Thread for arguments with or about moderation

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

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

Am I on the naughty list? 

[Douchepool]

Do you want to be?

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

Do you want to be?

Maybe.... 

[Douchepool]

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

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

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

Hmmm....nevermind then.

[Douchepool]

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

[The Shift]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Shift]

And while I'm on…

We never did get an answer to these requests:

Quote From: John Manning

Quote from: Custom Machine on April 30, 2016, 06:03:25 AM

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on April 29, 2016, 03:21:20 AM

... every word of every mod discussion is archived and available. ...

Glad to hear that the mod discussions of bans are archived and available, as I'm still quite confused about the specifics of what led to AGD's ban.

Where do I find the archived mod discussion info?

I'd normally question the wisdom of this archive having been made available but in the light of recent events am intrigued by its contents; it could lay a lot of ghosts (lowercase) to rest and further diffuse this unfortunate situation, a direction towards which this cathartic thread is, it seems to me, a good start along the road.

… or is it archived but not really available?

[Emily]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gertie J.]

And while I'm on…

We never did get an answer to these requests:

Quote From: John Manning

Quote from: Custom Machine on April 30, 2016, 06:03:25 AM

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on April 29, 2016, 03:21:20 AM

... every word of every mod discussion is archived and available. ...

Glad to hear that the mod discussions of bans are archived and available, as I'm still quite confused about the specifics of what led to AGD's ban.

Where do I find the archived mod discussion info?

I'd normally question the wisdom of this archive having been made available but in the light of recent events am intrigued by its contents; it could lay a lot of ghosts (lowercase) to rest and further diffuse this unfortunate situation, a direction towards which this cathartic thread is, it seems to me, a good start along the road.

… or is it archived but not really available?

heres yer answer:

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

[The Shift]

And while I'm on…

We never did get an answer to these requests:

Quote From: John Manning

Quote from: Custom Machine on April 30, 2016, 06:03:25 AM

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on April 29, 2016, 03:21:20 AM

... every word of every mod discussion is archived and available. ...

Glad to hear that the mod discussions of bans are archived and available, as I'm still quite confused about the specifics of what led to AGD's ban.

Where do I find the archived mod discussion info?

I'd normally question the wisdom of this archive having been made available but in the light of recent events am intrigued by its contents; it could lay a lot of ghosts (lowercase) to rest and further diffuse this unfortunate situation, a direction towards which this cathartic thread is, it seems to me, a good start along the road.

… or is it archived but not really available?

heres yer answer:

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

It's in the mod forum which is only visible to mods, but it is archived. If it had come to it, we'd could have posted the screenshots of the discussions,  but it's past that point now

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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

[Alan Smith]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

[guitarfool2002]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emily]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

[rab2591]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rab2591]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emily]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rab2591]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which "fake" review are you referring to?

[Emily]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which "fake" review are you referring to?

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

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

[drbeachboy]

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

Apologies if I missed it in the melee.

- A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emily]

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

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