Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net |
| cymbeline246 |
Liar. Four times. 1. Dvarg didn't say we weren't "crass in general". In fact, he agreed we were crass in general. He just said (correctly) that it was not the "general" crassness that got us banned. 2. There's no "revisionist history". Nobody's denying that this place was crass before the new rules. And nobody should be denying that there was some intense fighting after the new rules were announced. These are both facts. 3. This place was not any more crass a week before the new rules were announced than it was six months before that. In fact, the only way it was "getting out of control" was in the growing activity of trolls like PoC and cookiewhateverhernamewas. And, of course, that's something the new rules didn't do anything at all to fix. (Witness the ever-present Duchess of Mint.) 4. If there were "revisionist history" going on here, of course you'd "understand" it. And I won't label this "5", because it's not a lie so much as a failure to tell the whole truth, but stop pretending you actually care about the general welfare of this board. You're glad the old posters are gone because they had the gall the remind you that your feeble little mind doesn't remotely measure up to your ridiculous pretensions of intellectualism. Period. .................... |
||||||||||
| Eponine93 |
^ Why don't you make real posts about musicals instead of arguing the same arguement all the time?
You're not being banned because we don't like you. You're being banned because you're not productive to the forum... at all... |
||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
Wait, wait, wait a minute.
Loppy was banned finally because of her night of random posts. I was here. I had fun - as did many, many members. None of it was rude or crass. Just random. I won't suggest that Loppy didn't clearly make her feeling known on a regular basis, but the actual final banning had nothing to do with that. |
||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
jammed and seized up?
I don't understand, nor will I ever. There were many posters - not just the one's that were 'friends' with Loppy participating. |
||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Great, isn't it 
|
||||||||||
| Carbucketty |
Was that the same thing as the "deatheaters"? I have no memory. That's actually the note on the final banning entry. Font's banning was actually at request of Sally, IIRC. The old forum (pre-phpbb) used to lock up when there were too many posts on a forum. phpBB solved that (for the most part. The database still gets corrupt from time to time.) |
||||||||||
| olly |
What is 'phpBB'? | ||||||||||
| Eponine93 |
They called themselves the "Deatheaters"?
That's taking Harry Potter a tad bit too far... |
||||||||||
| katethegreat |
I guess it's the type of board or the people who make the board? I've been on a phBB board before - they're all very similar! No idea what it stands for though. | ||||||||||
| Robinflamingo |
PHP is the language the Bulletin Board is written in. I'm a moderator on another phpBB board, and the tools are quite nice. It takes a lot to crash 'em compared to the old boards... | ||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
No, the death eaters thing happened after they were all banned. | ||||||||||
| Nick-Ko-Las Enigma |
The 'death eaters' thing happened on nov 21 2005 and Loppy poo had her username disabled on Nov 22 2005 as a result. Then in Dec there was another flooding and people in the weeks after started to have their usernames disabled for their behavior. | ||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
No.
I was there. Loppy's IP ban didn't happen until after that. I won't disagree that her death eater name, and even possibly her original user name was deleted at that time. http://www.musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=44361 She was still posting in December of 2005. She was ultimately banned because of the scenario I was discussing earlier. |
||||||||||
| Salome |
does it matter when it happened? at least she was finally banned. | ||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
Point is, it was for a stupid reason.
If you wanted to get rid of her, it should have happened because she was being offensive. She was banned, ironically, at a point when she was being at her best behavior. But they got her for "spamming" the boards needlessly. She wasn't, because people were responding and enjoying themselves which makes it not needless, but I guess that doesn't matter if you're looking to get rid of somone. Also, we were post-phpBB, so being "seized up" was no longer a problem. |
||||||||||
| Nick-Ko-Las Enigma |
Like I said she had her username disabled after the death eaters things. I did not say anything about her permanent ban but that did happen dec 9 2005. |
||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
When coming into a conversation late, don't you think it's best first to find out what the conversation actually is?
Let's sum things up, shall we? We (as in Carb, Mumsy, and I) were originally talking about the night of random posts which resulted in Loppy's IP ban. Carb asked if that was the death eater thing. I said no. You chime in that she was banned at that time, even though we were clearly talking about IP bans, so stop talking semantics. That's not what this was about. I never did like you, therefore I never pay too close attention to what you say. |
||||||||||
| Nick-Ko-Las Enigma |
No just correcting an error in fact about the death eater thing in which you said that were all banned before the death eater thing happened. So I was supporting your assertion that she was not permanently banned due to the death eater thing while correcting the timeline. | ||||||||||
| Jordan |
You know what? Shut up. All of you. She's banned, they're all banned. They ain't coming back. Get over it.
The board is as it is now. I believe the members (i.e. regular members, not banned returnees) like the board as it is. It's not gonna change much. Those people ain't coming back. We've managed VERY well this past year. EVERYONE IS BORED BY THIS CONSTANT NAVEL GAZING!!! |
||||||||||
| Elfie Lou |
|
||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
Oh, poor Gayboy.
