It's actually a policy the mods have adopted to delete posts that people are infracted for. The reason being, we constantly get people ragging us saying that we're being unfair because the comment wasn't addressed. Obviously, the community doesn't get notification that we infracted someone, nor can they see the infractions. I think most folks agree that it's better that way, but it creates a catch-22 because then we're accused of hiding "evidence".

Believe me, it sucks when you get pestered non-stop because an offensive comment that has already been dealt with has been left displayed only for a mob of people accusing us of being unfair because they're ignorant about the steps we took to address it. Easy solution: Address the situation and remove the post.

But also, we remove the posts we think are offensive (and especially at the request of the person being offended), because... um... they're offensive. That's our job, and that, for damn sure, is stated in the rules and is not a recent addition, although it may have been paraphrased, but I'm sure most people with a normal level of intelligence will understand the concept if they took the time to read and understand them.

Not sure if you realize this, but the mods write the rules. They weren't handed down by the Moses of this website's creators. They're a result of activity that moderators have deemed important to address, and serve simply as something to both guide members, and point to when actions are taken to rectify situations that go against the standard set. Not sure if you caught the part that states "these rules are subject to change at any time", but we weren't entrusted as moderators simply to uphold a written rule... we were entrusted as moderators to do whatever we felt was necessary to make sure this place didn't go to shit. We've got a pretty good collection of intelligent adults that are capable of making decisions to this effect. When we justify our decisions, we do that amongst the moderators... but don't think we don't take the community reactions into consideration.

1. Systematically removed from the public eye:
Do you think spam shouldn't be systematically removed from the public eye? Insults? Trolling? I'm just wondering whether you understand the concept of what moderators do on an internet forum...

2. Your opinion versus an entire team of moderators, PLUS insulted members who have complained REPEATEDLY about those insults and occurrences. I'm sorry, I like you a lot man but I just gotta go with the obvious choice here.

3. The threat of perma-banning is a result of continued behavior that goes along with number 2 above, plus the rules and all. I haven't seen any moderator post that he'll get perma-banned if he pursues the issue of his banning. I could have missed it, but I was under the impression that the concept involved pursuing continuity of his behavior that got him banned. Maybe you could clear that up for me.

Good point here. That's why it may be even better if we close this thread, and simply tell users that if they have questions, they can PM moderators. But I, and none of the other mods, would just close the thread, because then we know we'd be accused of trying to suppress public inquiry and get tossed into the pit again.

This is an excellent post, thank you for the concise and fair response.

I am aware that this is how most cases are dealt with in this manner, and I understand that this policy is in place for good reason to protect members from personal attacks and remove clutter from the boards. In that sense, it's great. But in situations where posts that would normally be admissable as every day chatter are being infracted, I don't think it has the same bearing. In short, it's like communism, it looks good on paper; but when applied to real situations and administered by man, faults arise. It can be abused and applied to situations wrongfully, and we'd both be lying if we said it hadn't been done before, perhaps even recently.


So basically what you're saying, in short, is that the mods are essentially handing out vigilante justice and shooting from the hip on a case by case basis? That would partially explain the lack of continuity.

1. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Of course SPAM should be removed from the boards, but I personally felt that the post in question, and the posts that followed were a valid part of the discussion at the time, which would mean they aren't SPAM. I also DO understand what a moderator does on an internet forum. That doesn't mean that mistakes don't get made and that certain instances shouldn't get called into question. As I've said before, I feel the mods do a great job most of the time, but things happen and I ask questions. I personally didn't get the warm and fuzzy from the duga - oojay situation and really didn't care for duga's response to the matter. That's why I spoke up the way I did.

2. Taking the mob mentality to this doesn't seem like the right approach. I'm not trying to stand toe-to-toe with every moderator on the forum, and likewise I don't want you/them teaming up against me, I don't have a personal issue with any of you as a matter of fact. You are entitled to your opinion, if that happens to be that you support and agree with every decision that a mod has ever made, then so be it.

3. By continued behavior, do you mean posting on the boards? ****ing chickens? Robbing liqour stores? Walking old ladies across the street? What are we talking here? Are you saying that oojay has a record of insulting people leading up to this, and this is why he was infracted on a post having nothing or little to do with previous violations?

