I don't think it was much of a spectacle at all, he made a topic saying he's leaving and that was it, which is something he absolutely should have done since he was an important moderator. He could have gone on a huge tirade about all the issues that led him to leave but instead opted to be brief and to the point and then he split.

No, instead he made a bunch of threads as a joke that related to other existing threads, then made his leaving one

Edit: just realized this isn't Urbans thread and that has somehow carried into here.

He started at least three passive aggressive joke threads as a clear middle finger to the site in general. That's pretty obvious attention-seeking behavior.

Well I guess that's a fair interpretation, I just thought they were hilarious

Though if a regular member posted them, they'd be a guaranteed lock.

Those were born outta frustration with a few things on this board.
It was more look at what our lounge has become. I reckon, that's an informed reckon too.

Ki is correct also.But he did it then dipped.

Plenty of people get frustrated with the site, and when they throw a tantrum everyone rolls their eyes.

And about your high horse on changing the tone of the Lounge or whatever. You do everything we do, as much, if not more, than we do. You get in just as many ****storms and post just as many inane comments, so complaining about the Lounge is complaining about yourself.

dude, that wasn't my opinion.

I was making an in formed guess as to why he spammed.

Guys, can we forget about Urban? Or at least discuss him in his own farewell thread or something.

Oriphiel, times have certainly been hard before. You mention the Boo Boo incident. The thing is, I had already made a similar suggestion to the one I've made in this thread by the time the Boo Boo episode happened. So what you're describing is not exactly a golden age. It was a time when the problems I've brought up already existed and now they've been allowed to mature for a bunch more years. It has not, on the whole, led to any kind of improvement. On the contrary. I see less of just about everything (contributing members, community participation, reviews, contests, compilations, etc) except inane bickering which seems to be going strong still.

I think had my suggestions been implemented back then, the Boo Boo incident might not have happened. Or it would have been much smaller in scale and just maybe he would've been around today. I was never really happy with the permban and the situation should not have been allowed to escalate the way it did. Possibly a better system could have prevented it. The same goes for other kinds of dramatic blowouts in the past.


I get why mods would be against it because what I suggest requires work and dedication to a new game plan. I have a harder time seeing why the average user would be against it. I don't think it would cramp your style as much as you fear it will. A little cramped, yes, but possibly you'd also reap the benefits.

I'll respond to you, but honestly I'd rather hear how you feel about the compromise I suggested (that if the users and mods agreed to your proposal, we could start it off by enacting the harsher enforcement only in The Lounge, moving it to the music forums only if necessary).

My point was that there have always been fights, and there always will be, as it's human nature. I was also pointing out that MB has gone through times much more hostile and strange than what it's going through now, and Boo Boo was just one example. Like I said, I just don't see the degradation that you're talking about. The threads from back then that were useful and good are still around, and we also have the good ones that occasionally pop up in the day to day, giving us the best of the past and present. I'd say we actually have more resources now then we did back then, and the only difference in terms of hostility is that the names of the handful of troublemakers have changed.

And I think that user participation is actually not that bad. We have plenty of people making songs in the "Bi-Weekly Song Off" (although I admit we could use more, and the thread is on a bit of a hiatus right now), people giving out awesome recs like candy (even a simple thread like Trollheart's "Love or Hate" racked up a huge amount of participation), a good variety of journals that are fun to read (whether you want to read about music, video games, comic books, life experiences, short stories, and more), a million survivor/war threads which actually don't get old as quickly as you'd think they would (mostly because the participants are awesome), and plenty more.

I don't think your proposal would have changed what happened. Boo Boo was a mod who couldn't take it when people disagreed with him, and the people that he banned weren't even saying anything that would have gone against your proposed regulations.

I can't speak for them, but i'm pretty sure the mods aren't against it because they don't want to work hard.

I posted this in the midst of the shitstorm and it got ignored. Thoughts?

I wouldn't call this thread a shitstorm at all. Maybe i'm bad at gauging tore's feeling, but I was under the impression that neither of us was angry or offended. Tore, if I've overstepped my bounds, feel free to let me know. I have a habit of not knowing when i'm being too pushy.

