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

Why is Boards.ie like the Ministry of Truth...

Options
1…89101214

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AC:

    1. I used "Sherlock Holmes" because I didn't want to put a real celebrities name in there. That would have been abusive.

    2. Defining the type of comments that are considered abuse has become what this thread is about. For the last 100 posts or so, I reckon.

    3. "Treating people off site the exact same way as members here with regards to abuse is completely un-workable."

    Why? Why is saying that you can't use this site to aim abuse at anyone "un-workable"?

    4: So are you looking for abuse to be treated the same whether it's aimed at users or people off site or not? And, what exactly is it that you want to get rid of?

    I've said this numerous times. Numerous times.

    I want to get rid of the perception that personal abuse is condoned on Boards.ie. By "abuse" I mean someone coming to the site and using it to aim insulting, offensive or derogatory comments at someone (anyone!) just for the sake of doing so - out of context with the discussion or with malicous intent to damage that person's reputation.

    There's a big difference between criticising someone for what they do and abusing them for who they are, isn't there?


  • Options
    #333
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Darragh my main concern and the motivation behind me posting is that I like the site as it is, and would be concerned that any changes would destroy it. In particular AH.

    I understand that (and thank you) but "any changes?"

    So if I said that you can no longer come to Boards.ie and direct abuse at people, that would change it?

    Because under the terms of use that everyone operates under for over a year now, one of the agreements is that
    4. What you agree to when joining Boards.ie

     You agree NOT to use Boards.ie to:
    • defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others
    • post any abusive, harmful, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, indecent, profane, inappropriate, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable Material, except where the content is appropriate to the content of the forum and you have been granted specific permission to do so and subject to our guidelines on said content

    And that hasn't changed the site too much. I just think that Boards.ie needs to post a clearer statement on this that everyone can be pointed towards, especially by moderators who can take appropriate action on it.

    That's all I want. No major change. I just want us to do what we say we do and be very clear about it.


  • Options
    #334
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    I understand that (and thank you) but "any changes?"

    So if I said that you can no longer come to Boards.ie and direct abuse at people, that would change it?

    Because under the terms of use that everyone operates under for over a year now, one of the agreements is that

    And that hasn't changed the site too much. I just think that Boards.ie needs to post a clearer statement on this that everyone can be pointed towards, especially by moderators who can take appropriate action on it.

    That's all I want. No major change. I just want us to do what we say we do and be very clear about it.

    It hasn't changed the site because pretty much no one reads them (when was the last time you actually read them when installing software or signing up to a site). You could change the terms and conditions that you aren't allowed to use the word "the" on this site and that a user can only post a comment in the presence of a unicorn and the site would stay the same.
    Darragh wrote: »
    3. "Treating people off site the exact same way as members here with regards to abuse is completely un-workable."

    Why? Why is saying that you can't use this site to aim abuse at anyone "un-workable"?

    Because then you have moderators banning people for calling Gaddafi a bollocks or saying some guy who was convicted of raping and killing a load of women is a scumbag. And they're just the extreme end of the scale. You'd also be banning people for calling a politician an idiot.
    Darragh wrote: »
    4: So are you looking for abuse to be treated the same whether it's aimed at users or people off site or not? And, what exactly is it that you want to get rid of?

    I've said this numerous times. Numerous times.

    I want to get rid of the perception that personal abuse is condoned on Boards.ie. By "abuse" I mean someone coming to the site and using it to aim insulting, offensive or derogatory comments at someone (anyone!) just for the sake of doing so - out of context with the discussion or with malicous intent to damage that person's reputation.

    There's a big difference between criticising someone for what they do and abusing them for who they are, isn't there?

    Sow why did you say you don't want to stop people saying things like "x celeb is an asshole, I hate that dickhead". The two as I see it are incompatible.


  • Options
    #335
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Where did I say that AC? Can you point that out to me please?


  • Options
    #336
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    Where did I say that AC? Can you point that out to me please?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71295822&postcount=317


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Dostoevsky
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Dostoevsky


    Dudess wrote: »
    ... when it comes to David McSavage-bashing threads? The way they're just vaporised, and thus never existed...?

    Seriously, if you're just going to delete threads without a word, maybe you should put up a sticky explaining the website's position on this topic to its members/contributors?

