If ya make a IORR comeback in some cases ya can lose ya seniority yea

--------------
ColonialstoneNZ
--------------

<<If ya make a IORR comeback in some cases ya lose ya seniority yea>>

Whadja mean? There's something to be said for being a Prodigal Son.

I recently had a non-offensive post deleted, but I don't whine about it. It's your site BV and feel free to do whatever to keep it running the way you want it. Nothing worse than coming on here and having people cuss you out!

Cool

I fourth that opinion.

I'm here for the Stones and for stuff that is more interesting than gossip-trash. Other people's opinions on other people's private lives are rather irrelevant.

Thank you BV for cleaning up.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
Rolling Hansie
The rules on this board are simple and easy. I never had a problem with them.
Bjornulf, thanks for all the work you put into this board.

I second that. My opinion is: you shouldn't do on internet what you wouldn't do at home or anywhere else. But this is me, and I think it's a shame some people can't understand the written and unwritten rules here, that are simple and easy, like Rolling Hansie wrote above.

I third the motion, and nice add on Cristiano.

And BV, this is an example why a "poll function" would be helpful on IORR...
There are many posts on IORR that are more like a poll.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Cristiano Radtke

Quote
Rolling Hansie
The rules on this board are simple and easy. I never had a problem with them.
Bjornulf, thanks for all the work you put into this board.

I second that. My opinion is: you shouldn't do on internet what you wouldn't do at home or anywhere else. But this is me, and I think it's a shame some people can't understand the written and unwritten rules here, that are simple and easy, like Rolling Hansie wrote above.

The rules may be simple and easy, like Hansie says, but the interpretation of them or, better said, their application to concrete posts isn't always unequivocal as history has shown. So also moderation isn't always simple and easy.

We're just at the point of getting this to be more black and white and you're introducing interpretations that make it less kleer!

Many things aren't black or white but something in between. Moderation is clearly one of them. Don't blame the messenger for being a bit ambivalent regarding his name.

Well I kleerly like your posts. Cheers to you!

i like this
and add that to point at "shades of grey" does not mean that one doesnt understand BV's hard work to keep this place running, quite the opposite
cheers too

Quote
Cristiano Radtke
I second that. My opinion is: you shouldn't do on internet what you wouldn't do at home or anywhere else.

The thing is that I spoke a lot about Mick's girl-friend at home and I probably didn't say the nicest things about her and the whole situation.

Just in case I ever feel the need to express my feelings over here I would have to strictly brace myself.

No need to say that nobody banned me at home, not even when I watched TV and saw reports (by pure incident) about the furneral. Private or not - it was on TV and I'm free to watch.

In a way I made my peace with the situation over here. I love many of the aspects of this site and all in all I don't care if I'll ever get banned or not. I'm free to read anyway but it's not my aim to get banned and not my aim to harm anybody with my words. So I stay quite for most of the time. But from time to time it's really, really hard. When all the tears and sadness and prayers gets much too much and someone's critical argue leads to banning and a dozens of postings full of political correctness are written I feel a shiver down my back and I'm asking myself why somebody's trying to ruin "MY" place where I usually feel comfortable.

But then I remember that it's not MY place and in the middle of the free world (BV is living in the same Europe as me) we have a tiny little island here where we can't write what we would like to express. Something I can do in every user-forum of every news-paper here in Austria without getting banned or deleted as long as I don't break the law.

I don't understand but BV owes me nothing so it won't change.

These are not very difficult rules considering it's one guy running the site. I understand and agree with people that believe we shouldn't be censored because we're adults, or suppose to be. There's always going to be disagreements and right and wrong and it's sometimes hard to moderate some topics. Also I miss some of my favorite posters through the years that have disappeared, or maybe they have new names. Anyhow this is a great place to come for Stones news and have a little communication with other people that share a common passion. Just in case it's not said enough, thank you BV.

Have you ever thought about appointing some more moderators BV? I post on plenty of forums that have multiple moderators, would make your job a bit easier.

Well, I don't get to call the shots here. And I do respect that. If I did I would, at least, strive for being as lenient as possible and warn, or ban, only those with repetitive and constant ill behaviour.
At least in theory! (who knows, maybe I would behave the opposite were I given the chance?)

Cindy C, for example, was only speculating and citing gossip. Some people may not like that but I don't think it's a bannable act. But as I said, I don't call the shots here...