But it's ok to go to a different board and tell them how it should be run. (A little two-faced, don'tchya think?) Besides, it's fun picturing your head turn red with irritation. |
||||||||||
| Pounce |
Don't you fear God? I guess a different board is free to tell him to shut up as well. 
But seriously, this might be a case where the ends justified the means because the general mood of the board has improved 100%. The departure of some members either voluntarily or involuntarily seems to have been the solution. We've been given many assurances that the other site is great and even better but on more than one occasion I've heard of problems at Camelot and it seems to have suffered a similar fate. Lately the only real problems we've had are former members wanting to continue the arguments from over a year ago and other former members not wanting to accept that the ban is permanent. Anyway, as I've said before, I think time has vindicated the past actions by the mods. |
||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
My only problem is that my firewall is an ass and now I can't access any other musical site besides this.
This wasn't meant to be an argument. To be fair, I was clarifying things for Mumsy. She agreed. And then Carb asked for a question. And I answered. And then Nick-o-las whatever had to put his two cents in. And Salome, who doesn't like Loppy, had to add in, so I answered her. And then Gayboy freaked out. For the record, this didn't start out as being contentious from me. I never asked for them to be reinstated, etc. I just wanted to make sure that the new member knew both sides of the story vs as the oh-so-innocent ones that certain people on this board would like to believe. Camelot did have some problems. And hilariously enough, most of them were thick with Gayboy's posts - some his fault, some not. But like I said, there is always two sides to every story.
And you have no idea what any of this is about, so... yeah. THIS is what I'm talking about, Pounce. |
||||||||||
| Pounce |
Yeah...we're missing out on stuff like this...what was Sally thinking!  The latter part of that quote shows better than anything what an immense ego he has which dwarfs any pretentious intellectualism I may have. He really ought to be more concerned with his own character flaws. And really Dvarg, his head is already swelled up. With any more feeding of his ego he will be unable to walk out of a room.
|
||||||||||
| Robinflamingo |
At home? You can't fix it? I mean it's YOUR firewall, right? |
||||||||||
| Aimee |
Sure, if people want to know both sides, for the ‘new’ members, I will try to be as objective as possible, this is our side:
We were/are members, just like you are now. We were shocked by the abuse but did nothing about it. Then, the owner of Musicals.net, the one who pays for it and created it, made a few of us moderators. You only have to ask yourself why she did it to know there was good reason. With her guidance, but without her input, we set about making some rules. Rules were created to stop people posting porn, to stop people flaming each other, to stop people from copying photos of other members and changing them in Photoshop to make it look like that member is eating shit, to stop people from swearing in every other post and calling people all the names under the sun from the ‘c’ words to the ‘w’ word and using the ‘f’ word almost as a matter of course, to stop people from posting links and pictures to sites of people doing things like pissing and crapping over themselves, to stop people posting illegal material that defamed other member’s characters, to stop people posting unsubstantiated lies about other members [all these things and more were actually done] and generally to ‘clean the place up’. Yes we made new rules. Yes we are proud of it. Yes, a number of people didn’t like what they saw as a limit to their ‘free speech’. It caused arguments, lots of them, on that we agree 100%. Not everyone is going to agree with every thing. That’s simply not possible. We accepted that this is what happens when people are faced with new boundaries. They kicked out against it, people do it to see how far they can bend them. It’s completely natural. The question arose as to how we would know who was doing the abusing. It was decided that we needed a system put in place to make sure we were being completely fair to all members and treating each and every one the same. Some abusers stood out because it was so obvious, their posts were so out of line that warnings [or strikes as they have been called] were issued on one post alone. With others the abuse was spread over various forums and over a longer time period. Also as the mods were now removing the abusive posts, it could appear, to all intents and purposes, that these people were posting as pleasantly as everybody else. This was not the case. In addition to this some of the abusers had a personal grudge against one or two specific moderators and would post deliberately aim attacks on their chosen target. How to keep tabs on this became an issue. How do we avoid accusations of one mods making it personally? To combat this we devised system of recording the abuse on the moderators’ forum, even though it had been removed from the main board. If any member committed a major breach of the rules or 6 more minor infringements in 2 months, they would get a PM warning. If they continued to break the rules, again after a major breach of the rules or 6 minor infringements, they got a second warning, this time telling them next time they would have their username revoked. If they then continued to break the rules 6 more times they had their user name revoked. All warnings/strikes had and still have to be agreed by all the mods and 24 hours notice is give on the mods board for any warning/strikes so that it can be discussed and objections raised. It is a safety mechanism to stop any one mods from abusing their authority and simply giving out warnings to people he or she didn’t like. This is the only responsible way to behave. It worked then and is still in place now. It is fair and right. The number of edits/warnings any one member had was private between the mods and the person involved. It was decided that it would be overkill to inform a member every time we had edited or removed a post, we still think that would be overkill and over-modding. 