Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Honestly, what BV asks isn't a lot, and it is only fair

No, he doesn't ask a lot, but there's a big discrepancy between why BV says people get banned and why a whole bunch of this site's best posters seem to have actually been banned of late. That's why this conversation started. The board is qualitatively poorer without these people, and when it seems that many were banned for no real reason others are going to get upset about it. IORR's rules are extremely ambiguous (perhaps intentionally so).

Also, none of this is as simple as we're led to believe, since nobody on this board actually starts threads entitled 'I hate Mick Jagger'. The idea that 'do not offend' works as a principle for moderating a website is just daft, frankly. On IORR, it's totally meaningless, since a bunch of posters regularly take offence at others continuing to discuss Mick Taylor, occasionally criticising the band's playing and entertaining the possibility that not everything Keith Richards says is true.

Who were some of the banned prolific posters to jog my memory?

Thanks,

Mike


[www.flickr.com]

It's BV's site and therefore his decision how it's run. I don't necessarily agree with such strict censorship as I'm a strong believer in free speech in all mediums and that as adults we should be able to deal with trolls accordingly.

We just need to be careful that somethings are not misunderstood to be trolling or offensive when they are ironic or humorous as that would be the death knell for stimulating debate. I guess we'll have to trust in BV on that one...us English have strange sense of humour, and often it is very dry and not always immediately identified as humour by those non English/British

Quote
MidnightDevilRambler

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Honestly, what BV asks isn't a lot, and it is only fair

No, he doesn't ask a lot, but there's a big discrepancy between why BV says people get banned and why a whole bunch of this site's best posters seem to have actually been banned of late. That's why this conversation started. The board is qualitatively poorer without these people, and when it seems that many were banned for no real reason others are going to get upset about it. IORR's rules are extremely ambiguous (perhaps intentionally so).

Also, none of this is as simple as we're led to believe, since nobody on this board actually starts threads entitled 'I hate Mick Jagger'. The idea that 'do not offend' works as a principle for moderating a website is just daft, frankly. On IORR, it's totally meaningless, since a bunch of posters regularly take offence at others continuing to discuss Mick Taylor, occasionally criticising the band's playing and entertaining the possibility that not everything Keith Richards says is true.

Who were some of the banned prolific posters to jog my memory?

Thanks,

I repeat - who in their right minds gets offended by anything said on a music forum. Honestly, you'd have to be emotionally incontinent to get upset by anything that anyone types here.

I'm probably not the only one who logged on this morning and looked to see if onlystones was still with us. Not a trace he ever existed. Kind of unfortunate that it probably took quite a bit of Bjornulf's time and effort to erase all those posts. Lot of words could describe him but subtle certainly isn't one of them.

Quote
Naturalust
I'm probably not the only one who logged on this morning and looked to see if onlystones was still with us. Not a trace he ever existed. Kind of unfortunate that it probably took quite a bit of Bjornulf's time and effort to erase all those posts. Lot of words could describe him but subtle certainly isn't one of them.

Vanished into thin air.....

Quote
cmc

Quote
Naturalust
... logged on this morning and looked to see if onlystones was still with us. Not a trace he ever existed.
Kind of unfortunate that it probably took quite a bit of Bjornulf's time and effort to erase all those posts.

Vanished into thin air.....

Well, s/he did say s/he posts here regularly under another name.
I sure hope s/he's either gotten the need to spew crap out of his/her system.
or that Bjornulf's gotten whoever it is well and thoroughly blocked this time.
Disrupting last night's show thread like that was ultra obnoxious.
But let's go on to more uplifting topics.

Quote
MrThompsonWooft
I repeat - who in their right minds gets offended by anything said on a music forum. Honestly, you'd have to be emotionally incontinent to get upset by anything that anyone types here.

Especially on a music forum dedicated to a band with a song entitled "@#$%& blues". Hell, we can't even say the word in the title of the song, it's censored!
Are we all in kindergarden? We can't have our sensitive little minds destroyed by such filthy words!

Is there any other board in the history of boards dedicated to bands in which you can't say a word in the title of one of their songs because it's censored? Are there lots of bands in China?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-16 21:53 by Boognish.