Yeah - keep the good work up BV. I've made several Stones' friends since joining 7 years ago and some of us are meeting up in London on Saturday.

I've also managed to get tickets for Stones shows and find rare recordings so it works well for me.

Thanks for creating this platform.

When I came on IORR some 15 months ago I confessed pretty soon I toured with them. And that I'm no longer an insider but an outsider who sometimes still hears something. I soon found out that in some discussions this was not enough; people here demanded evidence for what I was saying, or else... Apart from that I quickly felt free to criticise the band for how they were playing or for their setlists and I quickly earned a reputation as a nay-sayer (thanks DP! (and others) ).

As of a week ago I noticed IORR changed. Instead of evidence people now started to embrace gossip as the truth or the only legitimate source of it. And instantly they specialized in the interpretation of gossip by giving their own observations on LS' suicide, her depression and about having a relationship with a rockstar.
All of these masterclasses came without proof or evidence but with loads of assumptions, suggestions, believes, presumptions & convictions.
Some pople became experts in distillating the truth out of a statement made by 'RS Inc.', 'the company' or 'the business'.

Some poster tried to explain his credibility with "I think I have more than enough information in the form of press releases, past interviews, photo-ops from tours, fashion shows and Jagger's own statements to make a moral valuation his character and come to the conclusion that he could not do what a man does when his lover, best friend, and the person he had created a life with for 13 years dies by her own hand."

Also this post by hbwriter is from that division "...it may have been crafted by the band machine - you never know the politics."
My comment would be: when you know that you know nothing don't you? People like to make a lot more out of it than there is and that got out of hand.

I think BV did the right thing
Must have been a hell of a job trying to focus on some reliable news and maintaining your forum at the same time. My compliments BV for not being perfect; you're one of us!

And now I think it's time DP should come back because pretty soon I will start pissing on some setlists again. Or Keith's sh.tty play on SFTD in Abu Dhabi.

Interesting and thoughtful post, Dreamer. By the way, what was your job position when you toured with the Stones? What tours did you work on?

Quote
silkcut1978_

The thing is that I spoke a lot about Mick's girl-friend at home and I probably didn't say the nicest things about her and the whole situation.

IORR is NOT your home. At home everybody do know you, you may pretty much say what you like, you may use irony, and you may even call me a nazi or a communist without any problems.

When you say the same on IORR, you say it to TWO MILLION PEOPLE. More than 100,000 people have currently read the L'Wren thread. I don't think you have 100,000 people of all religions, color of skin, culture, love, hate and so on at home, right?

This is a common misunderstanding. You can NOT say anything you want on IORR. You may tell your sister she has got ugly hair or a big ass, she might understand your irony with a smile. And the moment you say it, the words are gone. If you say the same on IORR, it will be read by thousands, it will be snapped up by internet crawlers like Google, and it will be there fort the rest of your life.

Internet is NOT the same as your home. You might leave the toilet seat wide open at home, but that does not work here. A public channel MUST comply to certain standards, being a newspaper, a blog, a forum or any public place.

Bjornulf

Quote
ThankGod
Why would you pick out this quote bv? This was a direct quote from a magazine article. These were not the words of CindyC

Bring Back CindyC

FIRST OF ALL:
Internet is full of crap. And untrue rumours, gossip, offending statements and so on. Any person who post links or copy such contents have to be in charge of that contents. It it is from New York Times then probably it has been validated. If it is Stones related then probably it is fine.

But, just copying some stuff from internet is basically the same as saying this yourself. You copy it because you want to make it available. If it is offending then YOU ar the messenger, the person who bring the offense to IORR. And if you do it again and again, then I will remove you from IORR, very simple.

SECONDLY:
Bring Back XXX is a campiang and I do not like then at all. They are a message saying I have bad judgement, and if you want to say so, eiteh send me an e-mail or do not say it. It is in violation with the IORR policy, and a perfect way to make me angry. Not building friendship, not building a relastionship or trust.

Bjornulf

One would think that the fact that something is printed, discussed, in the press would be reason enough for it to be a relevant topic on Stones site, but so be it, the site can be whatever the creator wants it to be, and it's fair enough, everyone knows what they will get, and not get, here.

A serious question -- the predictable "controversy" over the Stones playing Israel -- I assume that also is off limits here?

