Music Production turning into an advertising board

studiorat

Lads!
Before I go to bed I'll mention, while I'm not mad on the moderation some of the forums on B.ie. MP is not the worst by a long shot.

Maybe you should look at the links I've posted.

TelePaul

studiorat wrote: »

Lads!
Before I go to bed I'll mention, while I'm not mad on the moderation some of the forums on B.ie. MP is not the worst by a long shot.

Maybe you should look at the links I've posted.

I couldn't access one? Is it for the instruments forum?

jtsuited

TelePaul wrote: »

Well originally you were pointing out that Cornbb may have been in agreement with your views. So which is it? Either Cornbb was keeping an eye on Paul Brewer (toeing the line/coming close to crossing the line/whatever) or Cornbb was just appeasing you. Pick one.

Ok just to clarify again. Cornbb had said he agreed to a certain extent with me. when the issue is brought here he says my accusation is wholly inaccurate.

Two contradictory statements.

Then to counter this he says he only said he'd agreed with me to 'shut me up and keep me off his back'.
And i'm pointing out how pathetic this whole scenario is. Maybe he should have had the balls to say he disagreed and not be pushed around so easily.

studiorat

Both on the instruments forum.

The Thomann sticky and the Music Waker sale thread.;)

TelePaul

jtsuited wrote: »

Then to counter this he says he only said he'd agreed with me to 'shut me up and keep me off his back'.
And i'm pointing out how pathetic this whole scenario is. Maybe he should have had the balls to say he disagreed and not be pushed around so easily.

Let me ask you something. If he had disagreed with you via PM would you have written back to him?

TelePaul

studiorat wrote: »

Both on the instruments forum.

The Thomann sticky and the Music Waker sale thread.;)

Ah, good point.

jtsuited

i would have taken it here. as i have done now.

TelePaul

jtsuited wrote: »

i would have taken it here. as i have done now.

Sounds like you're gonna be a tough one to please!

jtsuited

TelePaul wrote: »

Ah, good point.

no not good point. i know on some forums on boards this would never have happened. i know on others it would have and nothing would have been said. not really a basis for an argument.

it's akin to saying, sure they're allowed to do x in other countries, therefore there's no problem with doing it here. even though there are clear rules to the contrary!

jtsuited

TelePaul wrote: »

Sounds like you're gonna be a tough one to please!

you know you're probably right!:)

AlmightyCushion

Jtsuited, just to let you know, advertising is tolerated to a certain degree if a mod believes it is relevant to the forum and it's members.

TelePaul

jtsuited wrote: »

no not good point. i know on some forums on boards this would never have happened. i know on others it would have and nothing would have been said. not really a basis for an argument.

Well first off, Paul Brewer has broken no rules. So no problem there. Second, some forums are certainly more conducive to a community element. It's just the way it is. Look, I've my say, you've had yours, some others have had theres...best thing to do is wait for an Admin to give their view, you know?

jtsuited

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Jtsuited, just to let you know, advertising is tolerated to a certain degree if a mod believes it is relevant to the forum and it's members.

ah fair enough if that's the case. It was just I was informed by a mod that using a forum for commercial reasons was not tolerated.

thus that mod didn't know this fact.

i'm only going on what i've been told here by certain mods (not much about it in the charter) and this is where I have the problem. It's been blatantly at odds with what's going on.
If this point had been made this clearly a while ago, this wouldn't have escalated. However I can only presume the mod in question is either a)not aware of this fact or b) somehow forgot it.

cornbb

jtsuited wrote: »

ah fair enough if that's the case. It was just I was informed by a mod that using a forum for commercial reasons was not tolerated.

thus that mod didn't know this fact.

i'm only going on what i've been told here by certain mods (not much about it in the charter) and this is where I have the problem. It's been blatantly at odds with what's going on.
If this point had been made this clearly a while ago, this wouldn't have escalated. However I can only presume the mod in question is either a)not aware of this fact or b) somehow forgot it.