6 posts was deemed reasonable before a PM was sent. As a result of these rules a couple of the worst offending members were banned. This caused problems for the people who felt we were being too tough. Within this group a few, in turn, became rude and insulting and began breaking the rules themselves. We tried to reason with them, in exactly the same way I am doing now, but they were having none of it. You can judge for yourselves by the above posts that feelings still run high about it. The people who are still posting are the polite ones, I assure you. As time passed, what has never been acceptable to small minority of older members was that we would not capitulate or agree with them, we were happy to listen and tried to explain our motives but ultimately we simply could not be convinced and they rightly or wrongly resented that. They then accused the mods of unfairness and became abusers or trolls themselves. At this point the owner of musicals.net stepped in, banning a couple of members herself and adding some new very hard-line rules. These are her words: The "rules" that you and the moderators have put together, which are fantastic by the way, cover most of the policies that I think should be enforced. Here are my own primary points (which I believe are covered): * No Obscene Language - violators may be banned. Posts will be edited and/or deleted at the moderator's discretion. * No Obscene Material - violators WILL be banned. * No Trolling or Flame Wars - violators will be banned. * No Personal Attacks - violators may be banned. Posts will be deleted. Subjects of the attacks should report the posts but NOT retaliate. * No Spamming, Soliciting, or Illegal Suggestions. I'm sure that the fine team of moderators can word these less harshly than I have written them. It just irritates me that people could be so disrespectful to all of you and the other members. And this is for all of you and your hard work (this one you'll likely need to reword): * No Annoying the Moderators - If you annoy a moderator, consider yourself gone. Posts that are complaints about the way that the forums are run simply should not exist. These forums are for musicals and the people of all ages who love them. Hopefully this will help guide discussion back in that direction. [I have edited out some private details here]….. ultimately if someone decides to challenge any of your decisions as moderators, they are in violation of the forum rules and should find somewhere else where they welcome the harassment of moderators. Please let me know if you need any clarification in any of this. Thanks! The usual people objected and became boorish and insulting. They didn’t post porn etc but they were offensive, rude and argumentative and as proved by the above post, even after we revoked their usernames under the warning system, we allowed them to create a new usernames in the hope that they would respect and post within our rules in future. It was a vain hope. They used their new usernames to spam the forum and continue their attacks on us and the rules. We tried to reason with them but we were never going to agree, it was too fundamental a difference. This is what the forum what ‘turning to sh*t’ mentioned above refers to. A number of people were banned at this point for major breaches of the rules and a few people left forming MF.net [known as ‘the divorce’]. I don’t have anything more to add really, other than through it all the mods here have never lowered ourselves to abusing individuals or lying about people or resorted to posting disgusting and highly insulting material about anybody. You can decide for yourself who you think is ‘to blame’. The people who broke the rules blame the people who made the rules. I personally blame the people who originally made having rules a necessity in the first place. |
||||||||||
| opheliarose |
Thank you Aimee- I'm sure I'm not the only one who had no idea what this has all been about! (but I'm still a relative newbie myself!) | ||||||||||
| katethegreat |
To be honest I, and I believe I speak for many of the newer members here, don't really care who's to blame. Yes I wasn't here when all this happened and I don't know both sides of the story, but I when I joined this forum last November I joined it because of how it was then at the time - not how it had been in the past.
I like it how it is now and I resent the attitude of the posters who post about how crap the forum is now, implying that we new members are part of that because we're not the same as you lot. We have formed our own friendship groups, had memorable discussions fun and serious - as I'm sure you all did. That's what is appealing about these boards. The thing is, boards need to move on to stay alive - otherwise they go stagnant (yeah, I'm waiting for someone to mention how stagnant and dull this place is now). I understand that many of you left this site for Mfnet and with its recent closure, found yourselves back here. Those of you who hadn't been here in a long time will still feel the anger that you felt and on seeing how I guess the board has changed, wanted to express your anger. Thing is though, the board has changed, and it's not going change back because you complain about how people were banned in the past. You have your own board now - mould that how you wanted. These moans are not going to sway a bunch of new members who don't know who you are to change the atmosphere of a board that we are enjoying. |
||||||||||
| joshlyman |
katethegreat is spot on. It doesn’t matter. Those who were around know what pollutants certain members became, and how they enjoyed the bullying and trolling to the point of boasting of, and crowing about, their prowess. How vile their behaviour was, and how it coarsened as things developed, is something that people who didn’t experience it need not bother themselves with. Most will probably have encountered such problems from morons on other types of forums before, and appreciate what a relief it is when the problem is dealt with.
