Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Music Production turning into an advertising board

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    stevenmu wrote: »
    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.
    If you frequent the MP production and know the persons involved, then you'll know it was based on a very valid point by the OP.

    If you don't frequent the MP forum, well then I'm afraid you're not really helping anything because there's a little more to it than just those 2 posts.


  • Options
    #93
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    440Hz wrote: »
    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.
    He may be, but that post you quoted wasn't about me it was about the OP.


  • Options
    #94
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Savman wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not immune to listening to feedback, whether its in this forum or in its own thread in MP. After jtsuited's issue was raised I participated in the in-thread discussion (before it turned nasty) as well as talking to relevant users and frobisher via PM. After I banned you I invited users to discuss the issue in a new thread if they desired. I'm sorry you disagree with the way things have been handled but your reaction to it was out of line.


  • Options
    #95
    440Hz
    Registered Users Posts: 6,424 ✭✭✭440Hz


    Savman wrote: »
    He may be, but that post you quoted wasn't about me it was about the OP.


    Sorry, wrong click. But the point still stands, your ban was for not heeding the request of a moderator to end the current discussion in that particular case. That is all. No need for a 'fight the powah' argument there. He simply asked you to stop, and you did not. End of really.


  • Options
    #96
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    Actually back up, for the record the only PM I got was after banning.
    TelePaul wrote: »
    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.
    :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Savman wrote: »
    Actually back up, for the record the only PM I got was after banning.

    :mad:

    Irrelevant point. You were warned in-thread, a warning is a warning whether it came via PM or not.


  • Options
    #98
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Savman wrote: »
    Actually back up, for the record the only PM I got was after banning.

    :mad:

    Ah okay. Sorry, Cornbb said he PM'd you, wasn't sure when. So it was just the warnings then?


  • Options
    #99
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    Let's get one thing straight here, I have to take exception to the notion that somebody who raises an issue is just launching a mini crusade to "fight the powah". Frankly the very suggestion is absurd.

    This could have been sorted out much easier if certain people had the maturity to know how to handle things properly. But I shan't be dwelling on what might/should have been. My input here is to add weight to the OP's argument because some of you were making him out to be fighting a one man battle and were quite obviously ganging up.

    He raised a good point, too bad it was lost on some.


  • Options
    #100
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    cornbb wrote: »
    Irrelevant point. You were warned in-thread, a warning is a warning whether it came via PM or not.
    It's very bloody relevant, TelePaul is under the illusion I disregarded warnings 3 times that never existed.


  • Options
    #101
    440Hz
    Registered Users Posts: 6,424 ✭✭✭440Hz


    Savman, it was merely an expression, which is often used when someone questions what was a entirely justifiable ban. Apologies if you took offense to that, I'm not out to take sides here, merely pointing out that in the case of the ban, cornbb was right.

    As for people ganging up on the OP, I'm sorry that it looks that way, but that is often what happens on feedback when one person begins a discussion that seems to be against the popular feelings on the forum, as is the case here.

    And yeah, he raised a good point - doesn't mean the other MP forum members have to agree with it though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Ah okay. Sorry, Cornbb said he PM'd you, wasn't sure when. So it was just the warnings then?
    A warning. Singular. On the thread. That I already admitted I disregarded in the hope that common sense might prevail. How wrong I was. But life goes on.


  • Options
    #103
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Savman wrote: »
    Let's get one thing straight here, I have to take exception to the notion that somebody who raises an issue is just launching a mini crusade to "fight the powah". Frankly the very suggestion is absurd.

    This could have been sorted out much easier if certain people had the maturity to know how to handle things properly. But I shan't be dwelling on what might/should have been. My input here is to add weight to the OP's argument because some of you were making him out to be fighting a one man battle and were quite obviously ganging up.

    He raised a good point, too bad it was lost on some.

    I'm confused, you initially seemed to be making a big deal over the fact that you were banned unfairly (in your opinion), and then you took issue with Cornbbs ability to moderate, and now now you're saying the real issue is the one started by jtsuited about the potential pursuit of commerce on the music production forum? Which is it?