    I'm not itching to attack the guy or anything - my only view on him is if he's going to dish it out, he should be prepared to take it, but the way these threads are being dealt with in such a secretive manner doesn't look too great imo...

    On the other hand David McSavage is a known individual who has a right to be free from being unfairly targeted by anonymous individuals on an internet message board. It's not rocket science, and it shouldn't need Irish law to protect the guy's rights against such an anonymous onslaught. It's a matter of decency.


  • Options
    #338
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    I like that Darragh ..

    Just continue the debate through my radio speakers why don't you :p


  • Options
    #339
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71295822&postcount=317


    And where in *that* post did I make the statement you say I did?


  • Options
    #340
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    And where in *that* post did I make the statement you say I did?

    This part:

    What's interesting to me in the amount of people apparently battling against me on this one is that I've never actually said that I think a statement like

    Quote:
    "Bono is an arsehole, I hate that dickhead!"?
    is the kind of abusive statement I want to get rid of.


  • Options
    #341
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    I'm confuddled now.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    This part:

    What's interesting to me in the amount of people apparently battling against me on this one is that I've never actually said that I think a statement like

    Quote:
    "Bono is an arsehole, I hate that dickhead!"?
    is the kind of abusive statement I want to get rid of.

    That doesn't say that I think statements like that are okay. It just points out that I never said they weren't either.

    AC do you think someone shoud be allowed to use Boards.ie to abuse someone? Yes or No.

    Same question to anyone/everyone else.


  • Options
    #343
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I think its starting to become an argument about the argument....

    For ze record, Darragh referenced this post in what he thought was a good definition of what was to be kept and what was to be ditched.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71278389&postcount=287

    Personally, I - cynical fucker, and not too keen on the idea from the get go - think thats fair and reasonable. It stops stupidity, and allows fair comment.

    It might be a good idea to focus on that post with regard to further conversation, as a number of us thanked the post and seemed to be in agreement with the sentiment.

    Or yez could continue arguing...


  • Options
    #344
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    This please and thanks ^^^^


  • Options
    #345
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    That doesn't say that I think statements like that are okay. It just points out that I never said they weren't either.

    AC do you think someone shoud be allowed to use Boards.ie to abuse someone? Yes or No.

    Same question to anyone/everyone else.

    So you want to get rid of posts like that but you find it interesting that people are battling you on getting rid of a post like that despite you saying multiple times that you want to get rid of abuse and that it has no place here. I fail to see what is so interesting about people taking your words and interpreting them correctly.

    As for, like I said above, extending the abuse rule to people who are off site is un-workable.


  • Options
    #346
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    This please and thanks ^^^^

    So are we ditching this?:
    I don't see why they can't be dealt with in the same manner.

    "Darragh Doyle is a f*cking stupid cnut"
    "Outlaw Pete is a f*cking stupid cnut"
    "Sherlock Holmes is a f*cking stupid cnut"

    There's no difference there that I can see. There should be no difference in how we take action on it.

    Because the above is incompatible with this:
    I think that above all else; a simple distinction needs to be made with regards to what constitutes abuse towards a person. IMO, threads specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person should be nipped in the bud. On the other hand, making a passing comment or sharing a simple opinion (which may contain seemingly abusive/profane language) in a thread not designed to be a platform for attacking someone should be dealt with on a case by case basis by mods and not automatically deemed to be against the rules.


  • Options
    #347
    Badgermonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,019 ✭✭✭Badgermonkey


    TheZohan wrote: »
    He allowed that idiot to abuse the users of boards in the interview without even standing up for the community that is boards.ie.

    Are you for real?

    Boardsies cast slights, jibes, bile, pettiness, vitriol and worse upon one another and those with a public persona on a daily basis.

    You're being too precious.


  • Options
    #348
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    I find it interesting that this has morphed into a thread on personal abuse from deleted David McSavage threads that sprung up because he was given a platform to abuse the members of this site without challenge by an employee of the site.

    I have no problems with the rights of the individual members being able to post free of abuse here at all. I support it. I also have no problem in boards protecting itself legally where mis-truths are stated about people/businesses/celebrities. I have no problems with restrictions in abuse being in place in contentious forums like soccer where insulting Manager A will result in supporters of that team becoming involved in a flame war and derailing the topic totally. I have a problem with people not being able to express an opinion on someone who is in the public light and especially one who has made their name by being a dick!