As to your suggestion DwnWthVwls, I suppose I agree. There's nothing wrong with asking the mods to be more proactive when it comes to personal attacks and derailment. I just don't think an overhaul is necessary.

Here's how you fix this so called "problem" this board has.

1. Members have to stop making completely asinine posts that will ultimately lead to serious drama.
2. Members must distinguish posts as being okay to respond to and posts where they should just shut the f*ck up.

I don't think you can control either of those. Mods have to do their jobs. They DO do their jobs, pretty well I might add. Things have been tense lately, but I really don't feel the need to introduce a whole new system because everybody has sticks up their asses lately.

Well, it's not optimal, but sure. I'd take whatever I could get.

Not a very good argument. There are more civil forums than this so it is obviously a possibility. Yes, disagreements will occur, perhaps even hostilities, but overall people can be better behaved. If a little force needs to be applied to achieve that, then a little force should be applied.

Compared to MB, various other boards achieve this and they generally do so by better and more consistent modding practices. We can too.

Also not a very good argument in my opinion. Why should we preserve errors of the past?

No, the people who fired him up did so rather sneakily with careful manipulation. He probably saw it, but couldn't resist taking the bait. Again, it wasn't one single event. Boo Boo was tempbanned before his final blowout got him permbanned. His modship was discussed in the mod cave, etc. But I think with my suggested system with infractions, Boo Boo would have been more consistently moderated (would've been tempbanned more often for shorter periods) and so would the people who were winding him up, at least when they made the odd slip up.

Of course I can't say for sure it would have prevented it, but I think it could have. The same goes for similar situations.

I feel like I got those (and more) covered already :p:

No worries. I don't really get emotional over discussions on forums.

I don't think so either. As I've mentioned before, my suggestion is now several years old. After I was modded, I saw there was no real consistent method to moderating rule breaking other than deleting spam. Then I saw this great system in place which we were not using, a system which seemed capable of fixing this problem (and others) if only we were prepared to work and actually use it.

You seem to be missing a lot of the thinking which has gone into this whole thing, and not just by me. I mean, the guys who designed the infractions system apparently had something similar in mind which is why they made it the way it is. Their idea was pretty good. All we need to do is use it.

So what your saying is, that there is this machine that can eradicate the aliens from our planet once and for all. The men of the past built it, but they left it in the underground bunker. Some of us have to go down there, dust it off, see if it still runs, and then come back to the service to get rid of our alien problem.

I'll sign up guys. I've been working out lately and have nothing to live for anymore.

They were sneaky, and never outright attacked Boo Boo personally. Under your proposed regulations, the situation would have been the same, since they never outright broke the rules, and so couldn't have been infracted. This is a prime example of what happens when modding is rigid rather than fluid. The other mods tried to go purely by the books, punishing Boo Boo when he acted out and leaving the tormentors who technically didn't break any rules alone. Later in your post, you mentioned that we shouldn't preserve the errors of the past; you could learn from this situation. The story of Boo Boo is a prime example of the flaws of rigid modding. And if your proposition is enacted, in response to things becoming rigid, the trolls will just become sneakier, which time has shown ultimately makes them capable of creating worse problems than ever. The foolish loud mouth trolls that we have now can disrupt one or two threads, but sneaky trolls can get a huge portion of the forum banned without breaking a single rule.

Why isn't it optimal? It's a good compromise, is implemented in the part of the forum that needs it most, and it allows everyone to get a feel for the new circumstances before they really commit to them. Everybody wins. Of course, I'd rather have your proposition rejected outright, but if everyone else wants it, then I think this is the best way to go about doing it.

No offense, but maybe you should go hang out in those more civil forums. Around here, we have more freedoms at the cost of things being a bit more hectic. In other places, they sacrifice some of their freedoms in order to have more security. Neither forum is better than the other. They're both different, and appeal to different people. MB has always been this way, and i'm sorry that i'm not able to convince you that the people here are (mostly) compassionate, and participating throughout the forum.