  • Options
    #104
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    440Hz wrote: »
    Savman, it was merely an expression, which is often used when someone questions what was a entirely justifiable ban.
    440Hz wrote:
    doesn't mean the other MP forum members have to agree with it though.
    As you can see, the same argument could go the opposite way.


  • Options
    #105
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Savman wrote: »
    A warning. Singular. On the thread. That I already admitted I disregarded in the hope that common sense might prevail. How wrong I was. But life goes on.

    So there were no other warnings give to you or jtsuited?


  • Options
    #106
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    TelePaul wrote: »
    I'm confused, you initially seemed to be making a big deal over the fact that you were banned unfairly (in your opinion), and then you took issue with Cornbbs ability to moderate, and now now you're saying the real issue is the one started by jtsuited about the potential pursuit of commerce on the music production forum? Which is it?
    Allow me. In my opinion, I was banned unfairly because I questioned cornbb's ability to moderate a discussion about the potential pursuit of commerce on the music production forum.


  • Options
    #107
    440Hz
    Registered Users Posts: 6,424 ✭✭✭440Hz


    Savman wrote: »
    As you can see, the same argument could go the opposite way.


    Of course.


    Cornbb is not complaining about the feedback, he is supporting and justifying his decision.

    Also. please do not alter quotes like that. It's not a good idea.


  • Options
    #108
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    TelePaul wrote: »
    So there were no other warnings give to you or jtsuited?
    C'mon ffs, I am not here to speak for him nor anyone else. I don't see how the hell I could know if he received 1 warning or a hundred. Silly.


  • Options
    #109
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Savman wrote: »
    Allow me. In my opinion, I was banned unfairly because I questioned cornbb's ability to moderate a discussion about the potential pursuit of commerce on the music production forum.

    That's what this thread is about though....it seems your other arguments have very little real bearing on that, and it does look like you've brought them up just to undermine Cornbbs credibility.


  • Options
    #110
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    440Hz wrote: »
    Of course.


    Cornbb is not complaining about the feedback, he is supporting and justifying his decision.

    Also. please do not alter quotes like that. It's not a good idea.
    Please do not concern yourself with how I choose to quote.:)
    Not a good idea to you maybe, but it saves me the bother of typing the same darn thing out again for the umpteenth time.


  • Options
    #111
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Savman wrote: »
    C'mon ffs, I am not here to speak for him nor anyone else. I don't see how the hell I could know if he received 1 warning or a hundred. Silly.

    Well here's why I'm asking: if jtsuited was given a warning in the thread for conducting himself in a certain way, and you go right ahead and conduct yourself in the same way, then you're really on a hiding to nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Savman wrote: »
    Allow me. In my opinion, I was banned unfairly because I questioned cornbb's ability to moderate a discussion about the potential pursuit of commerce on the music production forum.

    Allow me to retort then. I believe your ban was completely justified because you ignored a direct warning from me to stop dragging the thread off topic.

    I am taking all of this Feedback on board, believe it or not, I just have a hard time understanding why you feel so hard done by after blatantly ignoring a very explicit warning.


  • Options
    #113
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    TelePaul wrote: »
    That's what this thread is about though....it seems your other arguments have very little real bearing on that, and it does look like you've brought them up just to undermine Cornbbs credibility.
    You're damn right I'm undermining his credibility, albeit lack thereof. The whole thing is related, surely you can see that. Funny thing is I never even agreed with jtsuited's original point about the user in question, it's the preceding events that have led me here.


  • Options
    #114
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Savman wrote: »
    Please do not concern yourself with how I choose to quote.:)
    Not a good idea to you maybe, but it saves me the bother of typing the same darn thing out again for the umpteenth time.

    You quoted something that 440Hz said and attributed it to me. Not a good idea.


