Music Banter - Moderators who can't recognize spam

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Announcements, Suggestions, & Feedback (https://www.musicbanter.com/announcements-suggestions-feedback/)

- - Moderators who can't recognize spam (https://www.musicbanter.com/announcements-suggestions-feedback/65271-moderators-who-cant-recognize-spam.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1237771)

I too feel that it's a moderators job to abide by the rules he or she enforces and to keep an eye on other moderators that they do the same. To me it's obvious that the more you break the rules, the less fit you are to moderate.

So it goes without saying that I think moderators should be more careful than the rest of us when it comes to dishing out insults. When I first read this thread, I have to say I thought Janszoon did a fantastic job as a moderator, being diplomatic and approachable, treating the concern seriously, taking time to write proper replies etc. I and others notice this and it reflects positively on the whole mod team. Vanilla's contribution to the thread, however, is little else than making the mods seem a little worse (opposite of Jans' approach, being dismissive, undiplomatic, offensive).

I really like you Vanilla and I'm sorry to offend you, but it's how I feel. I'm not saying you shouldn't be a moderator, only that you should not forget to also moderate yourself.

edit :

I'm not just thinking of the "he can **** off" comment in this thread. Erica addressed a concern which you initially responded to like this :

Which is dismissive, unapproachable and very disrespectful when someone turns to you with what they think is a legitimate concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinn (Post 1237778)

I'm going to speak as an experienced moderator of a big forum site, it was paramount to be an example of our rules to all members. However, I may see the difference being a Namco business/help/product advertising site to a general site for music, so strictness was unwavering.

Honestly I can understand the frustration of members constantly questioning and arguing over decisions and actions, it can be hell. However we always were approachable enough to respond reasonably without any aggression and in a calm collective manner.

Moderators here at least don't have double standards. They may not be strict, but I don't see them treating others' responses differently than the way they treat theirs. So far, I see this forum being run efficiently with very little loss of control. That's the most important thing.

Look at what Trollheart said. At the end of the day I said one comment while drunk about an unreasonable and banned spammer. I said tl;dr to Vege because she was coming off poorly by throwing accusations not just about me being unfit to moderate but that moderators aren't doing enough to check if spam is real. She has no idea what it involves dealing with excessive spam eveyday while we also have to work, go to school and make time for our families.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1237808)

(Climbing on white charger... where's me lance? Oh, there he is! Come on, Lance!) :)

While most of you are quietly berating Vanilla for her response --- and I agree, it was not appropriate, particularly in a somewhat flammable atmosphere as was the case here --- I would like to point out that in my view it was a RARE lapse in judgement, which Vanilla will probably agree is the case, and she should not be taken too much to task over it. We all know how good a mod she is, and one little slip should not call into question her fitness for the job she has already proven without arguement that she can carry off in a fair yet strict manner, always being mindful of the feelings of others.

Plus, she said she was drunk. Who hasn't done something they don't regret while under the influence? (How did I get this traffic cone? I wasn't even OUT last night??) :confused:

So basically, it's one mistake and I think should be accepted as such. It's not like she's forever going around doing things like this and regularly abusing members, new or old. Personally, I'd trust her as I would any of the mods here, comment notwithstanding.

I appreciate that you did actually think it all through without jumping to conclusions. Thank you for your faith that 99% of the time I moderate appropriately. If I had said that comment to a contributing member I'd understand the fuss but a spammer who's told a moderator he is incapable of recognizing spam (a moderator who has been one since 2007), the frustration can occasionally come out. It's about giving and taking when it comes to respect. I didn't respect his allegations because he accused someone I really care about.

Hopefully we can all move on from this now that I've explained how I feel. Feel free to PM if you have anymore to discuss with me. :)

My comment wasn't directed at you personally Vanilla. I don't have a problem with the way you work. Just a general comment about the discussion of moderating at hand.

No mod is ever going to be perfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinn (Post 1237918)

:)

I'd like to see anyone try being a perfect mod.

I agree completely that moderators should moderate themselves and each other and generally, should follow the rules themselves.

I would however differentiate between a comment a moderator makes to a "real" member of this forum and a comment a moderator makes to a spammer. For example I can be fairly confident that any member here would see me as being fair and approachable. If they can't, I would encourage them to contact me as I really feel that they dont understand me. if said member is a butthurt spammetr, however, then I couldn't give two fucks and I'm sorry if anyone thinks this is unacceptable.

