The Smiley Smile Message Board

And it's a shame.

No need for this.  People are being overly emotional though, which is sad, but not unexpected.

Like all great things, I'm certain people have been making comments like this since day one  :lol

It can sadly all be traced back to Mike taking the band into said death spiral post-Carl Wilson, the guy with whose integrity we would be nowhere remotely near the place we are now (both the board and the band itself).

If there was ever a What Would Carl Wilson Do moment needed for reflection... now would be the time.  Carl would never allow the band to play this inauguration.

People were saying the board was dying back in 2007

And I hope I'm just as wrong in 2016. The Beach Boys are by far my favorite group, and it's important that boards such as this one exist.

Is there a way to "deregister" from the board?

I would have preferred to do this more discretely but couldn't find a way to do it without revealing my email address to a random moderator.

You should be able to delete your own account. If not, just PM me and I'll do it, unless you change your mind (which I hope you do change your mind, personally)

Leaving? Well, then,go to your profile. change your email to something else different.change it to private-if it is not already, and -then change it to something fake. Use a hastily registered gmail .account-or I suggest hotmail.com*remember them??* Still around. you  know? And you don't need to have them text some dumbass verification code to your phone. Or supply them with a 'real' alternate/secondary email. you can do it quickly. get the "fake" email. change it in your profile options.
-THEN ask the mods to delete your account.

I suggest following these simple steps:

1. Be less of a loser.
2. Quit whining about literally nothing at all.
3. Grow up.

Is this politics related? It's crazy how the 2 boards/Online Beach Boys world seems to be split these days as much as people on both sides might claim otherwise (barring the odd exception)

PS Forum Vs SmileySmile
Mike Vs Brian
Trump Vs Liberals

Which is ironic since as far as I know the main moderators over at PSF are left leaning, particularly Bubbly

Yeah, true..maybe Andersson too but I'm a bit confused at this point who everyone is but certainly the more vocal right leaning posters seem to be all there now.

Well it just goes to show the moral split between the two boards. One board decided to use simple ethics to rid itself of the trash that was stinking up this forum  (trolling, shuttling false info to the mods, inquiries about locations of poster, threats, harassment, etc), and the other board nonchalantly welcomed these people with open arms (and even gave one of these banned-Smiley Smilers a 'honored member' status).

Even if the mods are left leaning I'm sure they'll take anyone in at this point over at that forum...as it seems to be a dead zone of activity. However I doubt the political refugees will get much sympathy for their political beliefs there, either.

Zeroing in on politics and political content of posts on this board is just the latest vehicle being gassed up to try to discredit and dismiss the fans who post here, and sully the existence of this forum itself. A full gas tank doesn't mean a thing if the engine is blown - it won't run.

The reasons why these comments are showing up now might have less to do with politics and more to do with protecting the brand re: the touring and trying to scrub the web of criticism of Mike Love, with the notion that this forum is ground zero and a toxic place with toxic fans who are toxic for people who are "all about the music". Start with the hundreds of comments on any given news page that ran the inaugural ball story yesterday, and the criticism of Mike extends well beyond the core group who comes here to talk. A lot of whitewash will need to be mixed to scrub that down.

But, never let the truth or facts get in the way of a good "campaign", right?  :)

All mods there are lefties. It's funny how that works.

Andersson is a crazy conspiracy theorist.  He once tried to convince me that the Newtown shooting was a hoax.

Who says conspiracy theorists can lean only to the right?  :lol

Now and then I read some threads in the PSF. The only point of interest is the way people whom I remember as rude and obnoxious here suddenly "become" soft-spoken intellectuals there. That's further proof that they were only trolling us in this board, and were rightfully banned. So, thanks again Billy and Craig.

Thanks Thorgil...that's a great point too

Soft-spoken intellectuals? I haven't seen any on either board. Seems to me most people act more or less the same on both boards, though admittedly I can barely keep track of who's who half of the time.

Whatever the reasons for people being on one board or the other, both, or neither, I don't think it's very important. Who's right, who's wrong, who's right, who's left, who's a troll, who's an insider, who's whatever. It seems like a huge waste of time worrying or talking about it. Personally, I like some people on both boards. I despise some people on both boards. I am entirely apathetic about most people on both boards. If there were some magic world where I could pull in and push away the perfect group for me, I would. But I can't, so life goes on as it is.

If this board is in a death spiral, as the thread suggests, oh well. Then it will die and people will do something else ... most likely on another board nearly identical to this one with whoever is left to care. And if this board isn't in a death spiral, which seems more likely, then whatever, it's just another case of someone being a drama queen when somebody crossed them on this or that topic. Not important. None of this. This board can be this board without trashing that board. And vice versa. Not important.

Just needs Rocky back.... :hat ::) :tiptoe :woot :banana

 :lol :lol :lol That's made my evening.

Once again, it's taken the captain to make some sense of this topic.

Also great points.

Captain, I understand your "neutral" attitude, but it's not for me. I was an avid reader of the old Smile Shop, the best BB/BW related site ever, and its board. There I learned almost all of the little I know about these matters, and it was a sad moment for me when it closed. Then a very battered Phoenix re-emerged from its ashes, as the aptly named "Smiley Smile", and I lurked for a lot of time here: always a great forum and a great source of info and even music, marred only by the extremely confrontational, and too often elitist, nature of several members. That's the reason I was only a reader for years, without ever mustering the "courage" to apply for membership and offer myself to the wolves. :)

Now it's different. I think Billy and Craig are doing a great work in keeping the overall atmosphere much friendlier and more welcoming, particularly to "newbies". The reason I can't be "neutral" is that I didn't like all the personal attacks against them, and don't like when a member is disrespectful to the board, which is still the best around, imho. Death spiral? This board WAS entering one (for the second time), and has been saved on the very brink.

Said that, I acknowledge the function of the PSF, am happy it's there, and have absolutely nothing against the people there... well, almost all of them. But then, nobody's perfect.
  

Agreed newbies are free to post here without the cyberspace bullies of AGD and crowd.

I was forgetting about "soft-spoken intellectuals"... make fun of me all you want, but I still think many posters, both here and in the PSF, can be called that. And I know that "intellectual" is usually considered an insult nowadays, becoming probably heinous if coupled with "soft-spoken", but I mean it as a compliment.  :bw

Thank you for the kind words. I actually think the board is in better shape than it has in a long time; it just seems like things are bad because there's very little to talk about these days, and things like the political talk end up dominating the board. Over on the other forum there's very little activity as well, so it's not just here.

Not neutral at all, thorgil: I'm unabashedly on my side. As for soft-spoken and intellectual, I consider both to be great compliments.

I definitely consider being intellectual as a compliment...not sure how and why it got turned into an insult these days!

I don't think it did. It was the captain's turn of phrase that cracked me up, is all.

Nah, there have been people who have used it as an insult previously...never understood that one!

Those kind of conspiracy theories tend to come from the Alex Jones crowd.

This guy?
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/trump-ally-alex-jones-wonders-if-carrie-fisher-was-murdered/

SMH what a complete tool.

  >:(

There is a fine line between "conspiracy theorist", and " total and complete lunatic who needs to be locked in a padded room".  ;D

Yeah, that guy didn't just cross the line, he took his pants off and teabagged it.

 :lol

I think a possible problem with intellectual is when it's used in combination with frigid, lol. Who was it who said that? Just came to me----Suzy Creamcheese on Uncle Meat in a bizarre conversation with Frank Zappa: "I was your frigid intellectual housekeeper." ;D     

I'm gonna do a song called Frigid Intellectual Housecat. :lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE&feature=youtu.be

This forum isn't in a death spiral because a few posters who rarely if ever posted anything substantial for 4+ years (if ever) decide to bail out. That's as ridiculous as the other failed attempts and "campaigns" that have tried to throw dirt on this place and the people who are members here.

I gotta say...I'm really not comfortable with seeing this thread'ss title right next to the Carrie Fisher thread at all, to the point where I'm considering changing the topic name or bumping another thread to at least separate the two.