Whoa, do I detect a sudden and desperate change of tack??

AlmightyCushion said advertising may be allowed if it benefits the forum - no one said the user in question was advertising, and no-one said such a policy was in place in the Music Production forum. Again, the rules in the Music Production charter are quite clear.

So are you actually now accepting that the there has not been a rule violation by PaulBrewer?

Beruthiel

jtsuited wrote: »

ah fair enough if that's the case. It was just I was informed by a mod that using a forum for commercial reasons was not tolerated.

If someone registers on boards and their first x amount of posts is blatent advertising, they are site banned.

If someone is a valued member of the community, is helpful and is good for the forum they post in, then they are given a certain amount of licence as long as it's not taking the piss.
This decision is normally left to the Mods discretion.

Savman

Whoah why didn't someone tell me this thread was happening.

Firstly, my stance on the "shilling" remains the same and everything everyone has said so far is partly true, Brewer does have commercially vested interests but that's not a crime. Apparently the discussion of such activity is a crime and will get you swiftly banned from MP. Thanks cornbb, great job you're doing there.

jtsuited you've been successful in that you've made absolutely certain that no commercial posts will go unnoticed, sometimes you need someone to create a mini-furore just so that everyone can understand the ground rules about what's acceptable involvement and what's just touting for business.

My main beef is not with Paul, but with the "moderator" (use the term lightly) who silenced the whole conversation. Sorry, but I refuse to be intimidated by a person threatening to wave the magic ban wand simply because a particular discussion doesn't tickle their fancy. Anyone who read the thread will surely know there was no malice, no abuse, nothing untoward going on. jtsuited brought up something that needed to be discussed and the mods response was to delete posts and threaten almighty bans for any further talk on the issue.

Something smells really fishy here. If I'm the first person to actually be banned from MP and it comes after what I deem to be a sensible discussion relating to one user's activities, well I guess that tells me all I need to know.

So to any MP users, rant away, just remember not to discuss anything relating to "he we don't speak of" or you could find yourself cast down with the sodomites. I guess some folks just have friends in all the right places.

TelePaul

Savman wrote: »

Whoah why didn't someone tell me this thread was happening.

Firstly, my stance on the "shilling" remains the same and everything everyone has said so far is partly true, Brewer does have commercially vested interests but that's not a crime. Apparently the discussion of such activity is a crime and will get you swiftly banned from MP. Thanks cornbb, great job you're doing there.

jtsuited you've been successful in that you've made absolutely certain that no commercial posts will go unnoticed, sometimes you need someone to create a mini-furore just so that everyone can understand the ground rules about what's acceptable involvement and what's just touting for business.

My main beef is not with Paul, but with the "moderator" (use the term lightly) who silenced the whole conversation. Sorry, but I refuse to be intimidated by a person threatening to wave the magic ban wand simply because a particular discussion doesn't tickle their fancy. Anyone who read the thread will surely know there was no malice, no abuse, nothing untoward going on. jtsuited brought up something that needed to be discussed and the mods response was to delete posts and threaten almighty bans for any further talk on the issue.

Something smells really fishy here. If I'm the first person to actually be banned from MP and it comes after what I deem to be a sensible discussion relating to one user's activities, well I guess that tells me all I need to know.

So to any MP users, rant away, just remember not to discuss anything relating to "he we don't speak of" or you could find yourself cast down with the sodomites. I guess some folks just have friends in all the right places.

In cornbb's defense, he is by no means a hard-ass when it comes to moderating. And he did warn you that further discussion would result in a banning. You could've brought it to feedback like jtsuited did. Not having a go, just saying this in the interest of fairness.

Savman

TelePaul wrote: »

In cornbb's defense, he is by no means a hard-ass when it comes to moderating. And he did warn you that further discussion would result in a banning. You could've brought it to feedback like jtsuited did. Not having a go, just saying this in the interest of fairness.