  • Options
    #115
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Well here's why I'm asking: if jtsuited was given a warning in the thread for conducting himself in a certain way, and you go right ahead and conduct yourself in the same way, then you're really on a hiding to nothing.
    Read the thread, coincidentally the only time the word "ban" was used was when I chimed in. Strange that, seems like I was facing a loaded gun regardless what I said. Discussion should never be taboo, that's my whole reason for persisting then and now.
    cornbb wrote:
    Allow me to retort then. I believe your ban was completely justified because you ignored a direct warning from me to stop dragging the thread off topic.

    I am taking all of this Feedback on board, believe it or not, I just have a hard time understanding why you feel so hard done by after blatantly ignoring a very explicit warning.
    What was worst case scenario if the original discussion had been allowed continue before your intervention? If you really think it had reached its point and had descended into mudslinging, well that's where we disagree.
    cornbb wrote:
    You quoted something that 440Hz said and attributed it to me. Not a good idea.
    Whaddya expect, I can only type so fast when it's coming from all angles. Mistakes will be made.


  • Options
    #116
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Savman wrote: »
    You're damn right I'm undermining his credibility, albeit lack thereof. The whole thing is related, surely you can see that. Funny thing is I never even agreed with jtsuited's original point about the user in question, it's the preceding events that have led me here.

    Here's how I see it, straight up. Jtsuited raised what I consider to be a pretty serious question regarding a certain member of boards. This has nothing to do with why you were banned (I'm sure that at this stage there can be no doubt for the reason behind this; you ignored a direct warning). If you have nothing to add to jtsuited's post, you shouldn't be posting here. Your issue is altogether different.


  • Options
    #117
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055245413

    You have to admire the timing.


  • Options
    #118
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Here's how I see it, straight up. Jtsuited raised what I consider to be a pretty serious question regarding a certain member of boards. This has nothing to do with why you were banned (I'm sure that at this stage there can be no doubt for the reason behind this; you ignored a direct warning). If you have nothing to add to jtsuited's post, you shouldn't be posting here. Your issue is altogether different.
    No it's not, I can't stress that enough, seriously. jtsuited's point is that PaulBrewer could be using MP as a means to tout for business out in the open and helped by the ignorance and/or acceptance of the Mods. Obviously this indicates that jtsuited has a problem with the moderation of the forum.

    I think that most definitely ties into my beef with cornbb. I think anyone who suggests this is not all related isn't understanding anything.


  • Options
    #119
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Savman wrote: »
    Read the thread, coincidentally the only time the word "ban" was used was when I chimed in. Strange that, seems like I was facing a loaded gun regardless what I said. Discussion should never be taboo, that's my whole reason for persisting then and now.

    The word "ban" applied to everyone, you were the only one who chose to ignore the warning and hence you end up here.
    What was worst case scenario if the original discussion had been allowed continue before your intervention? If you really think it had reached its point and had descended into mudslinging, well that's where we disagree.

    Its completely irrelevant where the discussion would have ended up, it was already turning personal and it was completely off-topic, hence I saw fit to delete it.

    I did invite people to start a new thread to discuss this immediately after banning you so quit your accusations that I was stifling discussion.


  • Options
    #120
    Savman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,323 ✭✭✭Savman


    cornbb wrote: »
    I am the Moderator, hear me roar
    Quite impressive but won't win you many friends.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    Savman wrote: »
    No it's not, I can't stress that enough, seriously. jtsuited's point is that PaulBrewer could be using MP as a means to tout for business out in the open and helped by the ignorance and/or acceptance of the Mods. Obviously this indicates that jtsuited has a problem with the moderation of the forum.

    I think that most definitely ties into my beef with cornbb. I think anyone who suggests this is not all related isn't understanding anything.

    But you're bandwagoning. And it does a discredit to the most important issue, which is for me, at least, the idea of Music Production being used as a commercial medium. But right now, this thread looks something like: ''Cornbb doesn't do enough to regulate the commerical entities/Cornbb is a bad mod/Cornbb banned me for no reason/Cornbb once pushed a dog around on its hind legs like a hoover for cheap laughs*''

    *for the purposes of illustration


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement