Mike's band

[Doo Dah]

Getting back to the origination of this thread (ahem...Mike Love's Whore Band), what would be the reaction here if the writer of said hit piece posted verbatim upon this board? No doubt, those of you who rally to Mike's side would decry such vitriol and dare say - declare, 'why are you here? do you even LIKE the Beach Boys? What a troll!'

The point that I'm making is that anti-Mike (or grudging mistrust) exists out there. Hoping and wishing that it would go away is fanciful and ultimately pointless. It's a historical part of the mosaic of Beach Boys nation. There's no need for widespread ban-hammers. We have met the enemy...and it is US!

[Andrew G. Doe]

The point that I'm making is that anti-Mike (or grudging mistrust) exists out there. Hoping and wishing that it would go away is fanciful and ultimately pointless. It's a historical part of the mosaic of Beach Boys nation.

The point we're making is, the problem we have isn't with the dislike, but rather with the tedious form of expression of that dislike a handful have chosen to adopt.

[KDS]

Getting back to the origination of this thread (ahem...Mike Love's Whore Band), what would be the reaction here if the writer of said hit piece posted verbatim upon this board? No doubt, those of you who rally to Mike's side would decry such vitriol and dare say - declare, 'why are you here? do you even LIKE the Beach Boys? What a troll!'

The point that I'm making is that anti-Mike (or grudging mistrust) exists out there. Hoping and wishing that it would go away is fanciful and ultimately pointless. It's a historical part of the mosaic of Beach Boys nation. There's no need for widespread ban-hammers. We have met the enemy...and it is US!

Mike Love has his faults, so I can see why people like much care for him. 

But, when people hijack threads, either about a new Mike Love song, or a recent Mike and Bruce Beach Boys concert, with stuff like "Myke is such a ******," that's when it gets ridiculous. 

[Doo Dah]

The tedious will become nuclear when the book comes out next summer. Think of it as piling on; I will admit here that it's probably impossible to have a sober, unblinking conversation about Mike without it descending into hostility. That's just the natural order of things. And by the way - it all starts with Mike, who's checkered behavior over the years has brought a lot of it upon himself.

I'm afraid you can't have a dispassionate discussion about anything related to Mike Love. No can do. Never happen. He's used up his sympathy currency as far as I'm concerned.

[KDS]

The tedious will become nuclear when the book comes out next summer. Think of it as piling on; I will admit here that it's probably impossible to have a sober, unblinking conversation about Mike without it descending into hostility. That's just the natural order of things. And by the way - it all starts with Mike, who's checkered behavior over the years has brought a lot of it upon himself.

I'm afraid you can't have a dispassionate discussion about anything related to Mike Love. No can do. Never happen. He's used up his sympathy currency as far as I'm concerned.

I won't disagree that the problems with Mike Love, by and large, start and end with Mike Love. 

But I don't think it's impossible to have a discussion about a concert by the current Beach Boys or a new Mike Love song without it devolving into a bucket of bile. 

[Wirestone]

I don't mind bile. I've contributed at times.

But at least make it interesting.

[KDS]

I don't mind bile. I've contributed at times.

But at least make it interesting.

You mean like the Mike Love caption thread?

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16356.0.html

Many of these are quite funny.  And they're in a thread where they belong. 

[Custom Machine]

Guitarfool, for me there are two main issues here:

1. Incessant idiotic posts from certain members that are easily defined as trolling. The Wikipedia definition that was previously posted explains it perfectly: In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

2. The health and legitimacy of the Smiley Smile message board. This has been and can be a wonderful forum for discussion, but there are many who have given up on this board, either completely or partially, as a result of the immature trollish behavior that is currently tolerated. This kind of nonsense in an elementary school setting is cause for reprimand followed by removal if the behavior continues. In a university setting anyone continually making immature comments that contribute nothing to the discussion would be summarily kicked out of class, given an F, and told never to return.

When you encounter an uprising of discontent concerning continuous trollish posts from certain members, it time for action.

[Custom Machine]

I don't mind bile. I've contributed at times.

But at least make it interesting.

You mean like the Mike Love caption thread?

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16356.0.html

Many of these are quite funny.  And they're in a thread where they belong. 

Humor is absolutely fine on this board, and the Mike Love caption thread contains some incredibly funny stuff.