Quote
Rokyfan
One would think that the fact that something is printed, discussed, in the press would be reason enough for it to be a relevant topic on Stones site, but so be it, the site can be whatever the creator wants it to be, and it's fair enough, everyone knows what they will get, and not get, here.

A serious question -- the predictable "controversy" over the Stones playing Israel -- I assume that also is off limits here?

What is the 'predictable controversy'? As long as we're not getting into a political discussion, I would presume we're ok to discuss stones related topics, but what is the 'predictable controversy'?

All sorts of bands play Israel, and Stones have just played in an Arab country.

Don't you think it's kind of nice that music sort of transcends politics?

Quote
TornAndFried
Interesting and thoughtful post, Dreamer. By the way, what was your job position when you toured with the Stones? What tours did you work on?

Thanks! I can be very sharp while attacking someone's opinion or in my reaction (to guys like DP ) but at times like this when someone died (the way she did) we should be decent and try to stick together. The best post a couple of days ago came from The Sicilian: "How about the first rule upon the passing of someone? A kind word or no words, condolences, then mind your own business and let people grieve in their own way."

Job & tours: it was a nice experience! Like I enjoyed reading your story about your warehouse adventure with CM. I choose not to give factual info but from what I read we most likely travelled the same cities/countries. After 2000 I decided I'd seen enough but I'll stay a fan the rest of my life like I became in the sixties...

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rokyfan
One would think that the fact that something is printed, discussed, in the press would be reason enough for it to be a relevant topic on Stones site, but so be it, the site can be whatever the creator wants it to be, and it's fair enough, everyone knows what they will get, and not get, here.

A serious question -- the predictable "controversy" over the Stones playing Israel -- I assume that also is off limits here?

What is the 'predictable controversy'? As long as we're not getting into a political discussion, I would presume we're ok to discuss stones related topics, but what is the 'predictable controversy'?

All sorts of bands play Israel, and Stones have just played in an Arab country.

Don't you think it's kind of nice that music sort of transcends politics?

Maybe controversy is what he likes to create. I doubt he likes music to trancend politics.
This is a guy on a mission; I remember some of his words from the R.I.P. thread:
You have the right to think something is tasteless, I just think it is silly to complain about people making what you see as tasteless comment on the internet. Tasteless is allowed.

So eh...BV? Probably time to close this thread

Quote
Dreamer


So eh...BV? Probably time to close this thread

What? I was to say something...

- Doxa

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rokyfan
One would think that the fact that something is printed, discussed, in the press would be reason enough for it to be a relevant topic on Stones site, but so be it, the site can be whatever the creator wants it to be, and it's fair enough, everyone knows what they will get, and not get, here.

A serious question -- the predictable "controversy" over the Stones playing Israel -- I assume that also is off limits here?

What is the 'predictable controversy'? As long as we're not getting into a political discussion, I would presume we're ok to discuss stones related topics, but what is the 'predictable controversy'?

All sorts of bands play Israel, and Stones have just played in an Arab country.

Don't you think it's kind of nice that music sort of transcends politics?

Maybe controversy is what he likes to create. I doubt he likes music to trancend politics.
This is a guy on a mission; I remember some of his words from the R.I.P. thread:
You have the right to think something is tasteless, I just think it is silly to complain about people making what you see as tasteless comment on the internet. Tasteless is allowed.

So eh...BV? Probably time to close this thread

No, it's Roger Waters, who is at the forefront of the boycott Israel movement. I disagree with him 100% but when anyone plays in Israel Waters and his group make a stink. I just asked if this topic was off limits, because it is in the news. I think this would fall under the rubric of "political," discussion, not "tasteless."

Given the social network skill and time L'Wren spent on social media prior to her demise, its not a stretch to think she was reading everything here and on the gossip sites, which IMO, played a hand in her unfortunate decision, again IMO, but considering some sites accurately predicted her demise, its a pretty scary thought.

The responsibility of social media can clearly be daunting when one considers this scenario, thus the need for some moderation as it relates to rumor, innuendo, threats, social bullying, etc.

BV is not as connected to the inner circle as everyone thinks, and he is not a pawn. He's a good guy and a true fan, donating massive amounts of time to the same passion most of us share. This is his site, he monitors the content as he sees fit, and considering the scale of that project, and taking into account his own informative content posting and his moderation of the site, the guy is pretty amazing.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Dreamer


So eh...BV? Probably time to close this thread

What? I was to say something...

