to tour, nor was he forced to do so.  He’s made it clear that he’s there because he wants to tour.  Yet the story lives on in the ridiculous world of BBB.
 
3)  Then, last year when Brian had to postpone his UK tour, Ms. Johnson-Howe posted a public letter encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement.  I unfriended her on FB at that point.  9-10 months later, she realized this and challenged me.  I explained why I no longer wanted any association with her.  She insisted that she had sources inside BW management and knew the real reasons the tour was postponed.  I asked her who her sources were and her response was “too numerous to mention” and “that’s all you get.”
 
Given that Brian’s management, as far as I know consists of two key people, I felt pretty assured that she didn’t have that inside source and it made me wonder who exactly these sources are that she appears to serve.  I then blocked the woman on FB.  I found her promotion of the idea that Brian’s doctors and his wife of 21 years would send him out on the road against his wishes and health needs beyond offensive.
 
So my response to all of you calling for my head:  Is this a sweet, innocent woman who only has Brian Wilson’s best interests at heart, or a woman with some behind-the-scenes reasons to so blatantly cater to the M&B BB’s, as well as to so consistently attack BW?   And she wields total control over a message board that bears the BB’s name.  She posts freely on BW I know for certain, and I would assume on SS if she cares, to.
 
Yet, I’m a cowardly person posting here about what the woman is up to?  I don’t post on BBB, so here I am.  I welcome her response either here or on BW.com.  She certainly wasn’t the least bit shy on BW when she was promoting the M&B Tour there last Spring/Summer. 

Whoa....yeah, that's not a good path to take, for sure

Does it say which old rule (or new) he broke though, or what his violation was? 

At this point, does it matter? It's been almost a year ago. have had absolutely no issues since, him and I are good.

So I can't call Mike, Gigantic Douche Coupe? :(

:lol

Seriously, though, I was referring to people like Scott T, John, Nelson, Darian, ect.

Can we have a go at the likes of Adrian Baker and John Stamos though?

It matters as much as any question or challenge on this board I suppose.  It seems every other one around here must always be answered or met and in a timely fashion (to avoid taunts) so why not this one too?  Isn't the answer in the mod log?  Maybe one of the other moderators involved will remember.

I'm glad it is good between you and The Kid now.

Has she posted hateful stuff about you on another board is the issue?  

It's been a long time since I've signed up for BBB but I remember it as being easy.  

I only remember Totten and Cowsill from any of the bands participating on the board, who all have I missed/forgotten?

Edit: You forgot Brian, Cam. Oh yeah, duh.

Adam Jardine has popped in once or twice.  or once.

What, how and why.
Straight forward stuff.

Has this ever been a problem on this forum? Just curious...

Debbie, this is some very interesting information :o

I don't recall Adam Jardine posting here (could be wrong, though). Matt Jardine has posted on occasion, and when he has, he has offered some pretty interesting information (a few updates on recording with Brian, and in the past insights into the logistics of doing live shows, etc.). There was a particularly interesting post where he (somewhat) defended all of the various "falsetto" guys in the band over the years and explained some of the difficulties in singing those harmony parts in concert.

Other than some reprinting of the Bragg/Stamos/Cowsill stuff, I don't recall much of any personal attacks on touring backing band members (and as many might remember, a lot of the arguably "personal" attacks in that episode came from the actual band members themselves). There are sometimes some generalizations made about backing bands that could certainly be construed as arguably personal (e.g. "band of imposters", etc.).

I don't think there's any problem (nor do I think anyone here has suggested as such) with criticizing backing band members in the same ways we might criticize the actual Beach Boys. If you think a backing guy biffed a performance or something, I don't see any problem with pointing it out. Guys like Adrian Baker and Mike Kowalski have been raked through the coals for their singing/musicianship.

Ironically, the few interactions with these guys on this board has usually, in my opinion, resulted in people immediately turning all sunshine and roses. I recall a couple years back a few folks were dogging Cowsill's vocal on some song ("Wild Honey" maybe?), and then Cowsill himself showed up in the thread and everybody dropped the criticisms immediately. In his defense, Cowsill was pretty humble and self-deprecating about his performance, refreshingly so.