Because no matter how strict this forum gets, we'll still have people hurting each other and abusing their power; the only difference is that under your vision, they'll become sneakier and more adept at it in order to survive (since you insisted on bringing survival of the fittest into this :laughing:). We'll be left with lazy mods, since they'll rely on automated infractions and filters to take care of things, who will either not know how to deal with complex situations (such as someone being harassed by another member who is always careful to never quite break the rules), or won't care to, since their social connection to the community will be weaker.

I think the idea of using this infraction system has been pretty much turned down. I don't think one person has been for it 100%

*cue JWB*

Alright, i'm out of this one, and I mean it this time (:thumb:). I really have said everything I have to say about this issue, and at this point i'm just making walls of text. Tore, feel free to respond to my points above, since it wouldn't be fair for me to just leave before you can get a chance to respond. And if you want to continue talking about things, I actually had a bit of fun with this debate, so I'd love to chat with you in PMs if you have more to say afterwards.

Where is JWB? I expected him to be all over this. :laughing:

Some have turned it down, sure, and rather predictably so, but they were generally not the people in charge. I am more interested in the opinions of admin or Yac and the mod team.

I'd also love to hear what the mods and Yac think. They've been pretty quiet so far.

Janz didn't like it, or, found it necessary. I feel Goofle will also feel the same way. Could be wrong, but that'll be at least two.

Jans have commented mostly on minor details which can be adjusted. I'm still hoping he will see the bigger picture of how implementation of my (slightly altered if needed) suggestion can improve behaviour in general.

I still doubt any sort of system is going to improve the behavior of people. The people causing problems, or at least participating in problematic discussions, which includes myself, won't curb the way they discuss things on here just because they have some infractions, they'll just leave.

Pretty soon it'll just be Trollheart and Neapolitan talking about Robert Frick for weeks.

If infractions become a thing, count me out of being here. The laid back atmosphere is why I like it here.

People who often break the rules would either adjust their behaviour, get banned a lot as a natural consequence of the system and/or leave.

Some might leave, but new members might join and old members who like the change might come back.

As for implementation itself, I would be willing to help out.

I still don't think it's necessary.

Name calling on the board is against the rules. The mods should see such a post and either A) Remove it, or B) Address the issue with the person who made the insult. I've also been in favor of closing a thread for a day or two to let things settle. That usually does the trick.

I just think this opens up a whole bunch of new problems. Let's say something very controversial happens, something that is bound to have players on both sides. If that thread is made, an argument is BOUND to happen. I think this system would potentially prevent people from making a thread in the first place, causing this board to become a boring, stale hangout spot.

We don't have people on here attacking people for no reason. It's ALWAYS in the midst of a discussion that involves a hot button topic like police, race, religion, ect. The mods just need to watch these threads closer. There will always be flair ups in random threads like the Your Day thread yesterday. They just don't happen as often.

I don't think we need a system. I think we're doing just fine. The mods are doing their jobs for the most part and I think the board as a whole is just a bit edgy recently.

edit

Aww yeah!

http://meetinthelobby.com/wp-content...igh-School.jpg

Just implement the rules and dont ask for suggestions. Thats the whole point in being in a leadership role anyway. Most here dont want rules because they dont see their behavior as a problem because most here are apart of the problem. There needs to be more rules for this site because the way people disrespect, abuse their mod position and bully others here is horrendous. I have been on multiple forums and its a utter mad house here.

I'm not suggesting people don't discuss certain topics. I am for a rule enforcing policy which moderately punishes those who can't do so in a civilized way. I personally don't refrain from discussing topics because discussing them is somehow useless if I can't break the rules and so I think this problem is made up. The solution is simple: just discuss without breaking the rules too much.

If you want to protect rule breaking behaviour on the forums because you think it is fun and the boards become stale without it, that's an opinion you can have, sure. I just don't agree with it.

that's actually the opposite of good leadership

But who is to say that a mod wants to read "pissy PM." I think that would wear on ones nerves.