I'd say put the Carrie Fisher discussion in the off-topic general discussions sub-forum, it's where other tributes and announcements about entertainers and musicians have gone and Carrie was one hell of an entertainer...not the usual fodder for a Sandbox topic, especially bullshit like this one's subject matter.

Only issue...there isn't one. There's one devoted to music, but not a general one. Hmm...that may be something to consider....

Just did it.

Getting back to the subject at hand, I mentioned something to Billy in private something that I think might be a good idea to try, or at least consider. I propose that a new  board rule be instated, expressely banning any and all political discussion from the board.

I know it's difficult to draw a line between political discussion that belongs in the main section (the Boys and Trump) and political discussion that belongs here (just Trump) but to ban everything everywhere? Surely it's as legit a topic as what are you doing/reading/cooking/eating/etc. There are those here who like discussing it----and most eloquently in some cases.

Anyway, I'm not sure anything should be banned en masse. Better to judge each new topic on its own merits, I say.

My two eurocents.   

Banned from the sandbox? That would be a drag.

I'd stop visiting the board for sure. This isn't some kind of dramatic "I'm leaving" crap, because that's all very boring. But after almost two decades, the BBs stuff gets so repetitive, I'm mostly looking for other topics: maybe 40-50% of why I visit the board is to talk politics.

Banning it would be a sad concession to people who are apparently incapable of having a disagreement without getting too worked up and hating each other (and/or quitting in dramatic fashion while condemning libtards or cucks or whoever it is they're mad at, presumably while starting threads about death spirals).

Perhaps we could ban mention of Mike Love and Brian Wilson, as well. After all, that stupid little fan-feud causes even more name-calling, novel-posts, and grand departures.

My own take: Remember that over the past year or two, there were concerted efforts both public and behind the scenes to try scrubbing this board of anything deemed critical of band members, to the point where moderators were apparently expected to judge individual posts in terms of what would be defined as critical of a band member and act accordingly to remove them, up to making criticism of band members a bannable offense. When those efforts failed, there were campaigns started to remove or replace moderators ostensibly to put moderators in place who would be more open to these bans, re-definitions of the rules, and outright scrubdowns of members who some individuals didn't want to see around.

There was a campaign to gin up support for an open election of moderators, akin to a popular vote, but the fact that some of the more vocal proponents of that were either involved in or had knowledge of members who were holding multiple accounts and using those multiple accounts to evade bans and outright troll the board trying to hide their identity made the notion of a fair vote an impossibility if not an outright joke.

The board is running smooth over the past 6 months or so with a few unfortunate hiccups (some related to the political discussions going into the music discussions), perhaps too smooth for some who wish to see it trashed and dismantled, and perhaps also some don't want to recognize what (and who) some of the issues causing the bigger negative issues going back years may have been. It's not that hard to see, is it?

Point is, there was a time when a form of real censorship was being pushed on this board directly related to on-topic music discussions, and fortunately it was rejected. For all of the mass departures and bellyaching, for all of the personal attacks on moderators, admins, and the board membership in general, for all of the lies and distortions being spread on multiple outlets related to the Beach Boys including Facebook...the board is still here and the readership numbers are pretty much where they were prior to the mass exodus to greener pastures, minus 15 or so people who were among those most vocal in trying to scrub this forum of "undesirables" including mods and admin, and calling for stricter rules and enforcement while bending and breaking the existing rules via their conduct and interactions with other board members. It's simple to do the math if you add it up.

Maybe I'm not recalling all of it, but I don't remember there being much of a public pushback when that overt censorship mentality regarding criticism of the band and band members was being suggested for this forum, and that would have affected the main topic of this forum, not just off-topic "sandbox" types of discussions.

I agree with a ban on the political talk in the sandbox.

It's a constant stream of (http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif).

The Trump topic may seem as legit as cooking or reading to some people here. But if I post about how I made an exquisite chicken parmesan this past weekend I most likely won't be met with a "f*** YOU" or given a 5 paragraph essay daily, for the next 4-8, years on why chicken parmesan sucks. One's love for Hemingway isn't met with a seemingly never ending two-person circlejerk on why Hemingway is overrated.

The stupid little fan-feuds regarding Mike and Brian are visibly upsetting to some here. But logically one would kind of expect those fan feuds to occur on a forum devoted to one of music's most controversial bands.

But if two people want to talk at length about why Hemingway is overrated, why should that bother you? There are multiple threads I find uninteresting or if I read them annoying, so I don't read them. Why try to control other people's conversation?

I can see where--and I agree--inserting Trump / politics into seemingly every thread is annoying. Seems like we've had 2-3 Beach Boys-and-Trump threads in the BBs forum, for example. And that does suck.

But I can't imagine how a couple of political threads in the sandbox could possibly be such a big deal, whether the topics there are diverse and the people interesting, or the topics and people repetitive. Most threads on this board strike me as repetitive, boring, and annoying, so I don't bother with them. I can't imagine why others wouldn't be able to do the same thing, again, assuming people keep things where they belong and don't insert [whatever] into every thread.

Anyway, mods, please let us know if you're banning political convos in the sandbox. I hope you don't.

@Emily. If I had to see Ernest Hemingway's name plastered on the homepage of this forum everyday for the next four, possibly eight years, I would find it utterly annoying (this is a beach boys forum ffs). And Hemingway isn't even a divisive character (though I'm sure some windbag here could talk ad nauseam about what a sexist, misogynistic, racist scumbag they think he was). Trump will do something people find to be highly idiotic EVERY DAY of his presidency. He tweets seemingly 20 times a day about this or that, and each of those tweets says something that will offend at least 50% of the world population. As we've seen for the last few months (probably more) these tweets and actions get discussed here on a daily basis. Yet this isn't a political forum.

This is a Beach Boys forum, and though it is nice to talk about the weather, our favorite movies, our favorite books - those topics aren't divisive to the point of telling someone to "f*** off" and they aren't talked about daily by the same couple people. And lest someone ridiculously claim that the people opposed to talking politics in the Sandbox can't take disagreement, I'll add that I do know of at least one person who doesn't even like Trump who stopped posting here because they were sick of seeing his name on this forum. Thankfully, I'm sure in part due to the sensitive nature of a couple people here, they didn't make a grand statement before they left (whew, dodged a bullet there).

Might I suggest the that people who admit they rarely post in on-topic discussion (yet post incessantly in off-topic threads) find a forum where they would feel more at home to discuss politics on a daily basis.

Well, then.

That would be about 1/2 of the regular participants.
How about if we ban the word "Trump" from thread names?

Politics in sandbox= ok
Politics in main forum- an abomination

Exactly. I'm not trying to overly censor the board, not by any means. I'm just trying to say that right now, in particular, things are a bit to "hot", given the amount of people that strongly disagree with trump. It's way to easy for political discussion to turn into hateful insults and general bitterness. It's not worth losing board members over.

Agreed to an extent. I really don't like seeing it in the main thread at all; the whole thing with Mike and Trump and all that...at first it was a legitimate topic, but now it's going round and round and round so much that every time I see it, I hear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEFQTY4hjUk

I am against all kinds of censorship on post content, as long it's civil. Obvious excesses, bullying and trolling are another thing, but the moderators have shown that they can handle that kind of problem.
If this board has survived years of Brian vs Mike, it can survive discussions about Trump, as long as they are in the aptly-named Sandbox.
If someone writes only (civil) political posts in the Sandbox, why shouldn't they be allowed to? One can simply skip over those.

Different is hijacking threads to turn them to politics: that should be a no-no.

I've been on a few message boards where any and all discussions on politics and religion are strictly banned, simply because it's waaaaay to easy for somebody to say something to piss off or offend somebody else, thereby causing a thread to derail into name calling and profanity, thereby causing said person(s) to get a permanent ban that really wasn't necessary to begin with.