The way I see it is that moderators are here to protect the community. I dont mean individual members, I mean the community aspect of this forum as a whole. I will make whatever decision I feel is right for that community. It isnt always about playing things by the book, as important as the rules here are to enforce. Theres always a way around the rules. If I make a decision to ban someone, or any decision I make, in what I see as the best interests of the community as a whole, then I will defend that decision to anyone.

To sum up, I wont lose any sleep about what someone says to a spammer and someone whop can only hurt this forum because, well, why should I care?

In the decade+ that I've bounced around music forums I've never once seen a member who pulled the kind of stunt the OP did at the start of this thread become any sort of worthwhile member of any site. Spammer or not, wanker is a wanker.

right-track has reported a post.

Reason:

Quote:

SPAM

Post: Moderators who can't recognize spam
Forum: Announcements, Suggestions, & Feedback
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: midnight_spree
Original Content:

Quote:

Hello,

Apparently there is at least one moderator of this forum who has no idea what spam is. Therefore, being the helpful person I am, allow me to explain.

from Wikipedia: Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, especially advertising, indiscriminately.

from Google: Irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients

Spam is therefore NOT purposely searching out a community of music lovers that you believe may be able to answer your question, then asking that question in the appropriate sub-category of that forum that deals with the relevant style of music.

I suppose it's possible that the question violated some rule of the forum, but seeing as that I read all the stickies at the top as well as the " MusicBanter Forum Rules UPDATED 08/14/12" post before posting, that rule would have to be pretty obscure and therefore not worthy of a lifetime ban!

but identifying that post as "spam" (which was the reason given for the ban) is pure unquestionable incompetence on the part of the moderators here.

In closing, I would like to point out that the majority of people who come to a forum for the first time are looking for something, usually information of some sort. If you go around banning everyone who starts out their first post by asking a question or asking for help from the community, you will be turning away countless people who could end up contributing to your community

P.S. I'm sure this post will be deleted by a moderator, but hopefully it's the same moderator that deleted the post before, and he reads it first and learned something.

__________________________________________________ __

And this ladies & gentlemen is why RT was the best mod this place ever had.

Ive never reported a post on 15 years on forums lagger

If right track says it, then it must be spam. It's like the law.

so this site is about music...yeah?

Think of it as a site where people mess around & occasionally a music discussion breaks out.

hope one breaks out soon i can get this crap at home lol

That's because you made the mistake of going in the shoutbox.

I'm quite confident there are music threads around, but it will require you clicking out of these discussion threads and into the sub genre forum that interests you.

what should I have done?

It's there for a reason, to keep all the shit that goes on in there away from the music forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BongoJazz (Post 1238117)

what should I have done?

We have an adoption thread, someone can adopt you and show you the ways of the forum. It wouldn't hurt anyway.

lol I turn up register and within 6 seconds someone says yr music is crap before they even know what sex I am

fab

I support a motion to require PMs by moderators for issues that aren't obvious violations, when members clearly aren't spammers. If the team feels overwhelmed, appoint some new moderators. There is too much hostility getting through, I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom (Post 1238162)

Only spammers are banned outright, anyone else gets an infraction which states what they did wrong anyway. so there's no need to PM them.

I support a motion to allow only mods to decide how this should be dealt with. It is, after all, they who have to do the work. If you want them to pm every possible spammer who comes along, why not consider: would YOU do that? Would you waste your precious time on a subset of people of whom probably 90 percent or more are useless wankers just trying to promote or spam something?

I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't think anyone here, who isn't a mod, has any right to be telling them how they should be doing their jobs. Just leave them alone, they know what they're doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1238214)

It should be a given. It's like saying a policeman should get approval from the citizens before arresting them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1238214)

I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't think anyone here, who isn't a mod, has any right to be telling them how they should be doing their jobs. Just leave them alone, they know what they're doing.

Well, that's not entirely fair to say. I would say that we are, within reason, accountable to you guys for our actions, and in the past, responses to our decisions have changed and improved our strategies for dealing with situations.

In this particular instance, a minority of people have disagreed with our handling of the situation, and the remainder either approve or don't care. We've got to weigh that against our success rate on the matter so far, and the pros and cons of following through on the requested changes.