However, a few points, if I may? (I never usually post, but have been reading m.net since it started, and had to rejoin to post this, since the changes that were brought in cancelled out my old membership.) The reason this forum changed when it did was because I made several very specific points, in posts and PMs, accusing the moderators here of a thoroughly lacklustre performance, and asking they bring in rules in keeping with other successful forums elsewhere, including some I had moderated on which had had to deal with very similar problems. As far as I recall the points I made only drew criticism from those now ousted, but set off a sensible debate among those who were to be in charge, and led to a swift impetus for change to emerge, in a fruitful manner. It then took the new mods time to iron out rules and maintain discipline, as Sally gave them the green light with enthusiasm. They stuck to their tasks admirably and this forum is now a great place. The biggest irony is that the ones who caused all the problems liked to call themselves The Popular Kids, when they were actually the most despised individuals here, because of their hideous behaviour and lack of charm. While I used simple deductive reasoning to highlight what the problems were on the forum when there was endless trouble and abuse Aimee was the only visible presence on m.net to stand up for the members being bullied by them. The ‘popular’ kids hated that, but it was watching their treatment of her that made me realise it was time to act, as they had to be dealt with. They have been, and have since started sites full of spite and pointless wrath, all emanating from people too far down the path of arrested personal development to understand Aimee’s dignity, which is what we need from mods, just as you don’t need deluded ‘popular’ sociopaths around when trying to maintain a forum people want to enjoy. Their lack of popularity has been brought home to them now, several times. Mandy tried starting a separate forum but didn’t even bother renewing the domain when it flopped. They had Mf.net, run by Fogeyman, but while they like to claim it did well M.net would get more new members in a week than they’d get in a month, and of course they reverted to type so easily that one of the main culprits became so foul in his behaviour Fogeyman eventually had no option other than to ban him. Many of the usual suspects there then complained about that - like it was any of their business - and Mf.net closed. As he has made clear, Fogeyman has matters in his life which made the forum a distraction, but he was also quite prepared, having banned one member, to carry on. It was the reaction of the others which caused him to close that site. They like to pretend he’s coming back, because it absolves them of their guilt but clearly, if he has any self-respect, he won’t be setting himself up to be abused by them again, having found out the hard way what they’re capable of. So it next fell to Chris Fitzpatrick to provide a new home for The Popular Ones, an underwhelming 41 people rallying to their reeking flag, several simply curious members from here, who came back very quickly, shocked about the crude antics and cretinous language there. I took one look at it and thought it would be notable only for tumbleweed in a few months, but how wrong I was. Within a fortnight it’s done and dusted. Chris Fitzpatrick made the mistake of trying to keep threads in order, and sections post-relevant, whereupon the unruly ones surged into an impotent uproar once more and now they have a new, even more select home, called ‘mf***ingnet’, which sums them up perfectly. I was talking about this forum with someone the other night and they knew of it, making a pertinent observation. They’re happy for their teenage children to look at it because it’s a ‘safe’ forum. It is that way thanks to the moderators first disinfecting it, and then keeping it clean. They do a fine job, to the point where I now think it’s the best regulated forum I have experienced. With the pedantic human gloop now resident in their own pitiful enclosure they really can’t get any less popular, or more irrelevant, if they tried ~ which is why their absence doesn't require lamenting here. Pretty soon they’ll only have one option left. They can each start their own forum, wait a few days, then become so angry they will start banning themselves. Little meaningless lights going out, one by one, and missed by no-one. Good riddance. |
||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Who cares? He's knowledgeable and great to discuss with.
I never even knew this rule existed until now - but seriously, don't you find it just slightly disturbing. No troll wars and posting porn, I can understand, but no annoying the moderators??? EDIT: This must under no circumstance be interpreted as criticism of or complant agaisnt the moderators. Such terrible, gruesome, annoying sorts of posts should after all not exist. Everything the moderators do is divine. |
||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
A few things.
I'm not at home. I rarely post from home. [quote='Aimee'] blah blah blah[/quote] Yeah, I admit I only skimmed your post. I know what it says even without having to read it. That's still only one side of the matter. I don't care enough to post the other side, though apparently it still rankles the mods to discuss that time. So, for those who are all appreciative that they know all the 'facts' now - just be satisfied knowing this: you don't.
Who are you? And have some balls in order to post who you really are without making judgements. If you can't debate, don't start. By the way - not one of those "popular" kids ever called themselves popular.
Dvarg - this the great point of contention. Most people were banned for purposely challenging that rule because, quite frankly, it's vague and gives the moderators a scary amount of power. |
||||||||||
| PappyCat |
These problems, this "Old was better, new sucks" kind of mentality, happens in every forum I've ever been on. Even when the past wasn't fantastic, it always seems better than the present. | ||||||||||
| MsJellicle |
Those exact wordings were not used. Although the site owner asked us to put that into the rules, the moderators chose to reword it and it has been rule #15 ever since the rules were put up.
Despite Sally giving us the go ahead with this, we are very hesitant to use it. In fact, I think we've used it only once or twice when after being asked to stop, a member contiuously posted extreme personal attacks against the moderators.