I guess my concern is that if you look at the 2016 Lame Duck thread there is nearly a new daily topic on something idiotic that Trump did that day, the previous day, or 30 years ago. I can see this continuing for the next 4 to possibly 8 years...because no doubt Trump will do something perceptively idiotic daily for the next 4 to possibly 8 years. And renaming any Trump topic threads "Happy Fun Rainbows thread" is a bandaid on a wound that doesn't even need to be here.

I was PMed by one of the above supporters a little over a year ago asking if I and others would be interested in the formation of a political/religious discussion forum that would be completely separate from Smiley Smile - reason being that the atmosphere here had the potential to breed controversy when discussing such topics....and such topics would possibly be better suited for a separate forum. I fully supported the idea then, and fully support it now. I'm not sure why this is all of a sudden an idea not worth considering.

This place isn't suited for such talk because we're not all here to discuss politics...especially extremely divisive politics.

And I'm not asking people to fully stop posting on this forum. I'm saying that there are forums better suited for political discussion and as long as these discussions continue to be a daily trend on Smiley Smile I don't see the harm in having a separate forum completely removed from Smiley Smile for such talk.

That was me. The reason for it was less about fear of it not fitting in around here or offending people, but that some of the people here who posted in those threads were really, really stupid and hard to ignore when they posted irrelevant or trollish crap. I never proceeded because it became obvious there wasn't sufficient interest to sustain a board. Why not use an existing forum with the small group of existing, interested people in a few threads in shadowy corners of the board? Seems that if someone doesn't want to talk politics, it would be easy for him or her to ignore the single thread going atm (in the Sandbox, no less) dedicated to it.

So looking at the most recent comments at this moment:
1 Main topic
11 meta board matters
12 off-topic music
1 political sandbox.

The board isn't here really for any but the one on-topic post. The rest are because people have found connections here with whom they like to converse on other topics or because some people like to talk about what they think other people on the board should be doing. That latter is every bit as controversial but seems to be a constant presence. I don't suggest banning it. One of the best things about this board is that people can chat about whatever they like between chats about the often-dormant topic of The Beach Boys. If any off-topic conversation that irritated anyone was banned, this would be a ghost town.
Basically you're saying that other people are having a conversation that irritates you so they should stop having the conversation. Other conversations don't irritate you, so they can continue.
If one was king, that would be a basis for decision making, I guess.

Regarding the "f you" thing, that was in a non-sandbox thread and did not involve active participants from the sandbox threads. Should the sandbox thread participants, who are having a friendly conversation, be punished because things got rude in an on-topic thread?

I agree with everything rab said above. I couldn't have said it better. I guess my thing is, somebody here is always inevitably going to compare or see a correlation between trump and Mike, and then the endless needless bickering continues for another 30 or so pages.

Except rab is talking about Sandbox threads in which Mike has never, as far as I know, even brought up so the inevitability is nonexistent in those threads. You and rab are talking about different threads in different places with different people discussing different things in different manners.

@Emily. Not sure what your point is listing the most recent comments on this forum. Logically, if one is trying to ascertain the amount of times Trump is mentioned on this forum daily they would come up with an average - not a convenient current snapshot that supports solely your viewpoint.

And discussing matters that pertain to the topics allowed on this forum (and off topic music - as this is a music related forum) is not at all comparable to a discussing ad nauseam a president who is so divisive that one supportive post gets a person banned from this forum by a mod. Keeping in mind I don't at all disagree with what Billy did, but it's an example for how divisive this topic is and how easily people are bothered by it. And yeah, that and the "f*** you" posts were made in the general comments section; But obviously I'm pointing out that it is an extremely "hot" subject as Ringo mentioned. Just because your conversations are 'civil' doesn't mean that they (and the topic titles) aren't bothering the hell out of people who are for or against Trump.

I'll go back to my Hemingway example: If I conversed with fellow poster about Hemingway daily here for the next four years, no doubt people would have every right to get pissed off. Why not move the conversation to a forum that is specifically meant for Ernest Hemingway fans? What is so illogical about that? I started a thread about space/telescopes in the sandbox last year and it was great that I found other people here with the same interest. But I belong to another online community that deals solely with space/telescopes because that is the courteous thing to do. I don't clog up this forum talking about reflecting vs refracting telescopes or what company makes the best moon filter on a daily basis. And telescopes and Hemingway are far less likely to piss people off enough to say "f*** off" at any given time.

It's an extremely divisive topic and there are forums better suited for such talk.

I can not imagine getting pissed off because some people wanted to argue in the sandbox about Hemingway for four years. Why would that affect me in any way?
Regarding the recent posts - your problem as stated is anchored on people seeing recent posts and that you find the frequency of recent posts related to Trump irksome. Thus a snapshot of recent posts is pertinent. In the last month there's probably an average of 1 a day in the Sandbox on the topic, so that supports my point as well. There are more on average of "favorites" and "at the moment" posts. I find the frequency of meta-commentary irksome. I also find the "favorites" and "at the moment" threads tiresome. Shall I call for banning the topics?

I won't. I have no desire to control what other people do on the board.

You've got to be kidding me. Between November 28 and December 28 a total of at least 150 posts on the subject have been made in the sandbox....and that is a very conservative estimate only from the 2016 Lame Duck thread. This doesn't count all the threads that were moved over to the sandbox relating to Donald Trump and other politically related threads where Trump was mentioned. So actually this doesn't support your point at all.

edit: did the math, a total of 198 posts were made in the past month in the Lame Duck thread, making an average of 6 political/Trump posts made a day for the past month, just in that thread alone.

2,022 posts were made in the 2016 election thread alone (this stemmed back to April 2015, but one can't ignore that politics take up a huge swath of posting in the Sandbox).

And given your stance on this issue I don't expect you to understand why daily posting of the same off-topic subject would get on people's nerves. Again, there are forums that are specifically designed for ANY given subject - people should utilize such forums. It's why I don't head over to the most popular Beatles board and start bitching about Mike Love in their sandbox. It doesn't make any sense.

This!

Ye gods. I would have thought that this simple fact was staring everyone in the face...

Agreed...as long as it stays there.

So your math indicates there's a lot of interest on this board to posting on politics. So why deny such a popular interest?
I don't think anyone initially came to this board to post about politics, but they enjoy the political discussion they found and it's part of what keeps some people here. Some people stick around to chat about food. Or Beatles. Or other music.
If you were at a Beatles board and two people were talking about Mike Love in a sandbox thread would that be a problem? Trust me, there's been plenty on this board that I find annoying. But I don't feel I am in a position to force other people to only have conversations that don't annoy me.

So your initial math, which was completely wrong, indicated that the posts were such low volume that it shouldn't bother anyone. Now that 60 seconds of math proved that the volume is much higher than you claimed, the political posts should stay because there is a lot of interest ???

A quick scan of the 2016 Lame Duck thread shows that you and Captain are nearly the only two consistently posting about Trump (and at a much higher rate than anyone else). So the interest lies with basically 2 people constantly agreeing with one another about nearly the same issue every day. As for the Mike Love talk on a Beatles forum; if two people there posted about Mike Love 6 times a day every day it would be excruciatingly annoying (especially if their home-page was set up like ours where you can see every post that has recently been made), and I'm sure most on that forum would agree that such talk would need to end.

My point, which I have made painfully obvious in previous posts, is that this Trump talk is a daily constant here...and given the divisiveness of the (off)topic I feel it could find a much better home on another forum.

  We have just emerged from a highly contentious election. Of course activity on the political threads has been high. What goes up will come down. Just ignore if it bothers you.

A lot of what is being talked about here in the past month is policy. Which is kinda my point: controversial policy will keep rolling out and incessant discussion will just continue. Again, it's like my interest in astronomy: I rarely post here about it, but I belong to an astronomy forum where I'm free to talk about the subject with like-minded people so I don't clog up a forum that has nothing to do with astronomy. I'm beating a very dead horse at this point, so I'll leave it at that.