Ok explain this to me "in the interest of fairness":
Apparently, according to cornbb, Paul was "toeing the line" but doing so in such a way that he didn't break any rules. What happens? Nothing, he gets a pm with some off thread dealings going on and the posts on the thread are wiped, we don't want to fall out with Mr Brewer because he's a "regular contributer".

But I chime in, arguably "toeing the line", and what happens? I get abruptly banned! It means nothing that I'm also a "regular contributer" and obviously cornbb has no reason to keep me on side. I'm sorry I can't offer discounts on microphones but that ain't no way to moderate a supposedly "Pro Audio" board. Where's the "Pro" moderation? I don't see any "interest of fairness" there.

cornbb

Savman wrote: »

Whoah why didn't someone tell me this thread was happening.

Firstly, my stance on the "shilling" remains the same and everything everyone has said so far is partly true, Brewer does have commercially vested interests but that's not a crime. Apparently the discussion of such activity is a crime and will get you swiftly banned from MP. Thanks cornbb, great job you're doing there.

jtsuited you've been successful in that you've made absolutely certain that no commercial posts will go unnoticed, sometimes you need someone to create a mini-furore just so that everyone can understand the ground rules about what's acceptable involvement and what's just touting for business.

My main beef is not with Paul, but with the "moderator" (use the term lightly) who silenced the whole conversation. Sorry, but I refuse to be intimidated by a person threatening to wave the magic ban wand simply because a particular discussion doesn't tickle their fancy. Anyone who read the thread will surely know there was no malice, no abuse, nothing untoward going on. jtsuited brought up something that needed to be discussed and the mods response was to delete posts and threaten almighty bans for any further talk on the issue.

Something smells really fishy here. If I'm the first person to actually be banned from MP and it comes after what I deem to be a sensible discussion relating to one user's activities, well I guess that tells me all I need to know.

So to any MP users, rant away, just remember not to discuss anything relating to "he we don't speak of" or you could find yourself cast down with the sodomites. I guess some folks just have friends in all the right places.

Savman, you were not banned for partaking in a discussion, you were banned for ignoring a direct warning in the thread. To suggest that I'm in the habit of stifling discussion on the forum is ridiculous. Those posts were deleted for a good reason, they were straying into libel territory. You're the first person I've ever had to ban in over a year of modding the forum so to suggest that I've been heavy-handed is a bit over the top. If you disagree, go start another Feedback thread and see how far you get.

cornbb

Savman wrote: »

But I chime in, arguably "toeing the line", and what happens? I get abruptly banned! It means nothing that I'm also a "regular contributer" and obviously cornbb has no reason to keep me on side. I'm sorry I can't offer discounts on microphones but that ain't no way to moderate a supposedly "Pro Audio" board. Where's the "Pro" moderation? I don't see any "interest of fairness" there.

You ignored a direct warning that the next poster to go off-topic would get banned, what the hell was I supposed to do? Stop acting like a heroic advocate for free speech. I make no excuses for not being "Pro" as you call it, I'm not paid to deal with your crap you know.

Here's the thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055231963

TelePaul

Savman wrote: »

Ok explain this to me "in the interest of fairness":
Apparently, according to cornbb, Paul was "toeing the line" but doing so in such a way that he didn't break any rules. What happens? Nothing, he gets a pm with some off thread dealings going on and the posts on the thread are wiped, we don't want to fall out with Mr Brewer because he's a "regular contributer".

But I chime in, arguably "toeing the line", and what happens? I get abruptly banned! It means nothing that I'm also a "regular contributer" and obviously cornbb has no reason to keep me on side. I'm sorry I can't offer discounts on microphones but that ain't no way to moderate a supposedly "Pro Audio" board. Where's the "Pro" moderation? I don't see any "interest of fairness" there.

Firstly, can we abandon the phrase 'toeing the line' indefinetely, it's caused way too much confusion already.

