Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > Misc > Ultimate Guitar Feedback > Site Suggestions
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 08-29-2013, 04:26 PM   #1
P_Trik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Appropriate Discussions

I was writing a reply to a thread discussing clarification on the rules for getting banned for Speaking negatively about a band on UG and when I hit the 'Post' button, the thread was already deleted. I would have liked to have been a part of that discussion but perhaps we could have a similar one here. This was my reply:


I find this subject very interesting. As a teacher who uses this site with students morning to night during the school year, elementary age to adult, in schools and in my private studio, I have been regularly embarrassed by some of the front page subject matter/language. I have no problem with people expressing themselves however they see fit, but it seems ridiculous to the extreme to read that a writer got banned for saying some band sucked (probably because they DO suck) and yet a PIT headline link on the front page yesterday was about whether having a threeway with twins counts as incest. Daily I see the crude and the silly on here and my attitude is 'Yay - free speech' but if it's more appropriate to discuss crude sexual themes with no restrictions on language than it is to discuss a band negatively then we might as well hand over the keys to the kingdom to whatever form of Gestapo is making these insane decisions.

I like UG. It is 90% informative, relevant and useful. And I'm good with the 10% silliness. I'm NOT good with giving the 10% free reign with their anarchy while people discussing a band negatively, or whatever else may be unpopular opinion, gets their fingers slapped.

This opinion is worth about 2 cents Have a great day everyone
P_Trik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 04:38 PM   #2
takenthecannoli
Registered User
 
takenthecannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
I was the creator of that thread; it was essentially taking issue with receiving warnings (one member claimed to have been banned) for saying that a band sucks in a comment. I hadn't received any such repercussion, nor have many, many such comments I've seen since joining in 2006-07. I decided after coming home from work that it wasn't really worth getting into (mods were beginning to claim that I was asking for special treatment etc for being a UG writer; didn't want to give that impression, but it was hard to work around when I was the aggressor in the first place by saying there was an issue). Decided to just get rid of the thread.

Yes, there is a rule about this. No, the rule is not always enforced, and I wonder if it's even generally regarded as sacred. And, as the user above, I wonder if it really makes sense to have a rule like that in existence, since it isn't a problem on a very grand scale in the first place. Not to mention that it tempts moderators into a bit of an abuse of power - as I said, one member claimed to have been banned without warning for saying that a band sucks.

It's just input; just opinion. Not a well-spoken one, but simply an opinion nonetheless. Worst case scenario, it gets thumbed down. Doesn't exactly make sense for it to be incentive for warning or banning. Are we all taking the Internet - and a site that isn't necessarily beloved for its articles, reviews, etc and the discussion therein - THAT seriously now?

As far as the context of OP's suggestion, it really is a bit ridiculous that the forums (more or less the bulk of the site) run wild while the articles and reviews (which aren't taken seriously by the users at large) are moderated like Club Penguin.

Last edited by takenthecannoli : 08-29-2013 at 04:46 PM.
takenthecannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 05:57 PM   #3
Lemoninfluence
Masculist
 
Lemoninfluence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Liverpool, England
The forums and the front page articles are moderated differently because they cater to different audiences. While there's a lot of crossover, a large number of people who read the articles do not read the forums and vice versa. The articles and front page are held to a different standard because they're the first thing people see on the site, and it's important that those are suitable for all audiences (although I know from personal experience that there have been times where the articles themselves are a bit nsfw).

The forums on the other hand are a relatively close and closed community. Apart from the popular threads list on the front page, you have to seek out the content on the forums and so there's more leeway given, especially in the 'off topic' section. And although they're given more leeway to suggest that they're given free reign is a massive exaggeration. The forums (mainly the pit) is given leeway because of its off topic nature, it's for any topic that isn't covered in other forums, whereas the comment sections are there for commenting on the article, lesson or interview that you've just read. And posts like "X sucks" aren't really related to the article, nor do they serve to encourage constructive discussions. What they usually do is start arguments which actively stifle more reasonable conversations. And so we warn people in order to try and prevent those things from happening.

With the comment system being restructured, it's difficult to keep track of which comments have been checked or not. That's why you used to see a lot of posts which were just the word "checked" (or variations on that). It allowed us to carry on from there under the expectation that comments previous to that had been checked and were suitable. Now there's more chance of a comment slipping through the net. But that shouldn't be taken as approval of those comments, it's merely a flaw in the system that allows those people to get away with infringing the rules.

Also, a writer didn't get banned for saying a band sucks. A user got warned for saying "X sucks, deal with it". The user (who happened to be a writer, which had no bearing on the decision) was banned for a misunderstanding and was unbanned as soon as the mistake was brought to light.
__________________
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Lemoninfluence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 06:09 PM   #4
P_Trik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
I appreciate the public clarification on what exactly happened as far as banning etc. and the incident in discussion. Thank you to both of you

Controversy and disagreement are great sources for learning and growth for both sides of any subject; some may need to lighten up, some may need to grow up.