    As far as I am concerned the actual driver for this whole crusade is not the actual members of this site but the potential advertisers and sponsors of the site. It has been stated that the aim is to become the biggest media site in Ireland.

    As for receiving emails about abuse on the site, how many mails per week do you actually receive and how many of those mails turn out to be people who are complaining because someone disagreed with their opinion or do not constitute real abuse at all. If you are only getting a couple of mails for 28,000 active users then I do not see an issue here. If you are getting 100+ emails from different individuals then yes you have a problem with the moderation of individual forums because abuse is not getting caught at that level and that is where you should address the problem. Abuse by pm is a different beast altogether and really should not be lumped into this discussion at all. People engaging in abuse by PM should just be site banned (and I believe in most cases they are).


  • Options
    #349
    NeedaNewName
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭NeedaNewName


    I intend to bring my kids up not to curse. I know lots of people curse but I'll still try.
    I understand people like to use "flowery" language, no more so that the Irish. "Ya bolliks" can be said in a nice way.

    But threads like that one on tomthebox were wrong on a lot of levels but just because someone might know someone is no reason to have that standard.

    I think it is right to ask people to reach for a certain level of civility and think boards.ie is right to ask, if not enforce, also.


  • Options
    #350
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    This is the opening post of a currently active thread in AH.
    Crap bands/music acts/one-hit wonders
    Was just taking a piss and into my head popped that crap song by that tit who makes all the sounds by himself. No instruments. He pats his chest and makes stupid popping sounds and garbage like that as he sings. Can't remember the clown's name. He's black and sings that song

    "..thinking about your body. Thinking about your face"

    So what crap acts or bands or singers/songs come to mind?

    Another one is that wanker Joe Dolce and his moronic Shaddup You Face. Bad enough as he and his crap song were it stayed at number one blocking Ultravox's anthem Vienna down at number 2.

    Setting aside the, em, framing of the opening sentence, I'm curious. Is this abusive? Is this thread set up in order to encourage abusive language? Here are a few highlighted responses:
    The script are another abortion of a band. Kings of leon also suck balls.
    Hey don't say anything bad about s-club, 2 out of the 3 bitches were fine.
    their lead singer lives on my fiance's street in terenure. he is a twat

    Personally the style of the opening post would put me off of this thread, even though there is nothing inherently wrong with having a discussion about one-hit wonders. But I'm curious about how this would or could be 'coded' by moderators.


  • Options
    #351
    lil_lisa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭lil_lisa


    This kind of talk wouldn't be tolerated in any other forum, would the idea of privatising AH be entertained? Something similar to rant and raving maybe?

    Just my two cents.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    This is the opening post of a currently active thread in AH.

    Setting aside the, em, framing of the opening sentence, I'm curious. Is this abusive? Is this thread set up in order to encourage abusive language?

    Well, do YOU think it is? if you were a moderator, would you act on it?
    Personally the style of the opening post would put me off of this thread, even though there is nothing inherently wrong with having a discussion about one-hit wonders. But I'm curious about how this would or could be 'coded' by moderators.

    Let's talk about 'could' rather than 'would' because I can't speak for moderators. This really should be a discussion that they're involved in or is brought to them (and I will do).

    While the post is far from complimentary I don't think you could classify it as "abusive" - as in, it doesn't direct just a stream of abuse towards any one individual. The writing style could be said to be insulting and I'd personally question the need for the word "wanker" in there but I don't personally don't feel it's abusive.

    What about anyone else?

    southsiderosie, while I have you, since you've made very constructive/sensible contributions to the thread, what if I was to pitch something along the lines of this to you - what would you think? Excuse the poor phrasing here:

    Boards.ie has a swear filter in place to filter out certain terms.
    If you use words screened out by this filter in order to direct abuse* at anybody, Boards.ie will deem this as Abuse and take action** against you.

    (*abuse = insulting, offensive or derogatory comments at someone just for the sake of doing so - out of context with the discussion or with malicous intent to damage that person's reputation.)

    (** take action - at the discretion of the moderator depending on frequency, severity and circumstance of the post.)