Actually, both sides have stated their reasons and thoughts numerous times throughout this thread and other threads. We are just going around in circles. You blame us. We blame you. We are not going to see eye to eye and we are not getting anywhere with this. It's time to let it be and let those who bother to read them make up their own minds. ~MsJellicle |
||||||||||
| Aimee |
Good, Dvarg!! I’m glad you know your lowly place, you pleb you!! Hehehe 
But more seriously, to clarify for everyone, those words are exactly what the owner said [not the actual rule]. She felt it was needed at a time when the moderators were being harassed daily with personal attacks and people endlessly arguing with them about ‘the clean up’. We twice amended what she said and it now stands as rule 15. Yes, going public with it brought even more attacks on us, we knew it would. We could have avoided much of the abuse by not telling members the owner had said those words, but, having taken on responsibility, we didn’t then shun it or hide from it. Dvarg, I am actually encouraged that you didn’t know it existed as it shows it has not been needed/used for some time now. It will remain in place, should we ever need it again, but, like all the rules, we want to have a forum where they rules are rendered obsolete. That would be absolutely perfect. Edit, sorry MsJ. You beat me to it. 
|
||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Where do you see this kind of mentality? I see "old was mainly good, but had certain problems - new is mainly good, but has other certain problems". At least that's my opinion. |
||||||||||
| Pounce |
I don't share your opinion of the experience. Do you only care about your own experience and wants over that of others? If I'm not mistaken, I believe there is a decree that he is to be banned from MdN on sight. It wasn't just some random decision. I'm sure that it was reasoned, justified, and not taken lightly. Just as in life, no matter how much good you may do, it doesn't give you license to break the law or in this case break the rules (unless of course you have power but that's another issue). But fortunately, no one can be forced to stay and post at MdN against his or her will. Escape is just one mouse click away. But I'm sure you can converse with him elsewhere. Assimilate the knowledge and make it your own. And feeding a person's already inflated ego does no good except possibly to serve your own ends. |
||||||||||
| joshlyman |
Oh dear. You don't use your real name then fret about someone else doing likewise. Not a good start. Think anagram, if that helps? I didn't come to debate. I don't know what gave you that idea. They used that phrase, and not just here. Their friends and apologists also used it, and not just here, especially when some then joined them in exile. It's why it became so amusing. |
||||||||||
| Dvarg |
I'm not even trying to battle to allow him (or the other bannees) back here, as I believe it won't happen anyway. I enjoy a lot of the actual members here far less than I enjoy Font, but I don't claim that everybody should heed my "experience" and wants, and ban them. I have no idea what Font did that was so fantastically awful, so I don't have any opinion on whatever it was. I'm only nuancing the picture of the banned members, not defending their every action. |
||||||||||
| Pounce |
The issue of banning is not based on the degree of enjoyment a poster provides unless of course it is the type of enjoyment derived by, as they say in Avenue Q,...schadenfreude. The banned members in question have engaged in harassment of not only the mods but other posters as well. You indicated that posts of "Loppy & Co" were rewarding to you personally, but I'm asking you to see the larger picture of the damage that was being done by them to others. On the issue of which side to believe, I think the mods are presenting a much better case. Maybe the other side is right in that we are not getting the whole story, but so far, I think they have failed to present it or least present it convincingly. |
||||||||||
| OnceUponATime |
"The other side" isn't going to present "their" story because there's no point and it's a waste of breath.
Clearly nothing is going to change, so why bother. I'm content to have people realize that there is always two sides to every story, and not blindly accept one person's version of "truth." Even if that "truth" is my own. |
||||||||||
| Dvarg |
How many times do I have to say I'm not fighting to get them unbanned? I have never claimed I even know the entire picture. It's not what I'm talking about at all.
Yes, posts by Loppy & co (not all of them) are rewarding to me personally. Why does that indicate I'm not capable of understanding that other persons felt that they were damaging (even though I don't know the entire picture)? It doesn't mean I expect the moderators to unban them for my personal enjoyment. |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
Yet they keep joining and boringly going on about 'their' side of it and telling us all what rubbish moderators we have here, how things were better previously blah blah blah. I'd say they've had ample opportunity again and again to present their side and they have done so. However, as has been pointed out, this is going round and round in circles which is why I succinctly made the point to all about shutting up because they ain't coming back and this place ain't changing. It's getting VERY boring and VERY tiresome rehashing the same old same old. Seriously OUAT, change your firewall or use a proxy to get past it if you're that unhappy here because your bleating and button pushing is tiresome. Accept it and get over it. Those people aren't coming back. Regards to me 'telling Fogey how to run his board' too bloody right if you saw what had been posted about me by Evan Melancon and David aka Desperado. I challenged him regarding a moderating decision and he apologised and acted appropriately after I challenged him. Lastly, for the record, Sally asked for Fontinau to be banned and didn't make a specific reason why if I remember correctly. Such is life. |
||||||||||
| Pounce |
I'll dare ask this and if asked I'll remove it but where did JP fit in with all this? From what I recall, he said that he had other commitments that prevented him from being able to mod here and so stepped down as a Miscellaneous mod. Some time after that, the board split and he went with the others to MF.net which was somewhat telling of his true leanings.
Was there some back story beyond the public statements? Did he in fact object to the new wave of moderation at MdN? For most of his time as mod at MdN, he was more or less the sole Miscellaneous forum mod since Carbucketty spent most of his time in the CATS forum. |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
At the time when the bannings of those under discussion (YAWN!!!) were being discussed, JP agreed with the bannings (in the moderators forum) and indeed banned the relevant members at that time. It was a couple of months later that he stood down, from my recollection. | ||||||||||
| JPme |
That is not accurate.