If it's troublesome that Emily and I agree often (which I'd actually want to argue, but I'll just go with it) while talking politics in the politics thread of the Sandbox, why not just not read that thread? (I don't think your characterization of our posts is fair, but whatever.) That's the part that makes no sense to me. I've not started a single political thread in a non-political forum of this board. I've posted in the ones that others started, but usually relatively briefly and not to stir controversy (e.g. Trump's inauguration and whether the BBs played it, where I said basically who gives a f***). There is a Sandbox dedicated to topics irrelevant to the Beach Boys or music. Why do you care who posts what there? If, as Billy suggested, political posting in BBs threads or the BBs forum is to be banned, what's the difference? I'm sorry that I appear to cause you so much grief. I can't imagine why you'd care at all.

The "favorite" and "at the moment" talk is also a daily thing.
My "initial math" wasn't math. It was a guess based on how much activity I remembered recently. And yeah, either way, it shouldn't be an issue. If it's not many posts, the premise that it's sooooo many posts is wrong - which, 6 posts a day is still not very many. If it's a lot of posts, then there's interest. But either way - why should you care so much what other people are talking about and why should you think you should exert control over it?

I disagree that most people on a Beatle forum with a sandbox in which there was much talk about Mike Love would "agree that such talk would need to end".  Even, listen to yourself. "Such talk would need to end"?  I guess I assume people are more like me and don't think they need to control other people's off-topic talk in off-topic sections and you assume people are like you. We'll never know.
I find calls for banning, which are a constant here, extremely irritating. I've never done it. And I don't call for banning people calling for banning. I just don't have the urge to control people in that way.
But I'm done with this. You want to make the rules, start a board or become a mod. In the meantime, if the mods here ban political discussion, I'll come around when there's some unusual Beach Boys event, but the off-topic talk is why most people who are regularly here are regularly here.  It's in the sandbox and no one has to read it if they don't want.

I'm not banning political discussion...just moving it here on the Sandbox where it belongs.

rab2591, I will explain my own personal interest in continuing to post about non-BBs topics in a BBs forum. You can accept or reject it. I think I've said something similar in one of the other purported board meltdowns whose hysteria got ahead of its reality. But it was probably along these lines.

Basically, my interests are relatively wide. Beach Boys, yeah. Pop music in general, for sure. Jazz and "classical," yep. Cooking and eating. Gardening, a little. Books. Politics. Religion. But the thing is, I don't feel like joining 5-10 message boards. It's tedious. I came to BBs boards maybe 15 years ago and have come to know a handful of people here (or there). We have some shared experience in terms of our love of a band or two. That's great. But we all have diverse interests, and some of those, we have in common. So why not chat about those things in the nether regions of this board? Must we have different boards for every topic? Must the mods delete everything that gets out of bounds? Must people be banned over it? Is there actually any harm in contained off-topic discussions that are by no means mandatory or even intrusive? (I'm not saying the political threads in the BBs forum weren't intrusive: they were. But they weren't my doing, or Emily's, or CSM's, or FdP's, or Sinister Smile's, or TRBB's, or Bean Bag's, or KDS's, etc.)

If most people think it's so horrible that some of us talk about other things in their rightful places, so be it. I hope everyone can enjoy re-re-re-re-re-re-re-ranking the songs on each album, or considering whether maybe the newest interview about Brian's forthcoming rock 'n' roll album offers insights heretofore unknown, or how awesome it was that "Your Imagination" was played in the grocery store when someone was looking at parsley.

I'm not banning political discussion...just moving it here on the Sandbox where it belongs.

One more time!  :bw
Thanks.

Yeah, I had to re-iterate, because I don't want people to think their voices are going be silenced, and that they're going to be banned if they post something political. Not going to happen, not on my watch. I just want to make sure that a discussion on why Pet Sounds is the best album of 1966 doesn't degenerate into a discussion on why Paul Ryan is more dangerous than Pence or CheetohHead himself.

That's half of my issue right there, Captain. Your last paragraph. You seem to look down on the fans here who want to discuss THE BAND (or you look down on the posts made by these fans, either way...). So what if they re-re-re-re-re-re-re-rank the songs on the albums? So what if someone was gleeful that 'Your Imagination' came on in the grocery store? They enjoy it and it's on topic because this is a forum specifically for discussion relating to THE BEACH BOYS. Just because you find it repetitive after two decades (and for some odd reason you don't feel like joining another messageboard where your recent political posts would actually be on topic) doesn't mean others should have to sift through the monotony of these off-topic political posts that deal with very divisive subjects. And by sift I mean looking at 6 or more topic headers that deal with politics or Trump on the home-page.

Anywho, obviously Billy is keeping things the way they've been. Just wanted to share my viewpoint on the matter.

That's just it: however repetitive I find it, I realize my personal preferences don't matter. Of course the dialogue won't start and end with me. Of course other people's arcs aren't the same as mine. I don't expect that, and I don't begrudge them their experiences. But I'm one of many, many people who post a lot in non-BBs forums on this board, whether non-BBs music, Smiley Smilers Who Make Music, Sandbox, or whatever else. So why single out the (divisive) political topics? I'd guess most people here post non-BBs content. Why ghettoize the political stuff? Why talk about banning the political stuff? You could just as well ban palindromes or movies or country music discussion.

Your (apparent) discomfort with political discussion is irrelevant, just like my boredom with other topics is irrelevant. None of us individually matters in the slightest. We're not important. So why not let each of us go on his or her merry way, posting about whatever, as long as it doesn't disrupt the board? And I just don't think Sandbox political posts disrupt the board unless someone wants to take what's there and drag it elsewhere. And it's not on me if other people aren't capable of separating topics, or can't discuss Mike Love without discussing Donald Trump.

But don't conflate my arrogance with anything political, either. I'm an asshole regardless. I'm going to look down on people's posting regardless of whether it's about rating songs or talking Trump. That's just me. I'm a dick. Don't penalize people nicer than me for wanting to talk non-BBs just because I think 3/4 of the people here are idiots.

This has nothing to do with you being a dick or not. This has to do with a topic so divisive it got one person banned after ONE supportive post and another came out and told someone to "f*** off" or somesuch because of that post (another thing was said and soon after redacted). Again, I don't disagree with what was said or done in that instance, and I know that incident didn't take place in the sandbox. My point is that the topic is insanely divisive to the point of terrible things being said by both sides. As I've said prior, one respected poster quietly left because he was sick of seeing Trump's name here. This poster actually contributed to on-topic discussion and decided to leave because of the influx of these divisive off-topic posts. Even though the discussions in the sandbox regarding this are mostly civil, it does annoy people to see the topic being discussed at all. If that's the type of board the mods want here, then so be it.

One should easily see the difference between posting in support of or against Johnny Cash and his music over posting in support or against Donald J Trump and his policies. Again, Billy has obviously made up his mind about this topic; you and Emily and others will get to continue discussing Donald J Trump. The rest of us annoyed by seeing it clog up the homepage will attempt to ignore it. Case closed.

Can I please point out that I myself was so disgusted by the constant political talk that I stayed off the board for about a month?

I took a small hiatus for the same reason. This is one place where I don't want politics involved - especially these days. This music is most definitely a safe haven from the nasty garbage that pervades our lives (be it politics or just day-to-day irritations).

I suppose one could call me a hypocrite for being vocally opposed to Mike possibly using his little band he calls the Beach Boys for the inauguration - but again, I oppose it because I don't want politics interfering with the music I love so much. I don't want people turned off of this great music because of political interference. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

For f***'s sake, we're (or at least I'm) talking about posts mostly in a single thread in a single subforum: if it hurts everyone's sensitive little eyes and minds, I'm not sure what to say beyond what I've said before. I hope nobody offends your precious sensibilities in real life.

I was responding to Billy, as obviously he was sick enough of the political bullshit to leave a forum he moderates for a fucking month (as he doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the Sandbox full-time because he has to moderate the place). I'm sorry my precious sensitivities are bothering your precious sensitivities. As I said, case closed...Billy is allowing the discussion of Donald J Trump in what he considers the proper sub-forum to do so in. If you don't like my opinions on this subject, take your own advice and ignore them.