Reminds me of a quote I came across lately.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/...erra-16840.jpg

My personal mod answer:

We rely on our judgment calls to decide whether something within the community is detrimental or incidental. Sure, it may be reactive and it may not be consistent from an outside perspective, but the calls are made and are variable and that is a good thing. To support and nurture a variable community that does not operate like robots adhering to a strict code, where many individual personalities may mesh or clash, it requires more of an attention to the tone of the community as a whole than the strict adherence to a strict expectation irrelevant of context.

It would be very easy to expect total adherence to such a thing, but it would not be very realistic. Not given the disparity of mods to members, and not given the variety and nature of relationships native to the environment.
Some might say the environment is not policed well enough, and that could be true, but how many are you willing to alienate by force in order for everyone to conform to an unrealistic ideal, given the nature of people?

I think good moderation is less about the ease of black and white, and more about the requirement for judgement calls in the context of the community as a whole, which black and white calls often tend to disregard for the sake of a fantasy of the Utopian internet community. I think it's harder to use judgement, but it's ultimately more beneficial when considering the people that make your site a success in the first place.

I'm not saying that it's required to sacrifice your own set standards as leadership. I'm saying that it's required to, as a mod, have to THINK about how you're enforcing those standards in the context of a living, breathing community.

It's easy to say "don't do X", but it's a lot harder to describe "X". And when you take the route of not thinking about what "X" really is, apart from a written law, then your membership won't be able to either, and you'll start losing their confidence to contribute in any way at all.

TL;DR: Proper judgement shouldn't be a defined system. It should be an application of wisdom.

I'm not calling for moderators to act like robots. I think that's an exaggeration and one of several strawmen being thrown around. Are cops in the real world robots just because they don't sit back and do nothing? No. Like I'm suggesting, they do have precedent for how to deal with a situation, but they still use judgment. I'm not saying erase judgment altogether, but don't use judgment to do nothing.

As I wrote earlier, musicbanter is like a playground of really noisy kids and the moderators are the parents. If the noisy kids are a bother to you, you get irritated with parents who do nothing. Don't they know the kids will only get worse and louder? When a kid does something outrageously awful, there might be repercussions and then the kid throws a complete tantrum due to the indignation that a parent should try to control them. Usually, everyone else has to watch this and suffer it.

I mentioned musicbanter is like a natural environment. Like snow might select for white rabbits, musicbanter selects for - using the same analogy - loud kids and people who can stand them. Others leave or don't even bother coming and this has been going on for years. If you don't see this problem, you are likely either a loud kid or one who can stomach them. You've been naturally selected for the current environment.

Consistent rule enforcement is the only way of tackling this problem. The rules have to be bigger and more important than any one mod or any one member. You can't use judgment calls to ignore them altogether.

edit :

Defined systems are the norm for a reason. It has, among others, the following benefits :

• Less confusion about the job which makes it easier to know what to do
• The rules are to blame rather than the enforcer
• Lets rules be rules instead of rough guidelines
• Is predictable to other members so they'll generally know when they're crossing the line
• Is better at creating a rule-adhering environment

Many are treating rule breaking as if they're generally victimless crimes. They are not. Judgment calls used to do nothing means the interests of the offended are not protected, only the interests of the offender.

You're assuming that the non-loud kids' environment is preferable. Personally, I'd rather hang out with the loud kids, cause they're more fun.

Yes, I do think it is preferable. There are many activities you can't really enjoy when there are loud kids around, like you're trying to build a cool sand castle and a loud kid comes and stomps on it. Parents probably allow some stomping.

But it's not just about my preference. We have rules here, but no predictable consequences when they are broken. In practice, they stop being rules - they lose all integrity.

I'd say either get a system of enforcing rules like I proposed and follow an ideal that they consistently matter - or change the rules so that they reflect how you actually want things to be. Right now, MB is pretty two faced. When was the last time someone got punished for a short nonsense post? Yet, this is not allowed by the rules. If it is to be allowed, then at least change the rule. If rules are guidelines, state that they are guidelines.

(And make a new rules thread so my name isn't on it)