I stepped down for several reasons: * because I have a real job now and less time than I did previously * because I disagreed with most of the other mods, quite fundamentally, about how some of the rules were being applied * because I always considered that part of my job as a moderator was explaining moderating decisions to the board; I felt that I had several times been left to explain decisions made by other mods and I was not always comfortable defending those decisions * because I thought decisions about some members were being made very subjectively by some moderators rather than to the objective standards I had tried to establish in the rules * because I was not happy to put my name to decisions made by some of the other mods I did not express all of that to the board at the time, partly because I thought it would make the remaining mods' position unstable, but mainly because I was happy with the idea of a clean break with the new community at mf.n - which was, if I recall correctly, less than a month after the "crisis". I have not posted here very much since then. I have not generally participated in any discussions about m.n moderators that have happened at mf.n or any of its successor sites. I feel I have spent quite enough of my life being agitated about how this place is run, and, having opted out of it, should leave those still in charge to do as they will. But I am not willing to be misrepresented. I am particularly unwilling to be misrepresented here when I (and many other users) feel that the interference of some m.n moderators at mf.n was inappropriate and a factor in Fogey's decision to take time away from it. The process I went through leading up to my resignation was as follows: * the very complex system of points, warnings and bans was developed. I discussed this with the other moderators but was not in favour of a "permanent ban" as the ultimate sanction. I was alone among the mods in opposing it. This whole system was presented to Sally, who agreed to it - no aspects of it were specifically her idea. * the system we set up required all the mods to agree to each "username ban" and, after a certain number of those, a "permanent ban". I agreed to a "username ban" for some users. * the next time I logged in, a "permanent ban" had been enforced against some of those users. I had not agreed to that at any point. * I felt that was due to the personal relationship between some of the other moderators and the people who had been banned. I felt unable to defend those decisions and therefore unable to continue as a mod. JP |
||||||||||
| Aimee |
That’s fair enough JP.
I think it’s completely fair to say you did not see eye to eye with the rest of us but that doesn’t mean we didn’t discuss it fully; we did, for weeks and weeks, in great detail. Finally all the rules were agreed and signed off by us all. We do still think the rules were needed and as yet have had no cause to review them. This forum has been at peace now for 16 months, that to me, speaks for itself. |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
I hope I don't need to dig through the mods archives further to find the record of you agreeing to banning of members and indeed that when it was suggested that you should press the button and ban certain members, you agreed to do it on behalf of the moderators. It was a question I specifically raised at the time. 
|
||||||||||
| Pounce |
First of all...hi JP! 
And thanks. I've heard the old explanation about your departure before but what bothered me was your followup actions just didn't match up. I couldn't reconcile the words with your actions. This post of yours does for me what all the other mf.net people's posts here couldn't do. Explain the other side of the story. Maybe we'll just have to chalk up this breakup as irreconcilable differences. It's not always an issue of who is right or wrong, just that some people can't get along. This board will have its own character and whatever board you guys are creating will have its own character |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
Right, can we have less navel gazing and more suggestions as to how to run this forum then? Y'know... The FUTURE! | ||||||||||
| Pounce |
Well, to use a cliche, we need to know where we've been to know where we are going. Assessing past actions and determining what things were right and what were wrong might help in making future decisions. But those decisions are made by the mods. We've got more than one year at MdN under its new policies and things look good so far. MF.net's apparent failure was perhaps due to not taking decisive action early on and what action ultimately taken might have been wrong although I just can't believe that banning Evan is a wrong move. And are you Brits early birds or very late night owls? Get some sleep!
|
||||||||||
| Elfie Lou |
Go Brits!!
|
||||||||||
| joshlyman |
I remember criticising JP most when first pushing for changes. I received a very polite explanatory PM from him which indicated to me that he'd always vacillate, when decisive action was called for.
In maintaining a forum, and ensuring its character survives, you need a set of rules which can be applied immediately and rigorously. JP didn’t agree with how moderation was handled and that is to be respected, because he then stopped being a mod, but he doesn’t address one thing. Those rules came in to specifically deal with an abusive, hostile element. That unruly element has been shown to be a disaster across several other sites now and shown to be unpopular due to their forum memberships growing ever smaller. These rules worked. They dealt with the problem.
In JP’s world Evan wouldn’t have been banned at MF.net, he could have come back as EvanThe Wanker and all would have been well. JP reminds me of Fogeyman, a nice person and well intentioned, but simply not up to the job. |
||||||||||
| Robinflamingo |
Being a mod is like being the Vice Principal or Assistant Principal or Dean of Discipline in a school. YOU know what you are doing is the best for all concerned, but the kids (posters) don't necessarily know and agree. Your friends are usually held close to the vest because you don't want to appear to have favorites. It's a tough line to walk.
Then why do people want to be mods? Ostensibly, it's because they really do want the best for the forum, and they have the strength of character and thickness of skin to put up with the name calling and bashing. BT, DT...GTTS. |
||||||||||
| Quique |
Seriously, who's this Joshlyman? | ||||||||||
| Aimee |
I remeber this guy from long ago. Since I’ve been here he has popped up now and then and always been consistent in what he says. He was angry with the original mods, he blamed them for what was happening, saying M.net should be based more on other forums he was used to.