'In the interest of fairness' relates explicitly as to why you were banned; Cornbb asked you to leave the issue and you didn't. Generally, when a mod warns you to drop something and you persist, it never bodes well.

Savman

cornbb wrote:

To suggest that I'm in the habit of stifling discussion on the forum is ridiculous.

You may not have been in the habit, but seems like it could be a new thing for ye.

cornbb wrote:

Those posts were deleted for a good reason, they were straying into libel territory.

Arsebiscuits. There was nothing there that could potentially defame anybody's character. The part you're obviously not getting is that jtsuited was perfectly right to raise the issue for discussion and it was the right place for it, inside one of PaulBrewer's threads about something or another. You jumped the gun, pity you don't realise that.

cornbb wrote:

You're the first person I've ever had to ban in over a year of modding the forum so to suggest that I've been heavy-handed is a bit over the top.

And this is the first forum I've been banned from in over a year, so to suggest I was out of order is "a bit over the top". See the thing is, people can always twist things to suit their own misguided perceptions. I'm not serial offender and you're not a heavy handed mod, but hey here we are with you having kicked me out of MP. Interesting that...guess your good record is broken eh?

cornbb wrote:

If you disagree, go start another Feedback thread and see how far you get.

To gain what exactly? Like I told you in PM, my involvement in the MP forum was more as a means to actually help others than myself.

The issue raised by jtsuited held water, whether you care to admit it or not, there have been endless posts from Paul about various events he had some commercial involvement in. I didn't mind that he was upfront about it, but obviously some people did. IMHO you have absolutely no right to determine who has valid cause for complaint and who hasn't, like anyone in the industry the person in question was more than able to defend his corner without you having to babysit.

Savman

TelePaul wrote: »

Firstly, can we abandon the phrase 'toeing the line' indefinetely, it's caused way too much confusion already.

'In the interest of fairness' relates explicitly as to why you were banned; Cornbb asked you to leave the issue and you didn't. Generally, when a mod warns you to drop something and you persist, it never bodes well.

That would imply the mod always knows best. Show me the qualification that sets mods apart from general users like you or me? Why do you think the Feedback forum is as busy as it is, because quite regularly mods get it horribly wrong. It can happen with any position, someone wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and goes all fire and brimstone or ends up banning someone just because their other half is having a barney with them.

What I'm saying is, human nature = human error, the 2 go hand in hand. I maintain that the discussion was valid, conducted in the correct manner, and that cornbb is the only person guilty of threadspoiling.

TelePaul

Savman wrote: »

That would imply the mod always knows best. Show me the qualification that sets mods apart from general users like you or me? Why do you think the Feedback forum is as busy as it is, because quite regularly mods get it horribly wrong. It can happen with any position, someone wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and goes all fire and brimstone or ends up banning someone just because their other half is having a barney with them.

What I'm implying is that if a mod tells you not to do something because doing so will result in you being banned, and you go ahead and do it, then you shouldn't be too surprised by the results. Whether or not Cornbb was correct in asking you to stop posting on the issue is a different issue altogether, different even from the original issue raised by jsuited.

Savman

TelePaul wrote: »

What I'm implying is that if a mod tells you not to do something because doing so will result in you being banned, and you go ahead and do it, then you shouldn't be too surprised by the results. Whether or not Cornbb was correct in asking you to stop posting on the issue is a different issue altogether, different even from the original issue raised by jsuited.

Ok let's reflect for a moment.

cornbb wrote:

The thread was becoming a farce and I dealt with it in a fitting manner after PMing two of the posters involved.

This is the third and final warning to keep this thread on-topic, the next offender will get banned. No more back-seat moderation please.

me wrote:

How's the view?

Someone took exception to one user posting with commercial interests, there was a civilized discussion and your solution was to lock the thread prematurely. Not very clever at all. At no point did anybody take the thread "off topic", in fact it's as relevant as things get to Music Production and Paul was doing a grand job of explaining his corner.