- Doxa

Move quickly then my friend. And while I have your attention, please give your pen pal Dandelion a nudge and get him back here.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rokyfan
One would think that the fact that something is printed, discussed, in the press would be reason enough for it to be a relevant topic on Stones site, but so be it, the site can be whatever the creator wants it to be, and it's fair enough, everyone knows what they will get, and not get, here.

A serious question -- the predictable "controversy" over the Stones playing Israel -- I assume that also is off limits here?

What is the 'predictable controversy'? As long as we're not getting into a political discussion, I would presume we're ok to discuss stones related topics, but what is the 'predictable controversy'?

All sorts of bands play Israel, and Stones have just played in an Arab country.

Don't you think it's kind of nice that music sort of transcends politics?

Personally, I wish it would since I generally, personally, have a complete distaste for political matters, but unfortunately in the case of Israel there are those who make music a political issue. But it is a controversial topic and many people have strong opinions, so my question was, based on that, I assume we can;t discuss it here.

I believe all threads with "vs" in the titel should be banned.

Beatles vs. Stones
The Who vs. Stones
Taylor vs. Wood
...

In my opinion those threads are useless unless someone wants to start a fight

Quote
Rokyfan

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rokyfan
One would think that the fact that something is printed, discussed, in the press would be reason enough for it to be a relevant topic on Stones site, but so be it, the site can be whatever the creator wants it to be, and it's fair enough, everyone knows what they will get, and not get, here.

A serious question -- the predictable "controversy" over the Stones playing Israel -- I assume that also is off limits here?

What is the 'predictable controversy'? As long as we're not getting into a political discussion, I would presume we're ok to discuss stones related topics, but what is the 'predictable controversy'?

All sorts of bands play Israel, and Stones have just played in an Arab country.

Don't you think it's kind of nice that music sort of transcends politics?

Personally, I wish it would since I generally, personally, have a complete distaste for political matters, but unfortunately in the case of Israel there are those who make music a political issue. But it is a controversial topic and many people have strong opinions, so my question was, based on that, I assume we can;t discuss it here.

When you can answer your own question as well as you can, there is not much left to say.

OK. If we were allowed to discuss it, I would say I am proud of the Stones for ignoring Waters' BS. It may also be of note that Waters and others are now waging a campaign (whatever that means) to get the Stones to cancel the Israel show and join the "boycott," something i assume they will ignore. I won't post any links to the press, gutter or otherwise, but that is what is in the news as relates to the Stones today.

Yeah, I was just to say that I respect BV's way to keep private as private and especially in facing tragedies like we did now, throwing whatever inerpretations and opinions is pretty small-minded. The argument for 'freedom of speech' is simply groundless, and shows one's inabilty to really get the idea of that important principle.

But what I only care is the freedom for expressing opinions concerning music - the stuff these performers are given to us to enjoy and to make judgments. That's the part of IORR I am mostly concerned, and lately a bit worried, because I think for anyone putting him/herself there in public share, should be ready for that, and I think also pleased by that. I namely think that any critical account - and the term is not negative but constructive - is a mark of caring about the art of the performer. It shows it means something. When I years ago joined here I was impressed the depthness and seriousness of the contributors here. Not that the amount of pure knowledge was marvellous, also that of discussing the music seriously, interestingly, insightfully and personally is impressive. I have always felt that a band of the magnitude of the Rolling Stones deserves that. That's a part of seeing the significance of their legacy. Some people might find such a critical account just "whining", or even "offensive", but for me that simply shows how dedicated and serious their hardcore fans can be. They really care.

So all I ask is to keep this realm 'free' - alongside offering great information and news about their recent activities, I hope there will be in a future some room, along side 'cheerleadering', to discuss the band and its music critically, that is, freely. My every critical word (especially lately) concerning the moderation of this site has been done in order to defend this realm. I hope my worries are groundless, and I've been overreacting. I apologize if the latter has been the case.

Lastly but not leastly, let me say that I am very, very grateful for BV for all the job he does for this site, and tolarates voices like me who might say sometimes things about the music of The Rolling Stones that might annoy some other people, probably even the moderator himself...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-27 15:50 by Doxa.

High five Doxa. Exactly how I feel and what Im a bit worried about at the moment. This site has some of the most insightful texts ever written about this band.