No one is tossing you in the pit. You maintain the upper hand of authority the entire time. I know I tend to ask a lot of questions and inquire a lot when things go down, so that statement may have been directed at me. That's fair.

But I don't think this thread should be closed, it's a great thread that could be used to solve a lot of problems and answer a lot of questions if people used it correctly. Mods as well as regular members.

What relevance did that have to the current discussion though? It sounds like you have a problem with what I like to talk about by your random mention of it. If you don't like my vagina talk, stay out of the Twat thread. Easy. :)

It was in reference to the degree of what people can and can't say or post without disiplinary action being taken. Perfectly relevant statement, even if poorly applied. It seems that duga is the one with the problem about who says what in this situation, since he was infracted for it. Furthermore, if you don't like us discussing the offensiveness of your posts, then stay out of this thread.

See, it's easy to solve problems when having things your way is always the answer. Try finding a solution that is fair for all parties involved, that is the real challenge.

Considering you're randomly discussing me of all people I will continue to be in this thread. Thanks but I'd rather not take orders from you.

I was also addressing oojay, I'm sure he's perfectly able to speak for himself. If you have any more problems with me, PM me or another mod.

Challenge not accepted then?

The first portion of that post was an instrument to show the selfishness of your original post, not to be confused as my actual feelings or as 'orders' to you in any way.

Also, if you're posting messages meant to be addressed or read by only one person in a public thread, maybe you're the one who should consider PM-ing.

Orders again?

Have fun discussing this child-like drama by yourself.

I thought the "maybe" in my statement had clearly inferred it as a suggestion rather than an order. But if I have to come right out and say it, I will.

It was a suggestion, not an order. Your highness.

I actually think it's a pretty good one too, considering the circumstances.

Damn straight. :laughing:

And just to ease the tension in this thread, here is a picture of the highness herself, Natalie Portman:

http://static-l3.blogcritics.org/11/...urHighness.jpg

Sorry Freebase, but I need to clarify that this is a policy some mods have adopted, not all of us. With the exception of spam, I generally avoid deleting posts.

I wasn't going to post any more on this, but for the sake of trying to clarify some pretty clear concerns, here you go.

Sooo...you really didn't see oojay's post as a personal attack? Passively wording an insult and then saying all you were doing was "reporting the facts" doesn't make it any less of an insult. I thought I explained it pretty well. I know I've been in a few arguments that may have come to insults, but I can guarantee you will never find a post of mine that blatantly brings up another member and insults them just for the sake of it. His post came out of nowhere and was totally unnecessary. Yep, I considered it infraction worthy, mainly as a means of keeping things from getting to direct insults. Obviously, that didn't work.

My reason for deleting the posts was to nip it in the bud. The insulter didn't need his infraction left for the world to see and the insulted didn't need to see the insult. The post I left was because oojay obviously wanted to bring it up. I'll tell you what...I will personally be adopting the no deletion policy for infractions from now on since that seems to be one of the big concerns. I can't say any of the other mods will do the same, but there you go.

Like Pedestrian said, having this thread moderated wouldn't be a good idea. Combing through posts and approving/disapproving them is not the right way to treat this thread, as it we would probably end up censoring things members are trying to say in here.

I don't know why Duga's getting flak for giving an infraction for what oojay said against Vanilla. It was really rude and unnecessary, and I saw it before it was deleted. Come on oojay, you can whinge about The Batlord and I post "sacrilegious" things but then you turn around use a personal attack against someone who isn't even the one being slandered in the first place? What?

I feel that duga did the right thing in this situation, and you all should shut the **** up

Even if you were talking about a mods temperament you still would have no idea of the full picture.
When I was modding I had a reputation for being ban happy at short notice and being short tempered.
The truth however was very different.
Every ban I ever made was discussed with other mods first. In the whole 3 or 4 years I was modding I could probably count on my fingers how many regular members I gave bans to.

The mods are part timers doing this for free and the love of being here. Nobody got trained how to do it, pretty much all of problems are dealt with as they arrive, sometimes rules made that were an issue a few years ago may not be now. Sometimes there isn't a precedent, sometimes with the turnover of mods there are the current team may not have been around when the same issue was dealt with previously.