In fact he was one of the first people I ever saw to bash the mods - while we blamed each other, or the abusive posters, he blamed what was happening on THEM. He doesn’t post much, though he did post later, being very witty and runnning rings round Evan Grubbs.
|
||||||||||
| Luc |
I hate to dis the mods, but have any of you ever heard of an IP ban??? Whatcha waiting for? | ||||||||||
| Jenko |
it effects other people who are on a similar ip who want to join. plus you can change your ip |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
There *are* ways round IP bans. Thanks for the suggestion. | ||||||||||
| Pounce |
Not sure how many people have a hard IP these days and banning IP ranges can affect some innocent posters. | ||||||||||
| Aimee |
|
||||||||||
| Luc |
Whatever.
I just didn't think anyone would want someone around here who simply creates accounts to bash people. |
||||||||||
| joshlyman |
I wasn’t mod 'bashing'. In expecting a reaction based on my taking them to task, it was guiding them towards much needed action as back then I couldn’t see what they felt their purpose was. I was never rude, pointlessly aggressive or accusatory with malice.
At a time when the forum had stopped being a forum so much as an arena for bullying, bashing and trolling, with all kinds of foulness being perpetrated on a daily basis, I pointed out that this was only happening for one reason: because the mods were allowing it to. That wasn’t rocket science but for a while I found myself as the very hub of rocket propulsion. There weren’t enough mods, for a start, and those that existed were sitting on their hands. It had to be pointed out that being a moderator didn’t involve displaying moderate views or behaviour. That never gets the job done. You keep forums hygienic by chucking out the rubbish. That’s how I’d always done it elsewhere, and how the other mods I knew did their work; for the benefit of everyone, other than the scum who like to drag things down to their own level. Like the ‘annotated josh lyman 2’ that just popped up. Pointless people, wasting time. (I’d forgotten about Grubbs though - so dim you could mock his weird attitudes and his response would be an enthusiastic ‘you rock!’ In a weird way you couldn't help but accept his stupidity. On his website he had a list of 'ambitions', one of which was to grow a beard!) I didn’t feel any real need to post or stick around after the discussions on proper changes became serious because I was pleased people took note and it all took off from there. I do still pop in, as I did before, and I have monitored the feeble decline of the outcasts elsewhere too, as that was amusing, the forum equivalent of carcrash tv. My main interests are rarely covered here, unless someone wants to start a forum for pre-Music Hall murder ballads? |
||||||||||
| Aimee |
I get you now Musical Geek, I just realised what you meant. The post had already been removed so I didn't see it.
Cheers. 
|
||||||||||
| Luc |
OHHH. I thought you saw it already.
Whoops. 
|
||||||||||
| Bianca. |
Does any mod other than GB have a problem with a.) the random chat thread, or B.) The Random Facts thread becoming more discussion oriented?
We really are not breaking any rules here.... All of our conversation is friendly and enjoyable... I don't think we should be being scolded. **steps off of soap box... backs away and sits down awkwardly feeling like the leader of a rebellion** **clearly is not the leader of a rebellion** |
||||||||||
| metaphor17 |
^ I like both of them, don't take them awaaaaaaaay! 
|
||||||||||
| PappyCat |
I really don't think there is a need for both of them. I figured the random facts thread was doing it's job well enough. | ||||||||||
| Bianca. |
Yes, but GB seemed to have a problem with Random Facts being SO OT, so we created another.. we can simply let that die if no one minds the current state of random facts... |
||||||||||
| PappyCat |
I think the point of him posting was that he didn't like reading people's personal conversations with each other not that it was OT. Adding the new one just gave him another random chatting thread to read.
I understand his point of view, but I don't think mods need to read every single post, especially in those crazy threads, but just check in. The posters will blue card a bad post if one pops up. |
||||||||||
| Luc |
How can something be off-topic in the "Random Facts" thread??
"Uh oh!  That's not random!"
|
||||||||||
| PappyCat |
Maybe if it was relevent? Lol? | ||||||||||
| Bianca. |
amen. |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
I nominate Mumsytype to be my official spokesperson. | ||||||||||
| Jordan |
I'm sure. Just about every time I say something and everyone starts moaning at me about it, you (or Aimee as well, actually) say what I meant in a much better way and I'm happy with it. | ||||||||||
| Matthew |
Excuse me, if you two are going to chat, I'd prefer you take it to PM or IM.
|
||||||||||
| Jordan |
Funny, I just edited your post to say that elsewhere. 
|
||||||||||
| Matthew |
Funny, I editted your edit! |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
Don't push it sunshine. |
||||||||||
| joshlyman |
It's like an episode of The Sweeney! |
||||||||||
| Matthew |
what?! | ||||||||||
| Jordan |
This is the Sweeney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLjaxEYo4VA The next words would be "You're nicked!" |
||||||||||
| Salome |
so the arbitrary warning for voicing opinions on members starts again. this is getting pathetic guys. If i get a warning for telling the truth about a member..she should get one for being totally rude and intolertant.
thats all i have to say. and btw.. anti-smoking nazi is a term used often her in the states or arent you aware of it. I was nice the first time you people approached me about it on IM..but this warning crap is uncalled for especially after the exchange we had yesterday. |
||||||||||
| vanillabean |
* S: (n) nazi (derogatory term for a person who is fanatically dedicated to, or seeks to control, some activity, practice, etc.)
