Return (sort of)

[Madiel]

And frankly, I cannot find a single insulting term addressed to you by me in this or any other thread.

Just the part where you keep either ignoring me or indicating that I'm lying. Plus I guess this large helping of sarcasm doesn't count.

Oh, Madiel, it must be such a huge burden to be in constant possession of the truth! But, when one's memory is selective, then that responsibility becomes difficult to manage...

It isn't my memory that's selective. You see, I've actually gone back and read the relevant posts. I'm not relying on memory.

And now I really can have the last word.

[Traverso]

Nothing new. Human relationships are characterized by unresolved tension, where each person seeks to assert their ego, which often leads to conflicts and misunderstandings. Each person is a subject, for whom others are objects of perception. Individuals project their expectations and fears onto others, which frequently leads to misunderstanding and alienation.

Martin Buber distinguished between two types of relationships: I-Thou and I-It. In I-Thou relationships, we can see the other person as a unique and complete individual, not separated; while in I-It relationships, we see the other as an instrument for our needs, which becomes the root of misunderstanding and resentment.

Speaking from my personal experience on this forum, I don't even begin to expect to be understood. Not natural, but normal.

Ah.. you are familiar with "Ich und Du" 

[AnotherSpin]

Ah.. you are familiar with "Ich und Du" 

Familiarity would be an exaggeration.

[Florestan]

Gentlemen, please, let's all take a deep breath and count to 100, before considering the obvious fact that the problems and challenges we face in the real world and our real lives are more numerous and more serious than who said what to whom on GMG and that a relaxed, nonchalant, live and let live approach in this respect is much better than constant bickering and recriminations.

[Madiel]

Sorry, I really do not take kindly to my integrity being called into question.

Night.

[DavidW]

The big irony in this is that among those who you so harshly rebuke for liking Madiel's post there are Karl and Kalevala, who later liked, and publicly commended, your post too. I wonder what do you make of it. 

Yeah, they're fickle, aren't they? That was really what sponsored my tirade. Nothing Madiel said, just them liking his post.

[DavidW]

AS brings up a good point that strict moderating might not save a forum if it is destined to die.

But I think that Florestan, AS, Todd, Madiel and maybe one or two others would prefer no moderation at all, which is obviously not the answer. Most posters don't want to see them derail thread after thread.

But perhaps a locked thread or room of trash where the posts can be easily read (something I did back when I first started) would be a compromise. At least on the ones that are not just obviously fighting. It's more like the inappropriate derailing into, say, US politics on the Unimportant News thread.

[Madiel]

But I think that Florestan, AS, Todd, Madiel and maybe one or two others would prefer no moderation at all, which is obviously not the answer. Most posters don't want to see them derail thread after thread.

What a lovely straw man you just knocked over.

You know what? What I want is evidence that you stop and think. Right now I'm not getting it. I've explicitly said the exact opposite of the desire you're now attributing to me.

[Florestan]

But I think that Florestan [...] would prefer no moderation at all

You know very well that this is not the case at all, David.

What I take issues with is this habit of some people here to constantly report posts which clearly do not personally insult anyone just because their content happens not to be to their liking. In not a few instances it has resulted in either unnecessary kerfuffle or, as in the case at hand, in somebody leaving the forum. And in not a few instances, without the behind-the-scene interference of the said people, the whole thing would have faded away quietly and unnoticed by anyone not involved in that particular discussion. They may have intended well but the unintended consequences of their actions were bad. We often hear it said here that words have consequences, which is true, but few of us seem to be aware that rashly and indiscriminately reporting whatever posts one doesn't like has consequences, too.

Beside, I can't help noticing that it unpleasantly reminds me of the climate of generalized suspicion and fear in which Romanians lived before 1989 when everybody was afraid that publicly saying something not in line with the Party's ideology and policies may result in some snitch reporting them to the secret police.

[LKB]

AS brings up a good point that strict moderating might not save a forum if it is destined to die.

But I think that Florestan, AS, Todd, Madiel and maybe one or two others would prefer no moderation at all, which is obviously not the answer. Most posters don't want to see them derail thread after thread.

But perhaps a locked thread or room of trash where the posts can be easily read (something I did back when I first started) would be a compromise. At least on the ones that are not just obviously fighting. It's more like the inappropriate derailing into, say, US politics on the Unimportant News thread.