    This I believe ties back into
    I think that above all else; a simple distinction needs to be made with regards to what constitutes abuse towards a person. IMO, threads specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person should be nipped in the bud. On the other hand, making a passing comment or sharing a simple opinion (which may contain seemingly abusive/profane language) in a thread not designed to be a platform for attacking someone should be dealt with on a case by case basis by mods and not automatically deemed to be against the rules.

    Thoughts?


  • Options
    #353
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    gandalf wrote: »
    I find it interesting that this has morphed into a thread on personal abuse from deleted David McSavage threads that sprung up because he was given a platform to abuse the members of this site without challenge by an employee of the site.

    I have no problems with the rights of the individual members being able to post free of abuse here at all. I support it. I also have no problem in boards protecting itself legally where mis-truths are stated about people/businesses/celebrities. I have no problems with restrictions in abuse being in place in contentious forums like soccer where insulting Manager A will result in supporters of that team becoming involved in a flame war and derailing the topic totally. I have a problem with people not being able to express an opinion on someone who is in the public light and especially one who has made their name by being a dick!

    As far as I am concerned the actual driver for this whole crusade is not the actual members of this site but the potential advertisers and sponsors of the site. It has been stated that the aim is to become the biggest media site in Ireland.

    How many more times must I (and/or Boards.ie) face this? How many ways can I say that it's not the primary focus for this discussion - while it's a factor, it's not the main one?

    Why is it so difficult to believe that what we want is a site free from abuse so it's better for the members and readers, more attractive for new people to join or for lurkers to participate in and more designed to move us away from being considered a site that condones abuse to a site that protects people from it while still having great discussions?
    As for receiving emails about abuse on the site, how many mails per week do you actually receive and how many of those mails turn out to be people who are complaining because someone disagreed with their opinion or do not constitute real abuse at all.

    Probably around 40 emails a week with people who have valid complaints about something that is posted on the site about them or their organisation. It can depend. Some are easy to deal with, some less so.
    If you are only getting a couple of mails for 28,000 active users then I do not see an issue here. If you are getting 100+ emails from different individuals then yes you have a problem with the moderation of individual forums because abuse is not getting caught at that level and that is where you should address the problem. Abuse by pm is a different beast altogether and really should not be lumped into this discussion at all. People engaging in abuse by PM should just be site banned (and I believe in most cases they are).

    I think that if we were very clear that no abuse was to be had on Boards.ie, we'd cut the emails down to a lot less. And that would be nice.


  • Options
    #354
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    While Dave McSavage might get ticked off at Degsy calling him a сunt I sincerely doubt Bobby McFerrin is crying into his cornflakes over jackiebaron calling him a clown.

    Whatever happened to common sense?


  • Options
    #355
    NeedaNewName
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭NeedaNewName


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    This is the opening post of a currently active thread in AH.



    Setting aside the, em, framing of the opening sentence, I'm curious. Is this abusive? Is this thread set up in order to encourage abusive language? Here are a few highlighted responses:







    Personally the style of the opening post would put me off of this thread, even though there is nothing inherently wrong with having a discussion about one-hit wonders. But I'm curious about how this would or could be 'coded' by moderators.

    They are just flowery opinions IMO

    The fine line is subjective. It is really all about how mods see said subjectivity.


    Thats a hard one. To have a general rule is ok like the "don't be a dick" one. But there needs to be a strong back bone to offer guidance. A more general rule that mods can refer too.


  • Options
    #356
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »

    So are we ditching this?:
    I don't see why they can't be dealt with in the same manner.

    "Darragh Doyle is a f*cking stupid cnut"
    "Outlaw Pete is a f*cking stupid cnut"
    "Sherlock Holmes is a f*cking stupid cnut"

    There's no difference there that I can see. There should be no difference in how we take action on it.

    Because the above is incompatible with this:
    I think that above all else; a simple distinction needs to be made with regards to what constitutes abuse towards a person. IMO, threads specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person should be nipped in the bud. On the other hand, making a passing comment or sharing a simple opinion (which may contain seemingly abusive/profane language) in a thread not designed to be a platform for attacking someone should be dealt with on a case by case basis by mods and not automatically deemed to be against the rules.

    How is that incompatible? Clearly the examples above ARE threads "specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person" rather than sharing a simple opinion.

    I actually think you're choosing to ignore a lot of what's on this thread and are arguing for the sake of arguing. For example, in post #345 you tell me that I "want to get rid of posts like that" even though I never said that. All I pointed out was that I had never myself defined what I think constitutes an abusive post (though I think the examples above are good ones).

