Agreed. Totally underrated poster, would love to be as knowledgeable about music as he is.

Poor Howard. I normally think his eccentricity is blood boiling. The poor guy goes ahead and makes a plainly evident tongue-in-cheek post and gets rained-on by Public Service Announcements from upper crust.

Howard, I know your pain my friend.

Also, Lisn, as I've shared with you in PM's, your one of the few decent people around here. Never change.

nobody understands a joke anymore

I read your post and understood that it was a joke. But fake-ripping on people, whether for the sake of trolling or just as a display of sarcasm, it just isn't that good a joke.

What I think of MB members -

Tore - I've never really appreciated how cool Tore actually is until fairly recently after talking to him in the IRC a little more. He's a really sound fellow and I like that he sticks around despite his obvious displeasure with how things are/were for the mod team.

Howard The Duck - Unfunny, and oblivious to that fact.

.

I have recently been getting to know Burning Down, Fred and Bob quite a bit through the shoutbox, along with a few others. Cool dudes of course.

Mankycaant is also growing on me as a poster (always liked him personally). Seems to be adding more detail to his posts, and he sends me DL links :)

It's fairly obvious that Howard was making a joke, in an attempt to divert tension away from the Ki and Urban situation, which was rather silly anyway. I think members need to chill out, after all this is just a site to chat about music and other trivial things. I understand that certain standards need to be kept, but it is a site for banter after all.

Except that I'm a girl :)

I thought dude was non gender specific? It's 2012 for Duce sake.

You'll always be Simpsons Guy to me.

I, for once, agree with Goofle. If only because anyone who uses the word "Dudette" deserves a slap in the mouth.

im glad evil chuck is back

Haha, ok! I rarely hear the term "dude" here but I know what you mean :) It's okay!

:laughing: I love how "Simpsons-guy" has turned into one of those great forum inside jokes, started by a troll nonetheless. I think The Virgin just liked to assume that I was a guy or something because he had a thing against women.

Dudette is a stupid word. I hope it gets banned from the English language.

You're welcome! I guess you are enjoying Claude Vivier - such an amazing body of work that is so underrated.

I am sure we are fine. You are a very funny poster, and I appreciate that our early squabbles were more down to my immaturity as a poster/lack of respect for long term members.

Dr. Rez: He must be a doctor of love because he's been operating on my heart.

If I did do anything for the creative side for this place then it was you bought the consistency. With a few rare exceptions the modding at this place was a total joke until you were made a mod.

Thanks for your kind words David and please know that the respect & friendship runs both ways.

Music Banter's father, son and holy spirit. Urban, right-track, and Janszoon.

And Vanilla the virgin Mary

*cough*

If you're the son, then Ki is Judas. :D

In The Gospel of Judas, Judas is actually the hero and the only one who understands Jesus true mystical teachings.

So this just begs the question, do we reall know what the historical Urban's true belief system was? Can we count on the canical posts to provide us an accurate picture of Urban and Ki's relationship? The debate continues.

Can I be Noah? Some of the members here need a drowning.

I think it's a bit strange with all the heat Ki's taking for his complaint.

He's offended by Urban's behaviour so obviously there's something that can be found offensive about the way Urban behaves. Everyone who knows Urban knows where Ki is coming from, even if they don't agree that it is unacceptable. That means there is something to complain about. It's not like it's coming out of the blue and has no relevance to real life.

Although it may not seem like it, I'm thinking of this in a general way and I'm not saying we should all rip on Urban. If I cared enough about the way he is with newbs, I would've brought it up when I was a mod, but I don't think I did. Anyways, point is moderators work for free for the betterment of the community and are people like you. You can't expect them to be without fault. Urban is not perfect, Janszoon is not perfect, Jackhammer wasn't perfect, Freebase Dali isn't perfect. I can think of a lot of things I did when I was a moderator that was complaint-worthy. If someone had directed a complaint against me when I was a mod, I would've been a bit humble towards that because I acknowledge that I'm not without fault. Not being faultless doesn't mean you're doing a **** job, but perhaps there is something you can improve on. Had such criticism been directed towards me, I would've taken it seriously and I know I wouldn't have liked it if people started retorting with childish troll-posts on my behalf, doing their best to make whoever dared open his mouth against me feel ostracised from the community for his audacity.

So, criticising moderators - as long as it's a relevant complaint - should be fair game in a "spill your guts" thread and is criticism really so dangerous that the community has to get together to fight the critics on subjects like this? Do we need a counter movement against one guy's dissatisfaction? That's not acting like a community. People who wants to defend Urban's position should make respectful arguments and not act like butthurt children. If they resort to simple trolling (like Aurora's first answer), their posts should not slip through the censor. At least, I thought that was the point of having this thread in this forum.

I don't share the same opinion of Urban and was a little too swamped at work to reply to Ki myself (the other mods pretty much said what I would have anyway) but I think Tore is right. Ki obviously just had it on his mind and he expressed it. Tis the purpose of the thread, after all.

The point of this thread is, as it says, to "spill your guts" so yes, aslong as its done in a respectful, constructive manner, people can share opinions like Ki did. Thats fine.

My issue is that he presented two examples of posts Urban has made and both, in my opinion, do not include anything I would infract, ban or punish anyone for, therefore I dont understand why this has become such a debate. I think it is clear from the responses that, while divided, the vast majority cant see the problem in it. This forces me to ask why this was done here and not in a PM? Ki is not just spilling his guts, he had a very specific gripe about one member and decided to make a public spectacle of it and I doubt I'm the only one that can say I couldn't give a toss about any of it.

He also mentioned an inconsistency with the avatar guidelines. As Urban pointed out, these are guidelines. If they are guidelines that need to be reviewed then fine, so be it. That can be looked at. I hadn't thought about it before, so thanks for bringing that up..

Is that seriously it? Is that what has resulted in 8 pages of crap?

I wouldn't have made Ki's complaint, but even if it's unpopular, I can see that it comes from a place of love and care for this community. I then hate to see him come under massive siege and seemingly left friendless without any support.

I'm not saying people should agree with him. I just figure if people were a little more tolerant, this wouldn't have happened and it wouldn't have turned into an 8 page drama.

It says "rules" at the moment so if they really only are guidelines, that should be made clear.

Source : http://www.musicbanter.com/editors-p...-requests.html

You think so, huh? In my experience of being hated and having had my demotion called for, I can tell you very often I felt like they didn't give a fat **** about the community. They felt slighted and they wanted vengeance.

Whatever Ki's rationale is, fair or unfair, I don't think Urban's up to anything that is destroying the community. He rarely if ever posts. And to echo the sentiments of Adidasss awhile ago. At a certain point, the community needs to have standards. We can't have a garden party every time someone says they enjoy something.

People make ****ty posts. Most times they go by without comment. Sometimes someone says they're ****ty. Its not detrimental to the community. Not nearly as detrimental as allowing boring, pleasantries to dominate the boards.

You're supposed to come here to mix it up. You're supposed to post here because you've got an opinion. And when those opinions clash with other posters, you're supposed to go to battle. That what we're supposed to do. The idea that we should be ****ing nice to everyone so that when we meet up in the "Do you piss in the shower" thread we can all get a good chuckle is not only a new concept but a ****ty one. Its an artificial mechanism to make artificial friends.

The people I've met on here that I'd actually want to hang out with are the ones who's jugular I've gone for and lost.

Jackhammer is awesome. I definitely didn't chalk him up to be a fan of Trance, but he posted some of my favorite tracks.

Then I guess we're just different, Brennan. Had the community turned on Urban because he voiced an unpopular opinion, then I would've argued his case. I hate to see a community turn on one of its own just because that person expresses an unpopular opinion. And needless to say, I don't see the need to "go after the jugular" of someone who's already been berated by half of the active community already.

I discuss and argue here a lot, but I'm not a drama queen. When I appreciate discussions the most is when each side of the conflict can exchange views with respect instead of resorting to namecalling and other sorts of douchebaggery. I always felt the best communities are the ones that can nurture and sustain that sort of friendly and respectful environment. That's community standards to me.

If people think I'm going to sit around shaving pixels of people's avatars because they're too big rather than do something more constructive, like post on the forum then they can forget it.

You want to complain about 2mm of avatar on a forum that's supposed to be about music then go ahead. I think that says more about the person complaining than the mod.

As it's been said, this place has guidelines not rules, And i'm so bored of having a rule for this, a debate for that blah blah blah when just a bit of common sense would do just fine. The whole point of the avatar guidelines was people were asking for avatars that were about 5 or 6 times bigger than what people have now, they succeeded in doing that, so the guideline worked. So why do we need another fucking drawn out debate over basically fuck all.

The bottom line as I see it:

1 - Urban is always upfront, but something about his conduct, and others, right now, smacks more of "You criticised someone I like, and therefore you are bad, what have you done that Urban hasn't?", than it does of "This is an established understanding and nobody has ever possibly had grounds to criticise urban about anything ever before"

2 - Ki is acting butthurt with his threats to leave. Whether he meant the thread or the forums I don't care, he replied immediately after I did, so he's a hypocrite either way.

3 - Tore is right on the money here. Frankly speaking, whether or not Ki has a point criticising urban isn't the issue, or at least, it isn't anymore. We all agree Urban isn't deserving of some sort of lengthy personal attack.
What is now the issue is that as much as Ki's first couple of posts were pretty much being an arse, every post against him has beem just as much so, and while I jumped in with the thing about him leaving in the middle of that, at that point I thought the argument had reached a middleground and Ki was just being melodramatic.

Since that point, people have continued to throw barbs at Ki and he's continued to respond to them.

Its all rather childish, frankly. Urban comes off as being a defensive ass and I can't help but read his posts, and his avatar as almost an ad hominem, stating "Look how far above you I am, I don't need to address anything you've said, I'll just make out like you're a whiny biotch. I'm just going to mock you."

On the other hand, Ki comes off as trying to appeal to some sort of crowd as if he's a huge victim in an argument he started, which only makes it look as though the urban crowd are justified in attacking him, despite the fallacy that creates.

4 - The whole thing about the avatars is ****ing stupid, both as a criticism from Ki, and the defense from Urban. Its always been presented as a rule. Outright. Tore even quoted it.

Do I give a **** about 2px larger than something should be? No, not really. In fact I never noticed Urban's avatar even WAS a larger size, and I think Ki trying to make it an arguing point is really, really nitpicky.

But if you're going to argue that you don't have time to resize avatars, that that's too much work for you and too much to expect, then all I end up thinking is this:

Its not a defense to try and act like your alternative is to resize and waste your own time. Your alternative isn't that. It never has been. Your alternative is to just not bloody do it if people can't get their act together and resize properly. There's a rule in there that says outright you don't have to do it AT ALL. Why do you need to basically make one up, in order to "Save yourself the effort of resizing"?

The simple answer is you don't, and I really can't fathom why you'd ever act like that.




Finally, I like the flexible moderation here. I really do. I think it works and I think 90% of the time **** runs fine.

But the rules, the way they're written, and the way I understand them state "Here is a bunch of unacceptable ****, you will get banned for, but we can't cover every eventuality, so we reserve the right to decide ad hoc what else is unacceptable, just in case you think you're being clever by trolling through skirting the rules here"

I don't really understand why people seem to think that translates to "Here is the guideline, but don't take it as read or anything, I'm sure its ok if you step outside of it, we won't say anything at all."

I don't expect people to get punished, or chewed out, or given slaps on wrists even, for resizing their avatar wrongly, or disagreeing with each other or whatever, in fact I don't even reasonably expect that their request isn't approved or their argument isn't allowed to conclude.

But I would definitely expect at least one sentence explaining "Just so you know, you're a little out of bounds here, no worries, just so you know for next time", rather than "Well, we're flexible, so its ok"

Also, if I have one criticism of Urban, of my own, then its this.

For a lot of this, Urban has been defending "Flexible Moderation" and "Common sense" approches to dealing with members.

In his recent post history I see a few instances of him dealing out ultimatums, laying down laws, and in this very thread, basically this whole page is filled with Urban asking Ki to back up various criticisms and points with some of the most defined, most binary, black and white examples possible.

Sorry Urban, I know you're a good influence on MB, but if you're going to ask super black and white things of the members here, and ask Ki to provide super defined, super black and white examples of you being contrary to the rules, and provide super black and white, super defined examples of ways ki's claims aren't 100% factual in a certain way, why would you then proceed to argue against the concept of black and white rulesets and super defined approaches?