But just in case, please contact me privately to get my list of bands that suck
P_Trik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 06:32 PM   #5
takenthecannoli
Registered User
 
takenthecannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemoninfluence
Also, a writer didn't get banned for saying a band sucks. A user got warned for saying "X sucks, deal with it". The user (who happened to be a writer, which had no bearing on the decision) was banned for a misunderstanding and was unbanned as soon as the mistake was brought to light.


That happened to me also; are you referring to my ban? Another user did post in the thread saying it happened to him as well.

Regardless, I can certainly appreciate the reasoning, but it still seems a bit excessive.
takenthecannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 06:45 PM   #6
Lemoninfluence
Masculist
 
Lemoninfluence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Liverpool, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by takenthecannoli
That happened to me also; are you referring to my ban? Another user did post in the thread saying it happened to him as well.


I was referring to your warning, because you'd chosen to air the circumstances of yours publicly.

The other user's ban was related to two infringements of the rules, one was for band bashing, the other for homophobic spam. I'm not going to go into detail because it's not really anyone else's business, but this does outline that there's almost always a wider context to a ban. It's very rare that a user will be banned solely for minor band bashing, even if they do it more than once. We tend to give more leeway when a ban is at stake. Rather than ban, we'll often just delete the comment and let the user know they're on thin ice.

That's why you don't see reprimands, even the formal ones are done via a system that regular users don't have access to, and the informal ones are done by PM.
__________________
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Lemoninfluence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 10:39 PM   #7
takenthecannoli
Registered User
 
takenthecannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemoninfluence

The other user's ban was related to two infringements of the rules, one was for band bashing, the other for homophobic spam.

That's why you don't see reprimands, even the formal ones are done via a system that regular users don't have access to, and the informal ones are done by PM.


Aah. Makes more sense. Funny that he forgot to mention.

Right, and in my case (and, as the mod had claimed, others) the comment was deleted. What I mean is that in many cases the comments seem to be left intact. The impression I got from that was that it wasn't punished much (if not the majority) of the time. If that isn't accurate, I don't suppose it's anyone's fault but mine.

With that in mind, I do think it's a rather silly rule. The separation of articles and forums makes a bit of sense, but I still see a pretty common occurrence of the two overlapping, and UG isn't exactly renowned for its articles (enough that more than one of the Wednesday question suggestions was "Worst Wednesday Question" and the titles are constantly mocked in the comments). With that in mind, it just seemed that it would suit the site's audience more to be a bit more lenient.
takenthecannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 11:05 PM   #8
Roc8995
Moderator
 
Roc8995's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Comments like yours are punished with high frequency, so if you see another like it you should not assume that a mod looked at it and thought it was ok. It's more likely they haven't seen it. Perhaps some CCs don't delete such posts but I imagine most of them do.

As far as
Quote:
Aah. Makes more sense. Funny that he forgot to mention.

It would be foolish to take all comments about users' bans at face value. Maybe we see a biased selection, but often a user's account of things is rather different than what their record actually says. "Power tripping" and "Personal vendetta" and "You just don't agree with me" are the most common, even if the moderator has never interacted with the user before. People would much rather think that there is some grand conspiracy against them than admit that they genuinely did something wrong, or at least against the rules. They want to feel important, and paranoia after all is just a sneaky form of self-absorption.
__________________
rr, pe&a
Roc8995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 11:21 PM   #9
takenthecannoli
Registered User
 
takenthecannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc8995
Comments like yours are punished with high frequency, so if you see another like it you should not assume that a mod looked at it and thought it was ok. It's more likely they haven't seen it. Perhaps some CCs don't delete such posts but I imagine most of them do.

It would be foolish to take all comments about users' bans at face value. Maybe we see a biased selection, but often a user's account of things is rather different than what their record actually says. "Power tripping" and "Personal vendetta" and "You just don't agree with me" are the most common, even if the moderator has never interacted with the user before. People would much rather think that there is some grand conspiracy against them than admit that they genuinely did something wrong, or at least against the rules. They want to feel important, and paranoia after all is just a sneaky form of self-absorption.


These are things that will remain for weeks and months after in high-traffic areas. Trusting your judgement on how seriously that sort of thing is taken, I'll assume they went unnoticed.

Agreed, though admittedly there are cases in which a moderator, at the very least, boasts authority. No conspiracy or anything, just a bit of "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it" etc. Had a whiff of that with my experience.
takenthecannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 03:19 AM   #10
Hydra150
not so cowardly
 
Hydra150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by takenthecannoli
Agreed, though admittedly there are cases in which a moderator, at the very least, boasts authority. No conspiracy or anything, just a bit of "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it" etc. Had a whiff of that with my experience.

I was the one boasting or implying some importance?
Glad that our writers have a somewhat imaginative outlook on things
but if that's the way you see it
__________________
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_pepper
I'm not gonna post pics of my hot mom.
Hydra150 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 07:25 PM   #11
takenthecannoli
Registered User
 
takenthecannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydra150
I was the one boasting or implying some importance?
Glad that our writers have a somewhat imaginative outlook on things
but if that's the way you see it


"Enemies are half the fun" or something of that nature.
I said a whiff.
takenthecannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.