My problem is with posters who continually pollute this board with childish crap. I see that the biggest offender has gone back and replaced all his previous comments in this thread with a grin ( ). That tells me he knows he's been out of line. IMO there is no place on this board for those who insist on never-ending trollish posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.

[The Shift]

Guitarfool, for me there are two main issues here:

1. Incessant idiotic posts from certain members that are easily defined as trolling. The Wikipedia definition that was previously posted explains it perfectly: In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

2. The health and legitimacy of the Smiley Smile message board. This has been and can be a wonderful forum for discussion, but there are many who have given up on this board, either completely or partially, as a result of the immature trollish behavior that is currently tolerated. This kind of nonsense in an elementary school setting is cause for reprimand followed by removal if the behavior continues. In a university setting anyone continually making immature comments that contribute nothing to the discussion would be summarily kicked out of class, given an F, and told never to return.

When you encounter an uprising of discontent concerning continuous trollish posts from certain members, it time for action.

Well put.

GF, with all due respect, I'm not sure that asking the board's populace what should be done is the right approach. While I don't like the idea of a lynch mob forming on the board, neither do I want to see the development of a form of "moderation by committee" (no matter how democratic it might feel).

There's already a consensus for action, if that's the form of validation you're seeking, and the lack of action to date is only fuelling the swelling mob mentality.

The final decision - and action - whether individually or together, has to be taken by (a) mod(s).

[Wirestone]

I don't know if we can reduce the problem to any particular poster or posters. The issue comes down to atmosphere and history. And part of me wonders if both are too compromised at this point to repair.

[Emily]

But, when people hijack threads, either about a new Mike Love song, or a recent Mike and Bruce Beach Boys concert, with stuff like "Myke is such a ******," that's when it gets ridiculous. 

I see this assertion - that "people" consistently and frequently hijack threads, disrupt conversations, etc. with irrelevant, repetitive, unconstructive anti-Mike Love bombs - frequently, and I don't think it's untrue in a general way.
The problem is that I don't think that happened in this thread. This thread is a big Mike Love bomb from the OP. If there's anywhere to express your anti-Mike Lovitude, I'd think this thread would be the appropriate place to do it. And the post that set this firestorm off was not insulting to any other member.

So I think OSD did something that's fine in the context of this thread, then faced personal attacks and it escalated.
I understand, again, the general frustration with people throwing in negative comments out of the blue, but you need a better instance than this one to call for banning on.
On this thread, there are lots of posts that may be considered bannable on both "sides", but I shouldn't think OSD's original post is one of them.

[Doo Dah]

Oh boo-hoo, buckle my shoe...some of you are really getting your panties in a twist over this stuff.

It's like a political thread. I'm not a tea party guy, and when I see a poster who espouses that merda, I scan past to the next. No one is so incensed to completely avoid the topic - they just scan to the next comment. If certain ahem, insiders (to use an AGD term) are so thin skinned to take offense, then they need to get over themselves.

Again, if we're talking studio equipment, then we'll have a wide ranging technical exchange of knowledge and no one will be offended. But if we discuss Mike and all things M&B, there's guaranteed to be some grousers in the bunch. As well there should be. Any reaction towards those grousers is group think, pure and simple.

[Emily]

Guitarfool, for me there are two main issues here:

1. Incessant idiotic posts from certain members that are easily defined as trolling. The Wikipedia definition that was previously posted explains it perfectly: In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

2. The health and legitimacy of the Smiley Smile message board. This has been and can be a wonderful forum for discussion, but there are many who have given up on this board, either completely or partially, as a result of the immature trollish behavior that is currently tolerated. This kind of nonsense in an elementary school setting is cause for reprimand followed by removal if the behavior continues. In a university setting anyone continually making immature comments that contribute nothing to the discussion would be summarily kicked out of class, given an F, and told never to return.

When you encounter an uprising of discontent concerning continuous trollish posts from certain members, it time for action.

To the last point,  sometimes an upswelling might just be the villagers with torches calling for the burning of a witch, so if I were a moderator I'd be cautious about following the mob.

[KDS]

Oh boo-hoo, buckle my shoe...some of you are really getting your panties in a twist over this stuff.

It's like a political thread. I'm not a tea party guy, and when I see a poster who espouses that merda, I scan past to the next. No one is so incensed to completely avoid the topic - they just scan to the next comment. If certain ahem, insiders (to use an AGD term) are so thin skinned to take offense, then they need to get over themselves.