This seems like an idea worthy of discussion. A sub-forum where moderation might be applied only for instances of, say, personal attacks or other egregious acts, but not for simply expressing any given point of view.

Just my $.02...

[Madiel]

I've said this before, but it seems necessary to say it again: I've been a moderator on a forum.

Believing that I don't want moderation at all is... I'm sorry, but it's unbelievably fucking stupid. I've done the job.

What has frustrated me for years on this forum is that in my opinion certain aspects of the job are done really fucking badly here. Only certain aspects. But one of THOSE aspects came up on this thread. I commented accordingly. People liked what I said. Now we've got a situation where what I said isn't a problem, just people liking it. Or something.

Right now I'm fully understanding the temptation to delete an account. Because you can have members quite openly trying to express a concern and you get a couple of moderators not showing the SLIGHTEST sign of actually paying attention to what's being said.

I don't quite know whether to laugh when the pair consists of the one who says I know the real reason for my last moderator interaction (but doesn't listen when I say yes, I do know the real reason, but that's not my issue), paired with the second who believed the fake reason the 1st moderator initially gave and acted upon it, creating a new Jimmy Fallon thread that didn't even have half the commentary on Jimmy Fallon but does contain me saying I don't know nearly enough about Jimmy Fallon to have a proper opinion about him.

Never mind not wanting to listen to me, you don't even listen to each other.

I repeat: I've been a moderator. That's why some of the fuck-ups annoy me. You don't fuck up all the time, but right now you're going all in.

[Brian]

Wow, I picked a bad week to be busy with work and travel!

AS brings up a good point that strict moderating might not save a forum if it is destined to die.

What a lot of online communities are finding right now is that more moderation builds more lasting, durable groups of regular visitors, whereas in a low moderation environment, the small number of trolls who dominate people's perceptions and reactions will drive away many people who leave in silence.

Certainly in my own experience, if there is a shrinkage of GMG right now to a core group of about 50 regulars, it is down to three reasons: (1) the rise of other social media like Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, etc. and younger users' preferences for Reddit-like boards or social posts instead of forum software; (2) the current server/software problems that are blocking new users, causing PM glitches, etc; (3) a small number of bullies and trolls have, over the years, caused other people to quietly quit in frustration. On (3), I think everyone overestimates the frequency of loud and melodramatic quitting vs. people who simply get annoyed, sign out, and never come back.

People simply do not always complain loudly about what is bothering them, nor do they always report it. (Example: there are no reported posts about Yuja Wang in the log, so I do not know about the post Spotted Horses describes.)

We can do little about (1). We have written to Rob a number of times about (2) and hope he will be able to help when he has free time. With (3), we will be trying the temporary bans.

This seems like an idea worthy of discussion. A sub-forum where moderation might be applied only for instances of, say, personal attacks or other egregious acts, but not for simply expressing any given point of view.

Just my $.02...

Speaking personally, not on behalf of other mods. It is all or nothing. If we are having a sub-thread "free for all," I do not want to moderate that at all. I will not want to police it for personal attacks or otherwise engage with it whatsoever. The only thing we would control for is actual criminal behavior. And I seriously question the wisdom of allowing that kind of truly unmoderated thread. If the forum software allows such a thread to be private, by voluntary opt-in membership only, then perhaps.

I looked at the WAYLT thread from Oct 11, 2024, and noted all of the users who made posts. By my count there were a total of 66 posts from 23 distinct users. I went to a point near the beginning of the thread, randomly selecting Oct 9, 2019. There were 55 posts from 21 distinct users. No significant difference. If anything, after five years there is slightly more participation. I would have gone back farther in time, but I don't know how to find the previous WAYLT threads (they were periodically restarted after they got too big for the server to handle). Search for them didn't work.

I was curious about this so I found them and did two dates each, five years apart. You can go to general discussion and sort all threads by # of replies.