Yeah it is defined as derogatory but from what I saw in the thread it was really the best way to describe someone's opinions. I am not trying to stir up sh*t or anything because I really like this forum, but just putting in my two cents. There are definitely worse things that could have been said. And right or wrong I don't feel that Salome was unprovoked. |
||||||||||
| Salome |
fine. I wont used "Nazi" on the boards...mods, just don't bother conversing with me. I find your attitudes toward the situation to be the definition of censorship. | ||||||||||
| Jordan |
Yet again Salome gets a warning and makes a song and dance about it in front of the rest of the forum. I dished out three warnings about two months ago, the other two people said nothing and accepted it but you said something along the lines of "When will the moderators ever learn?"
The fact is, we have learned. This is why this forum is as good as it is. Maybe it's you that hasn't learned which is why you've earned yourself another warning. Ordinarily, I would have said the above via PM but if people wish to discuss their private matters in public, I can go with that. There's always other boards, there's broadwayworld, Loppy's board, where do you wanna go people? |
||||||||||
| Aimee |
I’m sorry you have taken this so personally and as this was a joint mod decision you may not believe me but I really do understand and regret that you feel that way. I cannot comment on the point about it being used lightly in the USA as I don’t live there but here in the UK to call someone a Nazi is a grave insult and, as this is a multi-national board, it is not acceptable. Just to clarify for everyone here, it’s not using the word alone; it’s applying it as a deliberate insult to another member of the board. That's when it becomes unacceptable here on the forums because of the strong connotations and implications which go along with it. If you were to use the word in the context of a discussion then that’s fine. I have one other comment though, when you called another member of the board a 'f' word nazi wanting to segregate the jews, what response did you truly hope to elicit from her? If I had said that I personally would anticipate that she would be offended by it and that would do one of two things: one, insult me in return or two just keep quiet. As, on this board, insults are not allowed, she had little option but to stay polite or to risk a warning herself. You say you find the mods attitude to be the definition of censorship, to me insulting someone who can’t choose to answer back is censorship of a different kind, to me it’s ‘censorship by insult’. |
||||||||||
| Matthew |
I don't think that was all too necessary. |
||||||||||
| Salome |
everoyne has a right to express their feelings. aand this is the place to do it.
and yes GayBoy..your comment was bullshit..you know Loppy is a total moron so why bring her up? as for pappy...did she get a warning for the crap she pulled,I guarantee the answer is no. |
||||||||||
| Aimee |
You could be right, definitions of pulling crap vary and warnings are given according to the rules, nothing else. They are private unless you choose to talk about them yourself.
But wouldn't you rather forget this and post about theatre? |
||||||||||
| PappyCat |
Salome, I was asked to refrain from posting on the smoking thread. | ||||||||||
| DriveAPersonCrazy |
it's not her forum. you know that. she does not own, maintain, or have any power over it. that is like saying MDN is Salome's board. |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
I'm mistaken then. It was my impression that that board was set up by Loppy as a response to the perceived 'failings' of Chris's board as evidenced by http://talkmusical.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1174964725&page=1 .
I cannot comment further on the new board as that board has a restricted policy in that one has to be a member in order to read the posts from the members. I was going by the impression I got from http://talkmusical.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1175093456 I'm so sorry that I got it wrong. |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
Oh and I didn't know that. | ||||||||||
| DriveAPersonCrazy |
and I was under the impression you were (recently) informed by Quique that such is not the case.
my apologies for the misunderstanding, though perhaps you could stand to clean up your police work. Loppy does state it will be run by the "mf.net mods". |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
Personally, I don't recall such information being forthcoming from Quique. I could easily be wrong. I have been working damned hard these last couple of weeks on the task set from work and may have missed his proclaimants over the ownership/responsibilities of the new new board.
Your aggressive assertion of "It's not her forum. You know that" surprises me not in the least. Tragic that, really. |
||||||||||
| Quique |
I was perplexed as to why the assumption was made that the new site belonged to Loppy, since I remembered telling a mod it was actually P.D.'s. I assumed that all the mods eventually were informed of this. Oops, my mistake. | ||||||||||
| DriveAPersonCrazy |
no more than your sarcastic and equally aggressive responses. |
||||||||||
| Jordan |
Well there we have it folks, Loppy's board is PD's board. Any clearer? Do we actually care? Moving right along then. | ||||||||||
| vanillabean |
Case and point... |
||||||||||
| Salome |
Vanillabean is my new favorite person on the boards..love ya sweetie! |