Mike's band

[guitarfool2002]

The issue is that going back some time now, Andrew has been hammering away at enforcing the rules, while at the same time acting under what adds up to a different set of rules for everyone than existed for him and his behavior. Anyone who gets banned three times is gone for good. What happened earlier this year was a clear violation of board rules, by Andrew, yet he's still posting here.

So - do we want the rules strictly enforced for everyone, or don't we? I won't sit back and remain silent as someone who has been ducking the rules goes around to multiple websites spreading bile against me while at the same time flaunting and skating by on the actual rules he's lecturing everyone about following and enforcing.

Just because you don't see this stuff happening doesn't mean it's not happening - or that it didn't happen.

[guitarfool2002]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

Should the rules be followed across the board, or just for people you don't want to see posting here?

[guitarfool2002]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Same rules for everyone IMO. Presumably you can be 100% certain that PMs being forwarded have not been changed in any way? as I think someone said earlier that mods do not have access to pm's.

Who said anything about PM's?

[Mike's Beard]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

Should the rules be followed across the board, or just for people you don't want to see posting here?

You are still ducking the issue.

[donald]

These posts are very wordy and not very interesting.     Because this stuff is personal and not about anything of interest to most people.  

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

Things guitarfool has complained about in this thread:
AGD saying things in private, where other people can't see them.
AGD saying things in public, where other people can see them.

Neither of these things seem, to me, to have anything to do with anyone else on the board. If AGD's been saying things in PMs that go against the board rules, that's between him, the people he's PMd, and the moderators. If he's been saying things that guitarfool objects to on another board, that's between him, guitarfool, and the people on the other board.

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Same rules for everyone IMO. Presumably you can be 100% certain that PMs being forwarded have not been changed in any way? as I think someone said earlier that mods do not have access to pm's.

I agree with both of these. Personal squabbles should stay personal and be settled thru PMs or outside the board.

I say fine tune the rules and actually enforce them equally. If at all possible, an ignore button. Maybe start everyone with a clean slate but hold them and everyone else to a higher--and uniform--standard going forth. Simple.

[AndrewHickey]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

To be fair, I think that's *now* a solved issue. I think most of those who are bothered by those posters have downloaded the ignore script. I suspect that once they notice that they're not provoking apoplexy in anyone any more, they'll either stop being annoying or (one can hope) start contributing more sensibly.

[guitarfool2002]

This isn't the issue as most here perceive it. Please address the issues.

There is now an ignore function. Install it, and use it.

[guitarfool2002]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

Should the rules be followed across the board, or just for people you don't want to see posting here?

You are still ducking the issue.

Install the ignore function and use it.

[Mike's Beard]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

Should the rules be followed across the board, or just for people you don't want to see posting here?

You are still ducking the issue.

Install the ignore function and use it.

I have and I am. It doesn't alter the fact that complaints towards OSD and SmileBrian were barely addressed.

[The Shift]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

Should the rules be followed across the board, or just for people you don't want to see posting here?

You are still ducking the issue.
[/quote
I'm sure the mods had a good reason for invoking that situation.

I see it differently:

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

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

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

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

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

[AndrewHickey]

The issue is that going back some time now, Andrew has been hammering away at enforcing the rules, while at the same time acting under what adds up to a different set of rules for everyone than existed for him and his behavior. Anyone who gets banned three times is gone for good. What happened earlier this year was a clear violation of board rules, by Andrew, yet he's still posting here.

So - do we want the rules strictly enforced for everyone, or don't we?

For me... frankly, no I don't. I don't think the job of moderators is to strictly enforce an unbending set of rules, but to use their own judgment about what makes for a healthy community. That will *usually* involve sticking to agreed rules, but would allow for some flexibility in both directions -- both banning (or warning or taking other appropriate action) people who haven't broken the letter of any rules, but who keep breaking the spirit of them, and giving leeway to people who break the rules but who contribute a lot.

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

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

Should the rules be followed across the board, or just for people you don't want to see posting here?

You are still ducking the issue.

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

I see it differently:

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

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

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

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

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

+100

[guitarfool2002]

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

I see it differently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Then that's on you as a mod, it wasn't deemed ban worthy then so why are you making a drama of it now? You are still ducking the issue as to why two posters are given free reign to threadcrap on every topic.

Should the rules be followed across the board, or just for people you don't want to see posting here?

You are still ducking the issue.

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

I see it differently:

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

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

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

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

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

+100

So someone who blatantly violates the board rules can stay based on what they contribute to the board, does this mean all violations or just a few?

You really want that?

[guitarfool2002]

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

1. Yes

2. No, it shouldn't be allowed - so yes, it should be a ban-able offense

3. No - and that should be the job of the moderators

4. Sure - but ultimately the moderators should be the judge of whether the individual poster that the group wants banned should actually be banned

5. Yes, it should be an open discussion, but more power should be given to certain members, and already has - those members with the power are the moderators

[Smilin Ed H]

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

[Peadar 'Big Dinner' O'Driscoll]

Should the rules of the board be strictly enforced across the board, or are some here comfortable with sets of rules being bent and shaped specific to apply to certain posters over others?

I ask because if the people calling for the rules to be enforced more definitively really want that, by rights and according to rules Andrew should have been banned some time ago, and as a third ban it would have been a lifetime ban. But he's still here.

Same rules for everyone IMO. Presumably you can be 100% certain that PMs being forwarded have not been changed in any way? as I think someone said earlier that mods do not have access to pm's.

Who said anything about PM's?

Loadsa peoples....AGD's agenda or some such? no?

[guitarfool2002]

To John Manning:

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

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

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

Was it worth it?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Instead of all the bellyaching, why don't all the mods get together, create a new set of rules or rehash/refresh the old ones with a clear system of warnings - a new baseline, if you like - and go from there. Start off by closing this, because it's going around in circles and the whining isn't befitting anyone with intelligence and, as I said, it's feeding the parasites

Just got a little ago, and I see it's the same back-and forth, and I still have one more page to read. So with that in mind, I'm in 100% agreement on this.

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Smilin Ed H]

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

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

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

The rules should be followed.

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

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

[The Shift]

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

I see it differently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is toe-curling stuff.

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