Oct. 11, 2024: 66 posts from 23 users

Oct. 09, 2019: 55 posts from 21 users
Oct. 11, 2019: 47 posts from 24 users

Oct. 09, 2014: 68 posts from 28 users
Oct. 11, 2014: 63 posts from 29 users

Oct. 12, 2009: 44 posts from 16 users
Oct. 11, 2009: 31 posts from 16 users
(still active from 2009 to today: Erato, Sarge, Andre, Harry, SonicMan, Que, Florestan, Brian)

What I take issues with is this habit of some people here to constantly report posts which clearly do not personally insult anyone just because their content happens not to be to their liking. ... rashly and indiscriminately reporting whatever posts one doesn't like has consequences, too. ... the climate of generalized suspicion and fear in which Romanians lived before 1989 when everybody was afraid that publicly saying something

Here is another place where I can answer with data! So far this year (9.5 months), there have been 19 reported posts. Several of these were NOT reported for rule violations. One was reported to get it moved. One person accidentally locked their own thread and reported it to ask us to unlock it.

I count 15 posts that were "actually" reported for violating the rules this year, and only 2-3 that we felt were "rash and indiscriminate." The other 12ish were in response to real issues.

So I disagree with you that one example every three months is "constantly."

[Florestan]

I count 15 posts that were "actually" reported for violating the rules this year, and only 2-3 that we felt were "rash and indiscriminate." The other 12ish were in response to real issues.

15 posts reported by how many people?

[Brian]

15 posts reported by how many people?

8

[Florestan]

8

And what is the largest number of posts reported by a single person?

[Brian]

And what is the largest number of posts reported by a single person?

Frequency of using the reporting system doesn't necessarily relate to quality. In fact, it may go the opposite direction; the most obviously silly report was by a person who reported no other posts and has only posted here twice all year.

Edit: But I don't see why it matters as that frivolous usage only affected us mods and was not visible to anyone else.

[Florestan]

Frequency of using the reporting system doesn't necessarily relate to quality. In fact, it may go the opposite direction; the most obviously silly report was by a person who reported no other posts and has only posted here twice all year.

My impression was based on actual posts, discussions and claims in various threads. If data contradict me I stand corrected --- but not in the case of Spotted Horses, though, where I know for a fact that his post was reported because the very person who reported it publicly announced the move.

[ritter]

Perhaps it's time to set the record straight, as it would appear that the moderators are imposing a reign of terror on the forum. 

The moderation team has no interest in curtailing anyone's freedom of speech or crushing any opinions. Our job here is to try to ensure a smooth functioning of the forum.

The main areas in which we intervene are:

1) US politics: We all know where even the slightest, tangential reference to US politics usually leads to. The initial mention of some politician's or other's name might appear justified or harmless, but then someone replies, the discussion gets heated, and it all ends in tears. We've been through this, and I am surprised we have to explain it yet again.

2) Misogyny, sexism, and locker room talk in general: Some members seem to think that objectifying women, making lewd or unflattering remarks, etc. is somehow witty and OK. Well, no: this kind of attitudes is profoundly disrespectful to many members, particularly our female fellow GMGers, and will not be tolerated. We ask all members to understand this. It's also surprising that we have to remind members of this constantly. We're in 2024!

3) Discussions which are not about a specific issue, but rather an excuse to enter into an argument with a specific member. There are several of our fellow GMGers who seem to feel the need to engage in this sort of ad hominem discussions, and again, we all know how this ends (name calling, escalation, and reported posts —with us moderators being expected to clear up the mess after the event, as if we were some kind of school teachers). So, these occasions will generally be thwarted as soon as they arise.

@Florestan, I wanted to add the constant denigration of Wagner as another reason for swift action by the moderation, but my fellow moderators would have none of that! 

[Spotted Horses]

People simply do not always complain loudly about what is bothering them, nor do they always report it. (Example: there are no reported posts about Yuja Wang in the log, so I do not know about the post Spotted Horses describes.)

You will find it here

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33488.msg1587119.html#msg1587119

It was the culmination of a series of posts where discussion of Yuja Wang gets progressively more vulgar. I have heard by PM from another member that it was brought to moderator attention, with no result. It might not have been done by pressing the "report to moderator" button, but by a PM to one or more moderators.

[Karl Henning]

Yeah, they're fickle, aren't they? That was really what sponsored my tirade. Nothing Madiel said, just them liking his post.

Is it such an irony? Am I so fickle? Well, maybe I am fickle at times. One of the benefits of GMG over (say) Twitter is that a post can embrace a number of elements. To my mind, any post that includes the following is eminently likable:

Duly noted. But I hope that we change direction sufficiently that you [spotted horses] feel tempted [to remain].