Again, if we're talking studio equipment, then we'll have a wide ranging technical exchange of knowledge and no one will be offended. But if we discuss Mike and all things M&B, there's guaranteed to be some grousers in the bunch. As well there should be. Any reaction towards those grousers is group think, pure and simple.

DD,

I think you're missing the point.  It's one thing to have grousers as you put it, who are going to put in their opinions.  

But the issues being addressed are trolls who disrupt threads without adding anything whatsoever to the conversion.

[KDS]

But, when people hijack threads, either about a new Mike Love song, or a recent Mike and Bruce Beach Boys concert, with stuff like "Myke is such a ******," that's when it gets ridiculous. 

I see this assertion - that "people" consistently and frequently hijack threads, disrupt conversations, etc. with irrelevant, repetitive, unconstructive anti-Mike Love bombs - frequently, and I don't think it's untrue in a general way.
The problem is that I don't think that happened in this thread. This thread is a big Mike Love bomb from the OP. If there's anywhere to express your anti-Mike Lovitude, I'd think this thread would be the appropriate place to do it. And the post that set this firestorm off was not insulting to any other member.

So I think OSD did something that's fine in the context of this thread, then faced personal attacks and it escalated.
I understand, again, the general frustration with people throwing in negative comments out of the blue, but you need a better instance than this one to call for banning on.
On this thread, there are lots of posts that may be considered bannable on both "sides", but I shouldn't think OSD's original post is one of them.

You're right, Emily, but lately, the issue has occurred in just about every thread that has anything to do with Mike. 

[Doo Dah]

DD,

I think you're missing the point.  It's one thing to have grousers as you put it, who are going to put in their opinions.  

But the issues being addressed are trolls who disrupt threads without adding anything whatsoever to the conversion.

I must admit that OSD makes me laugh. He's like the drunk uncle at the Thanksgiving table. He may not fit the narrative, but ah...pass the green beans please...

[Emily]

Here are a few scenarios to consider, please add your opinions or overall thoughts on these and discuss.
?

I do think that a clearer, written policy on some of these matters would improve the moderators' job a bit.

1. Should a poster be given a ban, or is it a ban-able offense if a board member sends an unsolicited private message to another board member which contains profanity, something the recipient finds insulting bordering on a personal attack, or anything that would be considered offensive or inappropriate directed at that board member?

I should think that the moderators should use their judgement to apply the reasonable person standard  to the offense. If a reasonable person would find it an offensive, inappropriate attack, I think warnings should ensue and if repeated enough, a ban. Though I think bans should require a two-mod consensus.

2. Should members of the forum be allowed to engage in intimidation or outright bullying tactics in order to get people whose posts or words they don't like to either leave or get kicked off the forum? If this is done, should it be considered a ban-able offense?

No. Yes, after warnings. Again, I think applying the reasonable person standard and getting a two-mod consensus before banning would be good.

3. Should all criticisms posted against any band members or related individuals be considered a ban-able offense, and how should they be weighed and who determines what is offensive and what isn't?

No. I think criticizing band members should be allowed. I think spewing hate should not. Context should be considered. Showing up on a thread about tape splicing and announcing that band member "Y" was a big jerk when he said something against band member "X" is purely inflammatory. Showing up on a thread that originated with an article spewing anti-band member hate and agreeing with the article is not.
Again, reasonable person standard should be applied in separating "criticizing" from "spewing hate". I think using inflammatory words like "whore", "c**t, etc. is hateful. I think attacks on bandmembers' families, unless one is criticizing a particular (eta: "publicly known") action by those family members, would normally be out-of-bounds. I think persistent nasty comments about weight or baldness might cross the line. I think someone saying that they think a band member has behaved in a despicable way, or that a band member's performance is bad, or even that a band member's despicable behavior has been consistent enough that the poster considers the band member to actually be despicable (much as such a statement might upset other posters) should be allowed, given that it's reasonably pertinent to the thread.
Eta: by "family members" in this section, I don't mean Murry, Stan and Steve Love or other family members who have been involved with the band in a professional way. I think they should be open to criticism as much as any band member. By "family members" I meant to indicate individuals who have private relationships with band members but are not professionally involved, say Al Jardine's wife. To start dragging her through the mud would be really inappropriate as her relationship with the band (as far as I know) is purely through a private relationship with Al.