But whatever, if it makes you feel better ban away oh mighty one, sure why not just lock the whole forum altogether.

We're all big boys here ffs.

Now, bar the odd smiley, I still stand by what I posted. cornbb probably figured he had to impress the other kids in the playground by following through on his statement, I kinda expect it but a part of me expected more. If he cannot defend his own moderation without retorting to banning well then it truly is a sorry state of affairs.

I didn't realise we were in Goodfellas-mode of moderation now. Disagree? Banned. Question my authoritaaaa? Banned. Ignore my executive order? Banned.

Strangely enough it's not half as much an issue on any other Proaudio boards I use. Go figure.

TelePaul

Savman wrote: »

Ok let's reflect for a moment.

I didn't realise we were in Goodfellas-mode of moderation now. Disagree? Banned. Question my authoritaaaa? Banned. Ignore my executive order? Banned.

Again, you weren't band for disagreeing, or questioning authority (not even sure how that came into it). You were banned for purposefully going against the explicit wishes of the moderator, who had warned you not once, not twice, but three times, including via a PM. If you felt hard done by, you could've taken it to feedback.

cornbb

A ban threat on-thread is usually sufficient to get things back on track, unfortunately in your case it inexplicably didn't do the trick. I didn't think I'd actually have to ban anyone, but after your retort it would have been pretty bad modding from me if I didn't ban you. What mod would have done any differently? Once again: you were not banned for disagreeing or for raising an objection, you were banned for going against a very explicit warning. The posts you quoted above are self evident.

Savman

cornbb wrote: »

The posts you quoted above are self evident.

Yes, to your case and mine. I knew exactly what I was doing, which is more than I can say for you unfortunately. The handling of this whole affair leaves a lot to be desired, in fact it's almost farcical.

Anyway I'm not gonna huff and puff in the hope I can knock your mental brick wall down, just wanted to chime in here because from the outside looking in it would appear none of you apart from perhaps Telepaul have actually taken on board any of the issues raised by jtsuited. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the whole damn point of Feedback? If you're just gonna stand there with your fingers in your ears shouting "la la la la la" then you shouldn't waste your own time lurking on a forum that invites and encourages constructive criticism. Obviously some folks are immune to that.

stevenmu

Moderators exist to keep the discussions in their forum flowing freely. If people try to hijack a discussion to turn it in to something else off-topic, they are interfering with the flow of discussion and it's a moderators job to try to get the thread back on topic. The usuall way of doing this is via a warning. If people continue to ignore the warning then moderators have to force the issue with a ban. This doesn't look to me like it's anything to do with disagreeing with a moderator, and everything to do with you refusing to play by the rules.

440Hz

TelePaul wrote: »

You were banned for purposefully going against the explicit wishes of the moderator, who had warned you not once, not twice, but three times, including via a PM.

Savman, in fairness, you were banned because you continued the argument after the mod threaten a ban for anyone who kept going with the fight. TelePaul is spot on.

cornbb wrote: »

A ban threat on-thread is usually sufficient to get things back on track, unfortunately in your case it inexplicably didn't do the trick. I didn't think I'd actually have to ban anyone, but after your retort it would have been pretty bad modding from me if I didn't ban you. What mod would have done any differently?

IMHO, the only difference you might find in how other mods would have handles this is that certain users would have been banned earlier and the thread locked. So, cornbb was being lenient giving people the benefit of the doubt that they would/could shush. The ban threat, I personally believe, was a threat that was made hoping people would drop the matter, I do believe cornbb never expected to have to act on it.

Furthermore, seeing as this is not Savman's feedback thread - in relation to the original topic here - I'm afraid I lost a good deal of faith in the OP's argument when he started quoting from Private Messages. I realise you feel you were trying to make a point, but there were other ways of doing this, quoting PMs is not good form.