We both know that the black and white option is two things.

1 - Its not an effective way to police a forum, because it allows people to skirt the very edges of the rules while still being douchebags. Thats why the moderation here is good. Because that **** doesn't fly.

2 - It makes it extremely difficult for Ki to actually voice his opinion constructively, because you're sending him on a wild goose chase for black and white examples, when his point would be better served by taking the approach you advocate towards your own moderation.

I think you're taking two things that are totally different and saying 'well if it doesn't work for one thing it shouldn't work for the other'. Which I don't think is the case.
Plus I find it interesting you give 3 examples of where I'm being 'black & white' and yet I took no action other than asking the person quoted to either expand on what they were saying or get back to the original topic.

Also please explain this defensive thing, all i'm doing is answering various criticisms that any mod would do in this situation. You continually calling me defensive for doing that makes me think that you have some agenda or something.

I'm saying that when you moderate you're all about interpretation and context, (at least, when you're not just throwing out ultimatums) but when you're criticised you're all about making the person who is criticising you, point out exactly where you crossed the line in black and white.

As for people complaining about the drama... did you not notice that like 2 or 3 pages ago was just an Urban Hatemonger LoveFest?

Yes because I was asking him to show me where I crossed the line in HIS opinion.

This made me laugh so hard!

GB, all I have to say to you is tl;dr.

It's funny because back in 2005 I straight away chatted to Urban and was accused of sucking dick. Good to see nothings changed.

to be honest. the only cool **** on here is that Mankycaaant.

When it comes to your specific case and your avatar, it really doesn't matter that much (to me) because your name is already wide enough to widen the avatar/user info box into the space for the post area. The same goes for WWWP. Had your names been shorter, decreasing the width of your avs would pretty up the threads you post in, but decreasing your av sizes now just won't do much.

But otherwise, I find your comment on rules vs. guidelines interesting. A thing about rules or guidelines is that if a forum has rules or guidelines that everyone has to adhere to, then everyone is an equal. If special groups on a forum have special privileges, then that itself can be a source of tension and discontent (f.ex mods and regular members). I don't think it's dangerous to have some flexibility, like a difference in privileges between newbs and regular posters because it's the regular posters who are around to make up the community. But I do think it's a bad thing if different groups of people within the community enjoy different privileges. So in general, I think treating rules like guidelines is fine as long as everyone gets to treat them as guidelines.

So that means if a mod pushes those guidelines, it should be fine for everyone else to push those guidelines. Then it becomes a situation of whoever manages to stretch those guidelines the furthest, while still being considered to behave acceptably, is the one who sets the standard for what can and can't be done on the forums. He or she defines the moral tideline. That's something I consider a flaw of guideline thinking vs. rules because it will contribute with creating a more hostile environment.

So because of that I think it's better to have defined rules with mods doing their best to adhere to those rules. I think that helps nurture a friendlier community environment (which I personally prefer).

Here's a first batch. Will do more later.

Howard the Il Minded Duck: Very eccentric character, but game for a laugh, usually at his own expense. Takes a joke well, and listens to possibly the widest range of music possible.

Goofle: Listens to an unreal amount of music, not quite sure how he manages it.
Cool guy, with a taste very similar to my own in that he likes a lot of hip-hop.

Ki: Taken quite a bit of heat on here recently, but still one of the coolest members I've encountered. Not afraid to admit what he likes, or how he feels, and doesn't follow the same trends that many other posters do, I.E. internet fanboys hate on a particular band, so I must do to.
Still was a little surprised to find out he cross dresses, but everyone to their own I guess.

Salami: Kid needs to make a return soon, genuinely friendly guy who tries to make everyone feel welcome, like him personally even if I disagree with his musical taste.

Mr Dood: Another guy who listens to an unreal amount of music, turned me onto a few things and seems to have a sound musical knowledge.

Surrell: Seems like a cool enough guy, with a decent music taste although he appears to be under the impression I dick ride Kanye West, must be the hormones kicking in.

Norg: The only person on here that I actually dislike. Comes across as a massive douchebag in everything he says with his very ignorant manner and quite terrible music taste (dude marks for Linkin Park)