I don't mind your opinion. You posted it before in another thread and I ignored it. It's your trying to make your opinion the rules of the board that drew me to this topic.

Stating my own opinion, I agree with what Messrs. Rab and Starrfruit have been expressing. I think in the past month or so, there have been more than a few instances of political squabbles getting into discussions about the music and music-related topics which in some cases had negative consequences.

I agree that I also do not come here to see what has been going on and am excited to see new post after new post about Trump or politics in general. I come here at this point in my life to avoid that back-and-forth, unless (and this is a big unless) it relates to the music or the band. As we've seen this week, agree with it or not, the band has been taking a lot of hits in the forum of public opinion over Mike's decision to play or not play this Jan 20th gig. It saddens me to see the band legacy being thrown into the mud like this, again whether the reasons why it's happening are agreed with or not. It's happening, and that really disturbs me...considering it could have been handled with more tact and class to avoid all of this mess.

So yeah, I also got fed up checking in here at times and seeing politics this and politics that...it felt like overkill. That's just my 2 cents.

In terms of it having a negative consequence, let me remind everyone of one name: Stephen Desper. What happened with him was shameful and it should never have happened. Again just my two cents, but he was basically ganged up on and started to be challenged to the point of referencing his post history all over the politics some tried to ascribe to his post about Trump's traveling sound system and how he related it to how he used to travel with the Beach Boys under a similar setup.

The man pressed record on songs like Til I Die and Forever. He created the drum sound on Do It Again. He was *there* and took his time out to post here, dialogue with fans, and answer questions.

Was it worth it to create a situation where he felt like bailing out, over politics? I say no, and I hope he returns soon because his posts were a major reason why I look forward to checking new posts when I can during the day. With his posts, I learn - with politics, I don't give two shits anymore and ignore it.

Is it a surprise all that happened considering on-topic discussions from California Girls to Pet Sounds have veered off into political discussions in recent weeks and months? It's just too much sometimes to have the smallest perception of a "wrong" turn into another political sidebar, which overtakes the thread itself. At some point isn't it more enlightening and more enjoyable just to focus on the music and not find things to point out as offensive then start arguing about it? Again, that's just me.

But I do agree that some of the incessant political back-and-forths have gotten to be a little too much, and I'd hate to see "Trump" come up in topic after topic for the foreseeable future, unless there is something relative to the music.

And stating again, for all the aversion and opinions against "censorship" here, where was it when those individuals and interests were actively campaigning to really censor this board relative to the actual main topic of this place? I don't recall as much of this pushback on that censorship, but I'm damned happy they failed.

This thread has contained suggestions as to rule changes of the board. It isn't just people sharing opinions on assorted topics. If it were, I wouldn't care or post, as is the case with almost every thread on the board. But because there was talk that included suggesting the banning of some of the only things on the board I enjoy, I found it relevant to post my thoughts (to hopefully influence the outcome).

(And for the record, I was writing the post in question before Billy's last post. It was in response to your post that responded directly to me. The one about me being a dick. But now having read them all, who among us hasn't taken a hiatus from the board? Everyone gets sick of it now and again and takes a break. Whether Billy bailing, you bailing, or me bailing, it's just normal.)

Agreed. That whole thing was disgraceful and a shame.

I agree that the Desper thing was wrong and I said so in that thread. As the captain pointed out, none of the regular political sandbox posters initiated any of the on-topic Trump related threads nor participated in any of the dramatic events contained there-in. The drama in those threads is not related to the sandbox threads other than subject matter. Why a sandbox thread that has been really quite peaceful has been dragged into a discussion of on-topic drama, I don't know.

Which is yet another reason to keep the discussion in this particular sub forum!

Agreed. I'm fine with that. There were 400 posts in the two main forum inauguration threads. More than twice the number in the sandbox thread. And the sandbox thread has been much less emotional. I just think the sandbox thread is being conflated and then blamed. Kind of like the American left with the Soviet Union!

When the atmosphere surrounding even on-topic posts like those about Pet Sounds and California Girls starts veering off into political issues, it could very well create an implied vibe where that kind of thing becomes the norm, which could have been the case with Desper and how he got the screws put to him over what people thought he was saying and took as political commentary or endorsement. If the atmosphere isn't there to begin with, if it didn't feel at times like more than half of the new posts on the homepage list were about Trump or politics, maybe that would not have happened as it did.

Just as a reminder, this board had the two main subjects on this card/photo posting here and interacting at various times. A genius musician and a genius engineer, both here and interacting with fans.

Consider if putting the political and/or petty personal sh*t into certain areas here was worth it if they both bid adieu.

(http://www.tradingcarddb.com/Images/Cards/Non-Sport/88890/88890-6355738Fr.jpg)

At the end of the day, the most important question is this: how do we move on from here? I myself do not want this to be the norm.

I don't know. It's your call but I think people should be called out for their behavior, not the subject matter. I can talk politics all day and not attack Stephen Desper for his post or say "f you" to the professor. I've been sarcastic, to be sure, and if you want to call me on it when I am, that's your call, too. But I don't see how posts by person y in the sandbox are responsible for an attack by person x in the main forum. I personally have never mentioned Trump or the election in the main forum as far as I remember, except in subject-specific threads started by others. To say that the captain and I and CSM and whomever wants to join can't have a conversation in the sandbox because other people were rude in a thread with shared subject matter in the main forum doesn't seem right to me.

I guess you ban politics altogether, you ban politics in the main forum, or you address people's behavior.

3rd option is a given, 2nd one is a possibility depending on the former.

I'm also changing the name of this topic because quite frankly seeing a thread with "death spiral" in it is not sitting right with me when I see it nestled between the Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds memorial threads.

Let me give you an example: when CD and I were having an irritated throw down in the election thread a "break it up" from a mod would've seemed suitable. When someone is insulting Stephen Desper, a "that's out of line" from a mod would've been suitable. When rab goes on an emotional spiel in a topical thread about thinking other people shouldn't talk about what they talk about, a "settle down" would be appropriate. When I needle him about it, a "that's not necessary" might be effective.
Then, if people persist repeatedly after being told to cut it out, a suspension might be called for.
It's not the subject, it's the behavior.

I agree about the thread name.

I'm shocked that he got chased away like that. And I totally agree; the subject of Trump is divisive and seeing his name at least 6 times a day on a forum supposedly here for Beach Boys discussion isn't doing this place any favors. Again, this is what I mean: people getting banned, being told to f*** off, at least one poster (not even a Trump fan) quietly leaving, a moderator taking a month long hiatus, one of the best insiders this forum has ever seen being chased off, all relating to one subject: Donald J Trump. Has there ever been any subject like this on this forum before? Hell no...should we be reminded of it 6 times a day? Should the topic that drove Desper away even allowed to be given server space on Smiley Smile?

How about a ban on political talk as long as it doesn't relate to the band. If Mike goes on with a inauguration concert with his touring act, I think we all have the right to talk about it given it deals with the band itself. If we want to bitch about the Reagan years relating to The Beach Boys we should be able to. But venting about Trump policies at least 6 times a day? As I say there are other political forums out there that are built for such talk. I don't see the big deal in posting on those forums.

With an open forum, I think it has to come down to the decisions of individual posters, especially with this forum having specific people and interests wanting to see it devolve into chaos and wanting to drive people away. The old adage perhaps, think before you post and consider how anyone looking in will perceive it. If I were someone who comes here to read about the music and the band and saw some of what I saw recently, which was a majority of new posts centered around political content versus music content, and if I were coming here to read about California Girls the song and saw as many politically-charged posts in that topic as were posted, I'd probably see the board as some who have wanted to put the screws to this place and people here for several years would like it to be seen or how they portray it since they failed in trying to reshape and censor it.

I'd also say if the stated purpose of a board is centered around one topic, as far-reaching as that may be, and more posts are coming in off-topic than on, that may be something to look at moving forward whether it's a dry news cycle for the main topic or not. But again, with an open forum a lot comes down to the choices of the people posting.