4. Should groups of board members have the ability to ask for another member to be removed from the forum if they don't like that person's posts, or the content and tone of those posts, or if someone thinks that person is trolling the board? If so, on whose standards would the definition of trolling be applied when making those decisions? Example, if multiple board members consider and name another member as a troll based on their posts, whose burden would it become to prove that case, and on whose standards would "trolling" be defined?

Yes, they should be able to ask, but I don't think it's incumbent upon the moderators to fulfill the asker's request.
For the mods, I think applying a reasonable person standard and getting a two-mod consensus for banning would be appropriate.

5. Does the board community wish this forum to remain an open discussion forum, or should more power be given to certain members to censor and remove individual posts? And on whose standards would that censorship be applied?

I prefer open.

[Emily]

But, when people hijack threads, either about a new Mike Love song, or a recent Mike and Bruce Beach Boys concert, with stuff like "Myke is such a ******," that's when it gets ridiculous. 

I see this assertion - that "people" consistently and frequently hijack threads, disrupt conversations, etc. with irrelevant, repetitive, unconstructive anti-Mike Love bombs - frequently, and I don't think it's untrue in a general way.
The problem is that I don't think that happened in this thread. This thread is a big Mike Love bomb from the OP. If there's anywhere to express your anti-Mike Lovitude, I'd think this thread would be the appropriate place to do it. And the post that set this firestorm off was not insulting to any other member.

So I think OSD did something that's fine in the context of this thread, then faced personal attacks and it escalated.
I understand, again, the general frustration with people throwing in negative comments out of the blue, but you need a better instance than this one to call for banning on.
On this thread, there are lots of posts that may be considered bannable on both "sides", but I shouldn't think OSD's original post is one of them.

You're right, Emily, but lately, the issue has occurred in just about every thread that has anything to do with Mike. 

I get that. I just think the point would be made better in one of those threads.

[Micha]

That's not a criticism, that's a simple fact.

Hm.. from a rhetoric/semantic point of view, that's badly worded. Essentially you're saying criticism is not factual. Other than that, thanks for looking up the definition of trolling, which IMHO fits to two posters.

3. Should all criticisms posted against any band members or related individuals be considered a ban-able offense, and how should they be weighed and who determines what is offensive and what isn't?

No. I think criticizing band members should be allowed. I think spewing hate should not. Context should be considered. Showing up on a thread about tape splicing and announcing that band member "Y" was a big jerk when he said something against band member "X" is purely inflammatory.

You nailed it there. That is exactly what happens, that is exactly what I find so offensive. I myself criticise quite a few actions of Mike's, but everybody's free to disagree with my criticism. I also criticise actions of Brian's, but not to elevate Mike.

[clack]

I have no objection to criticism of Mike, or any other of the Beach Boys. What is dispiriting is the repetitious and banal nature of some of the anti-Mike posts. Basically saying, "Mike is a d*ck" over and over, thread after thread, off-topic or not.

Here's a thought : why don't the Mike haters put whatever variant of "I hate Mike" they want in their sigs. That way, assuming they have anything on-topic to say in a particular thread, they can say their piece and still get in their anti-Mike knocks in the fine print.

[Emily]

I have no objection to criticism of Mike, or any other of the Beach Boys. What is dispiriting is the repetitious and banal nature of some of the anti-Mike posts. Basically saying, "Mike is a d*ck" over and over, thread after thread, off-topic or not.

Here's a thought : why don't the Mike haters put whatever variant of "I hate Mike" they want in their sigs. That way, assuming they have anything on-topic to say in a particular thread, they can say their piece and still get in their anti-Mike knocks in the fine print.

not a bad suggestion.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Here's a thought : why don't the Mike haters put whatever variant of "I hate Mike" they want in their sigs. That way, assuming they have anything on-topic to say in a particular thread, they can say their piece and still get in their anti-Mike knocks in the fine print.

I find your assumption that they have anything on-topic to contribute... amusing. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Just relax a bit, you are too damn obsessed with what other people post. You are not a moderator....

[Lee Marshall]

It is a reasonable compromise though isn't it?  That way threads don't get derailed and the board has a chance to save itself from the free-fall it's currently plummeting through.