I recall another bit where some people were poking fun at that "Eternal Ballad" song Al did, and Matt Jardine jumped in and again very tactfully and realistically admitted it wasn't the best song ever, but explained the context of the song (they had been asked to write the song for an event, etc.)

But I don't recall much personal life stuff being brought up about the backing guys, mainly because so little is known and in general the guys in all the bands don't seem to do much in the way of interviews.

Debbie - at no time, do I recall that Val encouraged legal action with respect to Brian's tour in the UK.  I did read a lot of frustration with posters who had arranged vacations and time off, to coincide with the tour.  I went back to last June (26) to see her "A Plea to the Management/Promoters of the Brian Wilson Tour in the UK" and re-read what Val posted.  It is around page 19 of the BBB site. 

There was an initial complaint by some other fans, that some fee associated with the ticket was not to be refunded and then it was.  My impression was that the fans were venting at the news.  I can well remember my colossal disappointment when the Maharishi tour was cancelled the afternoon of that show.  I read frustration and disappointment in those posts which I can identify with after having experienced the same alongside the uncertainty of whether they would be back performing in the area any time soon.     

Debbie - at no time, do I recall that Val encouraged legal action with respect to Brian's tour in the UK.  I did read a lot of frustration with posters who had arranged vacations and time off, to coincide with the tour.  I went back to last June (26) to see her "A Plea to the Management/Promoters of the Brian Wilson Tour in the UK" and re-read what Val posted.  It is around page 19 of the BBB site.  

There was an initial complaint by some other fans, that some fee associated with the ticket was not to be refunded and then it was.  My impression was that the fans were venting at the news.  I can well remember my colossal disappointment when the Maharishi tour was cancelled the afternoon of that show.  I read frustration and disappointment in those posts which I can identify with after having experienced the same alongside the uncertainty of whether they would be back performing in the area any time soon.  
  
[/quote]

This?

"A PLEA TO THE MANAGEMENT/PROMOTERS OF THE BRIAN WILSON TOUR IN THE UK
Posted on June 26, 2015 at 11:10:51 by Val

I do feel that I need to speak out on behalf of all the fans who have been bitterly disappointed by the latest news of the cancellation of Brian's UK Tour and feel that some acknowledgment of losses is due.

As many have stated below, when this tour was announced, we all thought that the venues were WAY too large for "Our Brian". Please note that we don't blame Brian personally and in fact we are fairly sure that this is nothing to do with any decision made by him.

I do feel though, that is it a pretty poor show when fans have to book time off at their jobs, way in advance and they also have to book flights and hotels (most of which is non refundable) and then to add insult to injury, we are advised that although we should all get our money back from the respective venues, the booking fees charged will not be refunded!

This is causing an awful lot of bad feeling among fans, along with feelings that Management should surely have known better than to do this in the first place and sadly, it shows us that the fans have not been considered in this venture, compounding that feeling by the "Announcement" on Brian's Pages (and really, so NOT from Brian Wilson himself!) which I believe many fans take to be an insult to their intelligence.

It really saddens me to write this, but shame on you BW Management - and I would love to see some form of recompense for the fans, who have lost such a lot through your poor judgement.

Surely, even a "residency" at The Royal Festival Hall in London for a few nights, with a show or two in Scotland and maybe Birmingham, would have been the best decision made and would have saved face?

A Jam Session/Charity Gig with our lovely Beach Boys Britain Musicians and Brian's Musicians would be the icing on the cake, to heal some very open wounds right now and I would be delighted to work with you on this.

Sent with Love and Respect.

Val Johnson-Howe
Beach Boys Britain"

The fans who bought tickets were only entitled to a refund of the ticket price. Nothing more. Suggestion of any other compensation (either through legal channels or not) is ridiculous, IMHO.

That statement is pretty sharply worded in a way that the Litigious Lovester would approve of. ::)

Which part was Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian"? 

Was that in another post?

This?

"A PLEA TO THE MANAGEMENT/PROMOTERS OF THE BRIAN WILSON TOUR IN THE UK
Posted on June 26, 2015 at 11:10:51 by Val

I do feel that I need to speak out on behalf of all the fans who have been bitterly disappointed by the latest news of the cancellation of Brian's UK Tour and feel that some acknowledgment of losses is due.