I agree - and I would not like to see venting about Trump or politics in general unrelated to the band posted every day for the next x-amount of months or years. We know the election cycle rubbed a lot of people raw in many ways, but maybe some readers come here to get away from all of that and talk-read about the topics related to music.

Consider if it reached a point where people stopped coming here and took a hiatus because the off-topic political talk became too much of an everyday occurrence, maybe that talk could be limited by the posters engaging in it. I'm just expressing opinions out loud.

OK dudes. Enjoy your forum.

oops wrong thread

That is how it had been previously...I think a return to that is indeed in order. I don't know how we got so far away from that.

It got away because of a small group who no longer posts here targeting the moderation of this board and the moderators personally when that group repeatedly tried and failed to shape it according to what they either wanted or had to do. If someone or something they didn't like was called out, it was good moderation. If it was something or someone they liked or agreed with, they unloaded on whichever moderators stepped in.

When it was suggested that a special topic be set up to allow people to question the mods before it turned into a place to trash the moderators over decisions and other things, and when that kind of thing was encouraged by some here now suggesting more moderation be applied post-to-post, where were those calls for suspensions and "settle down" and the like at that time? I don't recall any of that sentiment, maybe because of who was involved. Too big to ban or challenge, too close on social media, etc. Who knows. Whatever the case, all of that crap failed.

Maybe things were running too smoothly after all that nonsense left, or some just can't bring themselves to admit what the causes of the big issues and tensions here really were.

Understood, but at this point we need to put that behind us and concentrate on right now. 99% of the riff-raff is gone, and that other remaining bit is on the way out providing the passive-aggressive swipes persist. My filter is gone...I tried for a long time to be neutral and understanding, and it got me nowhere. Well, I'm at the point where that's done...regardless of who is saying what, right is still right (and wrong is still wrong).  My main concern (online, that is) is getting this board to where it needs to be, and in order to do so, it will take all of us.

I might as well point out the stupidity here.
 ALL of the incidents mentioned in paragraph 1 of rab's latest post happened in on-topic threads. Yet, in paragraph 2, it is suggested that the sandbox threads - not responsible for ANY of those incidents - be banned, while the on-topic threads be should continue.  Also, MORE of the "clogging up the board" and the <<dread>> seeing Trump's name were from the on-topic threads than the sandbox threads. This is such a pile of unbelievably whiny idiocy. The TONE of the on topic threads was not in the least helped by the contributions of the lead complainer in this thread who likes to turn things into meta-attacks. Rab has flounced around before about other people not talking about things the way rab likes and he/she will again. Humoring this BS, saying, yes, poster, you get to control what other people say, is a mistake.
But, GF will humor it this time because GF has a grudge. In GF's post above, he expresses his irritation with me for trying to get the constant, at that time, arguments about moderation off the main board, which I did. Because THAT at the time was what would have driven people away. That became a sh*t show and I'm sorry to have been involved, but that was not handled well on anyone's part.

 I have no idea what that last "some just can't bring themselves" typically cryptic statement is about. But a few people were happily enjoying their little corner of the board. Some OTHER people got in their usual drama and one of the lead dramatists is using the opportunity to get a grudge-holding mod to shut down some people he doesn't like.
Well done.

I was following up the point Guitarfool had made about the general posts about Trump all over the board contributing to the ease in which people bitched about him in the general on topic section which then possibly led to Desper being chased off. There's a difference between talking about Mike doing an inauguration concert under the Beach Boys name and incessantly bitching day in and day out about Trump's political policies.


Okay, again I know of at least one poster who left because they were sick of seeing his name here. That your off-topic posting is keeping at least one poster who most always posted on-topic material annoys the hell out of me. I feel bad that you find it to be whiny idiocy.


Could you please detail what you mean in this first sentence here?


ok.

Once again, there was MORE, by at least a factor of two, posting on the main board that in the sandbox about Trump. You can blame it on the sandbox all you want, but it doesn't hold water. And I know about 50 people who left the board for reasons not to with me. Namely, this kind of meta bs.

I'm not really sure why there is such a big debate about this.  As has been mentioned, the one active political thread has been very civil, even if it's only because the people who post in it are usually in agreement, relatively speaking.  There's no reason for that discussion elsewhere unless it relates to the band, also mentioned before.  The people who post in that thread manage to keep political discussion out of other threads.  Perhaps ironically, the people who do bring up politics on Beach Boy related threads rarely or never post in political threads.  I would say that's because they can't further the conversation beyond saying Trump is an orange moron or Hillary is a criminal.

An open forum is what allows stuff like this to fester.  It is what makes people like Mr. Desper leave the forum.  That thread was particularly unfortunate considering a mod joined in on ganging up on him.  Self moderating doesn't work online just as it doesn't work in the real world.  There are too many people who refuse to be civil for one reason or another.

I imagine that on-topic talk about Mike using the Beach Boys to perform a concert for Trump's inauguration is far less annoying than multiple daily updates on what new idiocy the Trump presidency will bring to America. An inauguration happens once every 4 years, whereas policy that is constantly bitched about has the chance of being rolled out on a daily basis. You can see why over a period time this topic could get on people's nerves. Maybe you can't see that.

And again...

If they don't like the topic, but repeatedly go in and read it as you do, I can imagine it would get annoying. That's why I don't read topics I don't enjoy. Because reading them every day would annoy me. But go ahead, blame me for your lack of impulse control.

Please try to understand this for the last time: I'm saying that the title of your daily updates about Trump take up space on the homepage, and seeing this 6 times a day for the next 4 years will get flippin annoying as hell and drive more people away than it already has (the person it already drove away was someone who didn't find this place repetitive and boring and who posted actual on-topic discussion).

And yet again...

[/quote]

I wish there was a way we could filter topics from showing on our news feed. There *might* be a way to do it by board. I'm trying to look at the board settings to see

I've SEEN you in that thread multiple times and multiple times in this thread you've made reference to the quite peaceful CONTENTS of that thread and then made reference the the DISRUPTIVE contents of other threads that have put the NAME of Trump on the board MORE than that thread has. Please edit your comments for logical flaws. I think illogic of this sort should be banned.

I have a hopefully humorous (temporary) solution to everyone's problem

I like it.

:lol it changed the title of the threads too...

This is a question/comment in reply to Emily:

Consider that the main grudges were mostly coming from the small group of posters who were complaining the loudest about the moderation here. When their requests or demands along with those complaints were not filled to their satisfaction, they started making it personal against the moderators themselves. Instead of giving them the scrutiny you're asking for now from the moderators, you suggested opening up a specific topic for them to unload, which they did until the facts pretty much destroyed a lot of what they were trying to claim much less what they were complaining about. When some were banned for breaking the rules of this board separate from complaining about moderation, when some simply left in a huff over whatever issues they claimed drove them off, they took those grudges to at least three other music forums and publicly began lying about and taking personal shots at me, Billy, and even Charles LePage.

Did you ever consider or observe who the loudest complainers posting here about the moderation when you suggested opening a topic for them to complain really were, in relation to all the personal attacks, lies, and other activity they engaged in across at least three other forums and social media never mind a history among some dating back multiple years on multiple fan communities and boards?

When all of that left this place, it ran smoothly with only a few minor hiccups as can be expected. It's not only obvious, it's still on display if you look for it.

A few people tried and failed repeatedly in whatever they were hoping to do regarding changing this board as they saw fit, or as they had to do - See them for the grudges. The word "toxic" gets thrown around a lot by some regarding posters here, mods here, and even the board itself - I'd suggest looking for the real toxicity, it's not hard to find.

I never understood the politics of all that and I still don't. I didn't mean to start that thread to initiate what it turned out to be. I just meant to steer the commentary from every other thread, which was where it had been. As I said, I'm sorry I did it, but it was not with ill intent.

I don't think you're actually getting what I'm saying, but alright. Anywho, as was said before, Billy said that talk of Donald J Trumph is allowed in the sandbox, and I'm sure it will stay that way. As I said and agreed with pages back, those of us annoyed by it will have to do our best to ignore it. Case closed for me.