Realistically speaking, I do not believe there is more to be gained by giving solicitors the benefit of the doubt compared to the amount of inconvenience it would cause not only our staff, but our members as well.

I can see why the OP might have been offended if they were genuine but they need to bare in mind the number of people who come on here to do exactly the same thing just to post their links in the form of some inane query. The line needs to be drawn. However if there were a thread dedicated to noobs posting their links it could have it's place. Of course it would be ripe for abuse so might be more effort than it's worth to the mods to maintain any sort of order.

Moderators aren't cops. They probably need to perform some similar duties. but anyone who sees himself (or herself) as a typical cop should become an actual police officer, security guard, or something else and leave the moderator job to another.

I see moderators in theory as mostly facilitators. Main duty - promoting an environment most of the target audience likes and uses as desired. The reality is that unless moderators are careful, that usually does not occur and often a much higher percentage than moderators and some regulars realize is quietly dissatisfied. This I know from experience - I've been a member of many forums and even helped run a few communities. Moderators - some, at least - need to present themselves as friendly and helpful in order to get members to share their concerns and also to behave well. Being quick to talk privately with members can be a valuable tactic. The only type of cop a moderator should try to emulate is Officer Friendly.

Honestly, I think we're more like janitors.

This one, specifically.

http://i.imgur.com/94rKr.png

Yeah, that's about right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom (Post 1238285)

It was a metaphoric example of how mods facilitate a decision to what they deem malicious and unnecessary. Ultimately it's up to them. It doesn't mean they can't be appealed to or better their responses.

Yeah, but just get them angry and you'll know all about it! :D
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...ADWtAGuE1VxE9T

"Go on creep! Spam me! Make my day! You feelin' lucky punk? Well ARE ya?!"

Dude I'd get arrested by Dirty Harry anyday.

Now I think bartender is a good analogy. Collectively operate as a friendly bartender, and few customers will cause trouble.

As for spammy new members, why haven't links in posts and sigs been disabled until x posts have been made?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom (Post 1238435)

We already have a system that dictates post number needed for posting links. As far as sigs, we don't have a way to do that.

New members who have a desire to post links fail to realize that there is a reason they are denied the privilege, and tend to post rapidly in order to meet the requirement, with no consideration for the quality of posting desired from it.

Okay. I started to suspect that before the replies.

What about a waiting period of x days after a first post before links can be posted?

Also, could sigs be disabled for all or require moderator pre-approval?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom (Post 1238485)

Honestly, it would just be easier for us to remove spammy links from signatures rather than having every legitimate contributing member constantly ask us to change their signatures. The avatar request thing is already enough, I don't need more work to do when I log in here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom (Post 1238485)

These are all reasonable suggestions, however, we are not administrators, and we do not have access to any of these forum tools, nor are we allowed to have them. We've made requests for similar features in the past which have all been denied or ignored by the owners.

I dont blame admin they have a job to do Its ok Ill cop it sweet and I understand the spam chit but hey my bands do not need to spam

As an experience mod/admin of another forum, much bigger than this one (almost 1.5 million registered members) I feel I have the right to comment.
I love the mods here. They might be hateful *******s at times, but if you saw the discussions in the private mods forum, you'd know they're applying the same standard to everybody, speak their minds even if it's unpopular. They might be offensive at times, but hey, this is the internet, grow a pair and get a thicker skin if you can't handle some mockery.
The amount of drama here is minimal, when I compare it to my other site - mods there are usually 50 or older, many are very conservative, many religious etc... silly issues drag on for weeks. Here it's simpler. Pure.
Yac.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yac (Post 1238601)

Good god your avatar is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggggeeeeeeeee

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre (Post 1238608)

Good god your avatar is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggggeeeeeeeee

He basically runs the place so I guess the avatar size is a liberty he can take advantage of here. The max size for avatars is 500 x 500 believe it or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yac (Post 1238601)

Amen.

At the end of the day we all feel confident that we're doing things in the right way and for the better of the forum in general. The fact that members can't see the discussions that go on in the staff forum means that will always be brought into question and I guess thats understandable. Also, where we have questions certain procedures and rules ourselves, we have actively put something in place to evaluate potential change and/or changed certain rules and guidelines outright as a result.

You can never please everyone, just set out to please the most people as possible and/or make the correct decisions for the forum and community as a whole.