As many have stated below, when this tour was announced, we all thought that the venues were WAY too large for "Our Brian". Please note that we don't blame Brian personally and in fact we are fairly sure that this is nothing to do with any decision made by him.

I do feel though, that is it a pretty poor show when fans have to book time off at their jobs, way in advance and they also have to book flights and hotels (most of which is non refundable) and then to add insult to injury, we are advised that although we should all get our money back from the respective venues, the booking fees charged will not be refunded!

This is causing an awful lot of bad feeling among fans, along with feelings that Management should surely have known better than to do this in the first place and sadly, it shows us that the fans have not been considered in this venture, compounding that feeling by the "Announcement" on Brian's Pages (and really, so NOT from Brian Wilson himself!) which I believe many fans take to be an insult to their intelligence.

It really saddens me to write this, but shame on you BW Management - and I would love to see some form of recompense for the fans, who have lost such a lot through your poor judgement.

Surely, even a "residency" at The Royal Festival Hall in London for a few nights, with a show or two in Scotland and maybe Birmingham, would have been the best decision made and would have saved face?

A Jam Session/Charity Gig with our lovely Beach Boys Britain Musicians and Brian's Musicians would be the icing on the cake, to heal some very open wounds right now and I would be delighted to work with you on this.

Sent with Love and Respect.

Val Johnson-Howe
Beach Boys Britain"
[/quote]
Cam - yes, that is what I had read.  

"...feel that some acknowledgment of losses is due". "... recompense for the fans" despite having already agreed for full refunds of concert tickets.

Maybe the recompense she means isn't financial, but playing some shows instead?


"Surely, even a "residency" at The Royal Festival Hall in London for a few nights, with a show or two in Scotland and maybe Birmingham, would have been the best decision made and would have saved face?


A Jam Session/Charity Gig with our lovely Beach Boys Britain Musicians and Brian's Musicians would be the icing on the cake"

I get that UK fans were pissed off, and Brian and management could have offered even a token gesture to fans over the disappointment and inconvenience.

But that “plea” isn’t realistic at all, nor particularly strategic. The plea implies dishonesty as to the stated reasons for the tour’s cancelation, pointing to excessively sized venues being booked (e.g. poor ticket sales resulting). But if that indeed was the case, the whole point of canceling the tour would be to nip those financial losses in the bud, for the promoter (more than anyone else probably) and everyone losing money. Sending Brian and his band over to the UK to jam with British Beach Boys fans, or whatever that pitch was, would just be a huge outlay of funds.

Separately, I can’t imagine writing *that* type of “plea”, insulting management and then expecting them to send over Brian’s band for a jolly jam session. Maybe Brian’s management deserved to be insulted. But I think when someone is pissed about something like that tour cancelation, you either have to just post whatever cathartic diatribe you need to and cut your losses, or suck it up and play nice with management if you’re trying to collect a fan base to work with management to mitigate the problem.

The ”plea” doesn’t ask or tell fans to sue Brian (and really, any lawsuits would probably be targeted at the promoters of the shows anyway, not Brian, and all lawsuits of that sort would likely fail anyway), but I’m not sure what exactly “recompense” and “acknowledgment of losses” would entail then. What, hire a CPA to collect receipts from fans and reimburse them? That’s a logistical and legal nightmare. What if someone booked a hotel, but chose to book the most expensive room or hotel? Do they also have to prove they’ve canceled the hotel room? Which costs would be reimbursed? Car rental? Airfare?

Any figurehead of a large fan base who wanted to see management make a situation right in any way (even the aforementioned token gesture; a free song download, coupon codes, etc.), and who had a good standing relationship with management, would have worked through back channels and/or privately instead of calling management out publicly and, I guess, trying to apply public pressure for management to do something. Why they posted that message on a board that gets maybe 5 or 10% (I’m guessing) of the traffic of the most popular BB forum, I don’t know.

I'll say it. It was blackmail and manipulation.

Occasionally I have seen digs in the Mike & Bruce threads, but not lately...not since I said something anyway.