And again:

The people complaining the loudest were and are the politics of much of the issues that had this board in a mess for some time before it all left for greener pastures, voluntarily or because they were banned for breaking the rules here. As far as reasons why they did certain things, the behaviors from those various people on display here and elsewhere, the lying and attempts at slander, combined with a host of other actions and behaviors should at least give an idea what was and is still behind it.

When some people don't get their way, when some people can't change a situation or win an argument against simple facts, they resort to personal attacks and lies because there is nothing logical left to throw into the disagreement. That's the result of the politics behind a lot of it. Glad it's moved out of here.

That's as may be, but I think you think I know more about Beach Boy politics than I do. You talk about history, other forums, social media...
This is the only Beach Boy forum I participate in. I don't know the history of beach boy fandom particularly and I have made very few connections with any beach boy fans outside of this forum. I find many of your comments cryptic and honestly don't understand the clues you give in them. I don't know why all that happened beyond the obvious pro/anti Mike Love factions. I don't know when or why some people started having issues with you. I saw that it was spilling all over the forum. People kept asking it to be moved out of the topical threads but it persisted, so I started a sandbox thread for it. I tried to talk with you about perhaps ways to settle things down. That didn't work. I tried to talk to some of them about settling down. That didn't work. I have no idea why anyone here cares so much about what other people here are saying - whether they Mike Love or not, whether they talk about politics or not, whether they should only say nice things about band members. I find the fan community to be really weird. But I found a few people I really enjoy talking to. And I'm happy in that one little thread doing that talking, for the most part. So some other people in some other thread offended Desper and got in some thing with the professor and now the perfectly innocent thread that I enjoy, in which none of those people are involved is threatened because rab is annoyed by it and is creating a bogus irrational link? Wth is that? And what does it have to do with that earlier stuff?

That Sandbox thread is in no danger of getting canned

I'm not being cryptic at all. It's all on display for everyone to see. Some of the people who you are friends with were lied about, had personal attacks come their way, and had various attempts at slander and worse thrown their way too. Some you might be totally ambivalent about who are members of this group had that happen too, personal attacks, threats, etc. You know some of the people behind it because the posts still exist here and elsewhere, with all the names intact as well as the behavior. It's your call how to deal with them if you have any contact with them now or in the future, but I'd think your standards would suggest a less than positive view of people who attack your friends, threaten other posters over content posted on a message board, and who drag people's wives and children into the muck. And yet, the people being attacked are the ones called "toxic" along with this board.

That is yet again the result of some of the politics behind all of it. It's all there on display and has been for some time.

See - here's where it's cryptic: this is full of "some people"s. I don't know who you're talking about in any of the some peoples to which you refer. It's a guessing game. And I guess I'm not good at it. And this is not a criticism of your intention, just your communication. I honestly often do not understand what you're saying. Which is pretty much what I said in that old thread. And I also don't understand the topicality.

I can't help you there, if you don't want to see it you'll never see it. But start with the loudest complainers against "the mods" when you started that thread and those who attacked Billy and I among others you know, note the similarities, and that's a pretty good place to start.

OK. So I have a better guess of to whom you are referring. But I still don't know to what you're referring. It's a pretty good place to start what? And how does it relate to me talking about Voldermort in the sandbox?

I mean, if you have a point to make, make it. Don't make me guess what it is.

The lying sack of sh*t Andrew Doe was one of them, him and his fake ass.

Start here if it's proving too difficult to remember: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23685.650.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23685.650.html)

Others include dr. beachboy and Autotune, just to name two of them.

Not real sure with what this has to do with the political stuff, but at this point I'm as lost as a hot dog on a corn dog stick. :/

But why is that topical? How does that tie in to this?

In return, don't play me or anyone else for a fool with that routine. If you read this board over the past year, you wouldn't need to guess anything because you were posting in some of the threads where all of this crap went down, and know exactly who was involved.

I don't know. I was just mentioning 3 of the names of the element that is no longer stinking up the board with their...um...stink.

I'd almost rather talk about Voldermort. At least President Cheetoh didn't pose as my friend and slander me and others the whole time. :/

And yeah, I'm lost as to what this has to do with the Orange Goblin or the political discussions.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.0.html)

Direct link to the moderator complaint thread, all 27 pages of it or whatever: Note the names of the louder "complainers" and compare that list to where some of them are or ended up since that thread, not to mention the things they said, Emily, about people you may consider friends.

Edited to add after I saw the latest post: what's the pertinence?

Good grief. This is ridiculous. I didn't understand all the "some people" "that's a good place to start" posts then and I don't now. It seems there's an implication that there's some big picture that I'm supposed to be seeing but all I see is a bunch of people squabbling about nonsense and petty grievances. If you were clear about what "crap" you're talking about perhaps I'd more quickly guess who you're talking about. Because you didn't identify the crap but just listed a bunch of some peoples did something to some other peoples and in a discussion about rab being annoyed by political posting, I was trying to think of some peoples who had done some things in relation to that topic. But you're talking about that old topic and there's no tie. Believe it or not, some people don't play some people games and kind of tune it out when others do. So, no, I don't follow those posts well and I don't invest time in understanding the big picture of Beach Boys fan squabbles.
Good night.

Just to make sure I'm following... Andy Doe and his merry band of mindless worshippers caused a toxic environment that made these political discussions (like President Mephisto) a lot more hostile that they should have been? I admit I'm a bit distracted...I just got yelled at by a customer but I'm not sure how we got on to one subject (supposed board politics) that makes ill from a different subject that makes me ill (actual political politics).  

I haven't had a drink in over 2 years but for the first time since then I almost need one.

Almost.

Edit

Oh...I get it...many of them are supporters of the Orange Goblin and/or are just as bigoted. Ok, I think that makes some sense now.

Very impressive. Thumbs up!
Better don't.

Thank you.


I think I'm good.

Damn, all I was trying to do was suggest a way that I thought the board could improve. I didn't think it would turn into such a big thing.

Meh...it happens

Ahah Billy, Gen. Woundwort sees what you did. Brilliant!

Ringo, this is nothing. You should have seen what happened when, in the Blueboard, Craig (GuitarFool) asked members for ideas about improving the board and I was foolish enough to suggest a restructuring where the "Battle of the Bands" would be in the Off-topic section, albeit immediately accessible all the same. Though I immediately posted a correction where the BotB was restored to "first-class" state, I was "scolded*" in such a way that I took a temporary leave from the board. I guess someone there will never forgive me.

So, by my experience you are walking on eggs whenever you suggest changes to a board. People tend to get quite passionate about such matters.

* Not by Craig, of course. :)

Look forward to that. ;D

Perhaps you can get Marianne to rap on it. About cat.

Just curious, is this not calling the President Elect by his name thing just to try to lighten things up, or will this be permanent?

I agreed with your comments and suggestions, they were what I have been thinking too.

Ha! For smb. who can't sing good - cue Mo Tucker in "After hours" - rap would be fitting, yes. :P

Consider investing the time to see the bigger picture before making some of your posts and comments about grudges and the like. Know the players before you enter the game.

Or ignore the players and skip the game, because it's not a game. Or a mystery, or a conspiracy, or a crime drama. It's a message board. For f***'s sake. It doesn't always have to relate to some stupid coup attempts or whatever you're always talking about.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you go on your "check the facts, the truth will come out, there were those trying behind the scenes to do what-the-f***-ever" nonsense. Or not nonsense, maybe there is some underground resistance force with unbelievably stupid motivations and too much time on their hands trying to overthrow the message board leadership and undermine its good name. If so, I don't care because that's really stupid. And so is talking about it all the time. And so is banning a general topic in a subforum of a message board because somebody feels the need to post about it elsewhere in controversial ways.

Just say what you mean. Just do what you're going to do with the board. But cut the melodramatic bullshit.

Funny that you're constantly telling people to ignore what they don't like, yet I've seen you on a plethora of occasions complain about the supposed repetitive nature of this board and the boredom of the actions of some posters. You admit you think 3/4ths of the members of this board are "idiots" yet you continue to post and complain here where, according to your own observances, it shouldn't be surprising that idiocy supposedly runs rampant. And still you don't take your own advice and ignore what bothers you.

Btw, Billy. I thought the reason why the Professor was banned was because he was talking down about the members of this board and their intelligence. Captain here calls 75% of the board "idiots" and nothing happens? Not that I think he should be banned - on the contrary the irony should be on full display for all to see, just curious about this discrepancy.

I've said what I mean repeatedly. Why not cut your own brand of bullshit and stop the "I don't care" line? If you didn't care, you wouldn't keep posting here about all your issues and complaints with this place and the people who post who you judge as idiots or whatever term you prefer. If your opinions of this place and the people here who you complain about are so negative, why bother?

What I'm going to do with the board? Nice try - get your facts straight and try a new tactic that hasn't already failed repeatedly in terms of trying to put the screws to me. The line forms over there if you want to take a number and wait your turn to convince everyone how I should be replaced or step down. You'll be in good company with people who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass.

I enjoy posting with some people, so I post here. Same as elsewhere, where I also enjoy a few, can't stand a few, and am ambivalent about most. I'm sorry you're so annoyed by me; I don't recall directing any particular animus your way, certainly not before this thread, when I found out I'm apparently not welcome in some circles. It got harder to like you when you once I was targeted. But otherwise I've got nothing against you, and so again, am really sorry you're so annoyed or offended by, or angry toward, me.

If my posting has warranted a ban, I'll accept that. It's fine.

Calling politicians and presidents various snarky nicknames is not a new thing, and nicknames are less inflammatory than most of the other negative stuff said about all of them.

DonaldTrump more than any other politician knows how to say awful stuff about other politicians and people in general, and is even a master at using smart-ass nicknames for presidential candidates:

http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-Voldermort-s-nicknames-crazy-bernie-lyin-ted-crooked-hillary-more-1.11788615

I would think DonaldTrump supporters more than anyone else would be used to snarky nicknames and name-calling considering the guy is a virtuoso with that particular craft.

So yeah, I would say you'd better get used to a lot of nicknames and ways to avoid saying DonaldTrump's name, however justified or unjustified such a practice is. Every other supporter of every other president throughout history has had to put up with it.

If you want to weigh the opinions accordingly of people who use such nicknames, that's certainly your choice. The guy said "Crooked Hillary" instead of just calling her Secretary or Senator about a trillion times and I weighed his opinion accordingly.

No idea what you're talking about, but I have no intention of "getting my facts straight" because (while you don't want me to say so) I don't care about that. I am not trying to do anything to you. I don't mind if you're an admin. Or Billy. I've never openly or secretly campaigned for or against any admin, as far as I can recall, and I'm not about to begin now.

My comment about doing what you're going to do with the board was specifically regarding the topic of this thread, where I think I've seen mixed messages from the two mods (Billy saying things would stay more or less as-is, where politics could be discussed in the Sandbox but not other forums, while you were agreeing it should be banned). That's it. I was asking for clarity on that topic.

As for why I post here, my previous post explained that.

edit: I really don't intend to be inflammatory on this or any other subject. I'd rather the board just hum along in relative peace. The drama is nothing I want to see, read, participate in, or inflame. So at this point, let me just bow out of the thread. I've made my point on the topic and hand and unfortunately, I guess, a handful of others. Whatever, if any, actions are taken with respect to the board's rules, format, or whatever, that's fine. I won't respond to any add'l replies to me in this thread, for reasons made clear in the previous few sentences.

I know about snarky nicknames.  Heck, we kinda look the term deplorables and ran with it.  

I just found it odd that his name was replaced all across the entire forum.  

Yeah, I don't know what the deal is with the Voldemort thing. I think the guy is far worse than Voldemort, but I've never particularly been a fan of having what I type altered without my knowing.

I think it was done as a comic way of showing how that little five letter name can be such an easy trigger. 

As for the fictional Voldemort, I can't say I'm familiar with his work. 

I'm annoyed that I write, what I consider, a logical opinion about political talk on this forum and I'm accused by you of having "precious sensitivities"
I'm annoyed that those of us annoyed by seeing Trumgp's name here have "sensitive little eyes and minds" according to you.
I'm annoyed that you think 3/4ths of this board are "idiots" and I guess somehow calling yourself a dick justifies the tactless nature of such comments.

I'd hope you could see why this thread sparked a bit of annoyance in me.

Oh, and I'm annoyed that Emily still hasn't answered my question:

Just to lighten things up. I may change it up periodically too. Not permanent.

It was.

That's what I thought. 

I know, and I've seen you post on other forum on how you thought the fighting was pointless.

Nobody in this thread is getting banned. The difference between this thread and the professor thing is that we are all clearing the air here, and there's a lot of pent-up frustration. Professor contributed nothing to the board except being condescending; even then, it was only going to be temporary until somehow he got unbanned without me or GF doing it. Has happened in a few other cases, and I am 95% sure of who is doing it. In this case Captain if GF seems paranoid, there's a very valid reason for it.

I meant no harm with it...I just thought taking someone for whom the very mention of his name can start arguments with "He Who Must Not Be Named" was funny

Oooooooooooohhhh.  Now, I see. 

Not being a Pot(ter) Head, I didn't pick up on that. 

I took the idea from a wrestling blog I go to, where "Chris Benoit" has been filtered to "Voldemort" since 2007. I didn't get the joke until I actually saw the Harry Potter movies a couple of years ago (yes, I'm late)

You're earlier than me. I don't plan to see them, period.

We took a trip on an old steam train in Scotland last year. Apparently it passed through an area where they filmed Harry Potter stuff. At one point there was an announcement: "Soon we will be passing an island that was Dumbledore's last resting place!" Fair play. Fabulous scenery though...

I'm with you there.  No interest at all. 

Wow, this thread has surely gone places, several of them.
However, nobody should be banned, nor even get a warning, for what happened here. Consistent trolling is one thing; sincere heated debate is altogether different, even when it degenerates into occasional name calling.
I think it's good for the board to have such a free-for-all now and then. :)

+1

I have no great love for the franchise, but imho the "Prisoner of Azkaban" movie is a masterpiece, thanks to the director, the great Alfonso Cuaron, and the supporting actors: Alan Rickman ( :'( ) as Severus Snape, Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, and David Thewlis as Remus Lupin are unforgettable. I'd even say "Azkaban" is my fav fantasy movie ever.

Of course, J. K. Rowling HAD to unceremoniously kill off all three of them in the subsequent stories... >:(

You really should try the novels. They were really, REALLY good.  Easily the equal of the Hobbit series or the Chronicles of Narnia.

I've never really been into any of that fantasy themed stuff....which is odd because I love the music of Ronnie James Dio

That is also because POA was the best novel in the series. In almost every case, the book is better than the movie. But that particular scene that you are referring to with Rickman, Oldman, and Thewlis justifies the entire movie franchise.

There is enough light heartedness in the Potter books to keep the stories from getting ponderous. But at the same time, each book gets progressively darker with Deathly Hallows being the darkest. So much so that when a character does crack wise, you laugh because it's just so cathartic.

Gotcha.  Just the whole wizard thing isn't really up my alley.  Most of my reading lately had been autobiographies.

Me too. I'm reading Graham Nash's book right now. Very interesting read.  ;D

:lol

I'm between books right now.  I still have Lita Ford's and Paul Stanley's to read, and I just got Sebastian Bach's for Christmas. 

I just bought Joe Perry's  book today, for only $4.00.

I just started Bruce Springsteen's book.  I've been putting it off for a while because it's a long one but now the audio edition is available too and hearing Bruce tell his own story is pretty cool.

I haven't decided if I'm going to read that one yet.  I'm a big fan of his 70s material, but not much after Born in the USA does much for me.  I thought The Rising was decent for what it was, but I didn't think it was the return to glory a lot of people made it out to be.