    I also really can't see how
    extending the abuse rule to people who are off site is un-workable.

    when it has been pointed out that this is effective in many forums already across the site.

    AC, I'll ask again, and I'll ask you to answer me both as a regular member and then as a Category Moderator of Boards.ie to answer me with a Yes or No answer to this question:

    Do you think someone should be allowed to use Boards.ie to abuse someone else?


  • Options
    #357
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    pickarooney wrote: »
    While Dave McSavage might get ticked off at Degsy calling him a сunt I sincerely doubt Bobby McFerrin is crying into his cornflakes over jackiebaron calling him a clown.

    Whatever happened to common sense?

    Agreed. Which is why I very much like this.


  • Options
    #358
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Darragh wrote: »
    Agreed. Which is why I very much like this.

    ...then go with it and see what happens....I think its workable.


  • Options
    #359
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    I have asked for moderator input (in fairness I should have done so ages ago) on what they think is realistic/workable and right for the site and the forums they moderate. I'll let you know what they say.


  • Options
    #360
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Darragh wrote: »
    How is that incompatible? Clearly the examples above ARE threads "specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person" rather than sharing a simple opinion.

    In that case I took it as (maybe this is incorrect) you were saying that "Celeb is a something abusive here". Whereby something abusive is anything from the word fool to stupid cúnt or whatever. Hence why I say they aren't compatible because that would rule out any abuse whatsoever whereas the second one allows it.
    Darragh wrote: »
    I also really can't see how

    when it has been pointed out that this is effective in many forums already across the site.

    Because banning someone for calling Gaddafi a bollocks or some politician an idiot will just piss people off. Surely you can see that. The reason it may seem to work in other forums is because it normally doesn't happen. Even in the tech forums it would be rare to get it simply because it's usually the gadgets and companies that get talked about and not specific people. We still get people calling Steve Jobs this and Steve Ballmer that but it's just extremely rare because of the nature of the forum's discussions. When you have a forum that is more focused on discussing people and their actions it will obviously happen more.
    Darragh wrote: »
    AC, I'll ask again, and I'll ask you to answer me both as a regular member and then as a Category Moderator of Boards.ie to answer me with a Yes or No answer to this question:

    Do you think someone should be allowed to use Boards.ie to abuse someone else?

    I don't think people should be punished or warned for it on the most part unless it's aimed at another user.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Darragh wrote: »
    Well, do YOU think it is? if you were a moderator, would you act on it?

    To be honest, I don't exactly get moderation in AH. While it could be construed as abusive, more than anything it's just stupid, and it quickly slid off of the front pages. Perhaps the best way to deal with some people trying to be funny or cute in that forum is to ignore them. But I do think there is an issue of obnoxious OPs leading to more obnoxious posts, and that could quickly get out of hand. I could have also lived without the 'them bitchez is fine"-type commentary, but to be fair sexist comments seem to have declined a lot in AH over the last year.

    Let me re-write the OP a bit:
    Was just taking a piss and into my head popped that crap song by that tit who makes all the sounds by himself reading the paper in the jacks and came across a crap column by that bint who is always whinging about her life. No instruments. He pats his chest and makes stupid popping sounds and garbage like that as he sings. No talent. She buys things and then complains about not having any money, but gets paid to write about them. Can't remember the clown's name. He's black and sings that song Can't remember the bint's name. She's orange and writes that column.

    So what crap acts or bands or singers/songs come to mind? So what other crap columnists come to mind?

    Another one is that wanker Joe Dolce Fintan O'Toole and his moronic Shaddup You Face Ship of Fools. Bad enough as he and his crap song book were it stayed at number one blocking Ultravox's anthem Vienna down Bertie Ahern's memoir at number 2.

    I get the feeling that the "journalist" version of this thread would be locked, while the music version of this thread is still open AFAIK.
    Darragh wrote: »
    southsiderosie, while I have you, since you've made very constructive/sensible contributions to the thread, what if I was to pitch something along the lines of this to you - what would you think? Excuse the poor phrasing here
    Thoughts?

    I think My Name is URL's response could and should be the guide for abuse. It's contextual, and it addresses the issue of "keyboard warrior" abuse threads (which the original music thread seemed like to me).


Advertisement