If you want total consistency bugger off to a music forum run by some big multinational company who employ staff with real money to do this sort of thing.

For what it's worth had I still been a mod I would have given you one too.
The whole point of an infraction is to let someone know they crossed the line without actually banning them. Had Vanilla said something to you first that wouldn't be the case but your comments was totally unprovoked and it being deleted didn't really make any difference to the thread overall which shows there wasn't really any content in it anyway.

Duga totally did the right thing.

The relevance is that it was revealed that the last straw that got Dirty banned was impersonating you in a chatroom that isn't even on MB, and then mooning the webcam. I saw this as ironic, as you seemingly (just going by the content that you, yourself, post) have no qualms about embarassing yourself (in my opinion, take that for whatever it's worth to you) by talking openly about the size and smell of the orifice between your legs, and how many sexual partners you would like to have before you die (I would gladly provide links, lest they be deleted and manipulated my the mods to hurt my credibility, but you know what I'm referring to). My point being: if you are willing to make posts that tarnish your own image, how can you fault Dirty for (supposedly) doing the same? (Again, for any *sensitive* mods, this is a discussion about peception and opinion, not an attack).

One man's insult is another man's word-for-word quote. Why not infract Vanilla for posting ignorant crap, instead of me for pointing out that said crap exists?

How did it "come out of nowhere"? The entire last half of this thread is dedicated to the Dirty/Vanilla incident.

And for the sake of intelligent conversation, how about not deleting my posts and throwing your weight around with meaningless bullsh*t infractions? You got a personal problem? Don't be scared to air it out homie.

You posted a dildo crucifix and a picture of 2 Jesus' butt-f*cking each other. Regardless of religious connotation, that is offensive. You have a personal issue with me reporting your stupid posts, so you are using that as a basis to throw your nonsense into this thread as well. Vanilla slandered herself with her talk of vaginal frosting, as did you while posting those sacriligious and unfunny images. Let's all kill the messenger for pointing out your own stupidity.

Of course you would have been Vanilla's knight in shining armor, that's a given. You've been trying to get it in with every female member on this forum since the Bush administration.

I don't give a **** what you find is offensive, I find your misogyny and whinyness pretty goddamn offensive. You're really so butthurt over it? Good god, I'm sorry then to offend you but what is your excuse for personally attacking someone else? I could give a **** less if you "reported" my posts, really. It's that you are such a whiner that you can whine about things like that and then turn around and say such things yet expect no retribution but demand consequences for people who offend you, you should just shut the **** up, really. And here you keep going with the personal attacks instead of focusing on the matter at hand. Are you a child or a grown man?! Stop acting like you're sticking it to the man just because you're so bothered nobody ever made you a mod.

Well...considering I just spent the last few posts explaining why it wasn't a bull**** infraction and why the posts were deleted, I'm officially done explaining myself. I don't have a personal problem with you but I still have absolutely no issues giving you another infraction if you do something like that again.

Just can't help yourself can you.
and you wonder why you get infractions.

I don't need to get in with anybody. I've disagreed with Vanilla in the past and probably will do in the future. If anything I'm surprised some of her posts have not been reported already. I think she has a bitchy side she needs to control if she really wants to be taken seriously as a mod.
Is that attacking her, no that's just me being critical without trying to cause offence to her because I've basically been accused of sucking up to her.

But that's just my opinion among many and the last way I would go about doing anything is in the crass & idiotic way you blundered into the discussion.

Yes, becuase out of this whole thread, I'M the one who is acting butt hurt.

How is not wanting to hear about vaginas in every thread considered misogynistic in your book? And if all you take away from this thread is that I'm "jealous" that I'm not a mod, you clearly don't understand English.

And neither can you, obviously. I'm entitled to post and express my opinions just as much as you are Richard.

Waah wahh wahh. You are the one acting butthurt, really. I've taken it away from several threads that you're jealous nobody ever made you a mod.

Just because you wrongly infer something does not make it a fact with which you should use to build an argument upon.

Look how I did it and then look how you did it.

Then hopefully a little lightbulb will go on above your head & you'll understand why your 'opinions' are infraction worthy.

Probably good to follow your own advice

What is the difference? What you just said about Vanilla is more insulting than what I said to get an infraction. Will you get one? No. Did I? Yes. That's the difference.

Honestly, it's like teaching a man with no legs to do the Can-Can.

I give up.

Get off the cross Urban. You're sticking your nose in other peoples' conversations and then throwing up your hands in digust when no one cares about your point of view that they didn't ask for in the first place. Being an ex-mod doesn't make your opinion any more valid or needed than anyone else's.

Too many people on here use the pseudo-third person perspective of other like-mided individuals to try to justify their skewed frames of mind.

Oojay, I too do find you to generally be pretty aggressive. Even though I didn't see your offending post, I'm not surprised you got an infraction.

Please don't use religious metaphors I find them offensive.

I was referring to a completely different cross, one more closely resembling the one Paloma posted a picture of in a different thread.

This thread is dry... Needs music:



Please, can these arguments that are about literally nothing of any substance stop... please...

Your blaspheming is offensive.

Make me

:laughing: I've definitely noticed this before you're not alone. In fact, I think most of your observations of others are pretty accurate. So I'm not sure why you got infracted when Freebase also posted an incredibly judgemental (though probably accurate) account of dj and s_k not too long ago.

I think Urban's just mad because you're standing up to him for a change. For some reason people around MB are afraid to do so.

it amazes me. 6 years ago we banned people for next to no reason whatsoever. there were no infractions, PMed warnings from mods, no mod thread where the moderators painfully deliberated whether or not a member deserved a ban, or a rigid set of criteria to determine what constituted a ban worthy offense. we just did it, and guess what? none of the members complained. people just went about their business and talked about music... about MUSIC. is that not a revolutionary concept.

I will tell you that the mods on third forum painstakingly deliberate over whether or both to ban someone. it's almost comical, yet any time anyone gets banned there's a guaranteed to be a protest.

we're not power hungry totalitarians. this is a music forum. whoever goes megalomaniacal over being a moderator on a music forum needs to get a little more fresh air, and I guarantee you none of us are like that, except me, maybe.

moral of the story: this isn't kindergarten where our job is to guide and mold you into the fine outstanding citizens in hopes that one day you'll fill us with a sense of pride over what a well-mannered homo sapien you are. No, our job is to moderate a music forum, which includes banning people who have clearly shown that they don't know how to play nicely with others, which, by the way, is something everyone should have learned in kindergarten.

I have no sympathy for Dirty, and I would gladly ban him again, if he acts the same way when and if he comes back.

I've been here longer than most (including Urban), so I've seen the good and the bad of MB. You'll have to forgive me if I refuse to concede to others opinions based on how bold and blue their username is (or used to be).

That's a funny thing to throw around considering you have such an issue with people being judged based on post count. Also, weren't you absent from the site for several years? Surely that knocks quite a bit off the old "I've been here longer than most claims, no?

Working and going to college full time while getting married and having a child tends to take quite a dent out of one's schedule. And experience cannot be supplemented with post count.

So the best way to put across how awesome you are and stick it to the man, and really make others see how right you are, how logical and fair, how unbiased and superior, is to spend as much time and effort making posts in this thread as I have, while accusing me and others of investing more emotionally into this forum than is healthy? Then you make a big deal about how long you've been here and how you've seen it all?

And yes, I can check that. As of your reply to this post, you will have made 27 posts in this thread, while this post makes me roll in at 27 posts in this thread. And a good few of those were about dicks and ponies, the rest were about boo boo and dirty deserving their respective bannings.

On top of that, you've popped in basically to do two things - Claim the mods are unfair, and to direct abuse at vanilla. You're hardly coming across as an impartial and sensible observer. You're more coming across as a massive douche with an axe to grind regards the administration, since it seems all you're capable of posting in relation to the mods is abuse or unfounded accusations of totalitarianism.


At least my posts in this thread have been either benign but irrelevant, or related to the matters at hand. Yours, rather less innocent.

So your justification for belittling me is based upon how many posts I made in this thread, while simultaneously pointing out the you have made more irrelevant posts than I have? Well played.

Okay then, so you agree that the number of years experience you're trying to throw around aren't actually an accurate representation of the amount of time you've spent here. Good to know.

I'll just leave this little non sequitur to stand on it's own.