I'm still learning how to post properly, respond to other posters. I hope so far my posts have gotten by without offens(I'm never sure, you see). I keep trying to contribute without looking foolish in front of the informative and/or 'IORRians' with deeper knowledge of the Stones (than me).

But I'd like to keep trying, and stay within the guidelines of B.V.'s posting policy.

Quote
nightskyman
I'm still learning how to post properly, respond to other posters. I hope so far my posts have gotten by without offens(I'm never sure, you see). I keep trying to contribute without looking foolish in front of the informative and/or 'IORRians' with deeper knowledge of the Stones (than me).

But I'd like to keep trying, and stay within the guidelines of B.V.'s posting policy.

I'd say you're off to a nice start with this very polite post. Welcome, nightskyman.

People are pretty cool and can agree to disagree on many issues...it makes it more meaningful if we are able to respectfully express our differences...

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
nightskyman
I'm still learning how to post properly, respond to other posters. I hope so far my posts have gotten by without offens(I'm never sure, you see). I keep trying to contribute without looking foolish in front of the informative and/or 'IORRians' with deeper knowledge of the Stones (than me).

But I'd like to keep trying, and stay within the guidelines of B.V.'s posting policy.

I'd say you're off to a nice start with this very polite post. Welcome, nightskyman.

It is such a great place to learn, and I agree

Sometimes I have trouble not being too silly.. so.. tempting...

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

Quote
MidnightDevilRambler

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Honestly, what BV asks isn't a lot, and it is only fair

No, he doesn't ask a lot, but there's a big discrepancy between why BV says people get banned and why a whole bunch of this site's best posters seem to have actually been banned of late. That's why this conversation started. The board is qualitatively poorer without these people, and when it seems that many were banned for no real reason others are going to get upset about it. IORR's rules are extremely ambiguous (perhaps intentionally so).

Also, none of this is as simple as we're led to believe, since nobody on this board actually starts threads entitled 'I hate Mick Jagger'. The idea that 'do not offend' works as a principle for moderating a website is just daft, frankly. On IORR, it's totally meaningless, since a bunch of posters regularly take offence at others continuing to discuss Mick Taylor, occasionally criticising the band's playing and entertaining the possibility that not everything Keith Richards says is true.

Who were some of the banned prolific posters to jog my memory?

Thanks,

I repeat - who in their right minds gets offended by anything said on a music forum. Honestly, you'd have to be emotionally incontinent to get upset by anything that anyone types here.

Im gonna have to agree. I really don't understand why anybody in their right mind would report anybody here. If someone makes a death threat , sure but that's about it.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Honestly, what BV asks isn't a lot, and it is only fair

No, he doesn't ask a lot, but there's a big discrepancy between why BV says people get banned and why a whole bunch of this site's best posters seem to have actually been banned of late. That's why this conversation started. The board is qualitatively poorer without these people, and when it seems that many were banned for no real reason others are going to get upset about it. IORR's rules are extremely ambiguous (perhaps intentionally so).

Also, none of this is as simple as we're led to believe, since nobody on this board actually starts threads entitled 'I hate Mick Jagger'. The idea that 'do not offend' works as a principle for moderating a website is just daft, frankly. On IORR, it's totally meaningless, since a bunch of posters regularly take offence at others continuing to discuss Mick Taylor, occasionally criticising the band's playing and entertaining the possibility that not everything Keith Richards says is true.

+1 on that.

Yes, there are rules but, as on any private blog, the number one rule is that the blog owner decides what is appropriate or not on his blog. And that can, of course, be quite arbitrary depending on the blog owner's personal likes or dislikes. One thing I have noticed is that the moderator is wary of all the off topic threads. I think his intention is to keep this blog a Stones fansite first and foremost.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
VoodooLounge13
Honestly, what BV asks isn't a lot, and it is only fair

No, he doesn't ask a lot, but there's a big discrepancy between why BV says people get banned and why a whole bunch of this site's best posters seem to have actually been banned of late. That's why this conversation started. The board is qualitatively poorer without these people, and when it seems that many were banned for no real reason others are going to get upset about it. IORR's rules are extremely ambiguous (perhaps intentionally so).

Also, none of this is as simple as we're led to believe, since nobody on this board actually starts threads entitled 'I hate Mick Jagger'. The idea that 'do not offend' works as a principle for moderating a website is just daft, frankly. On IORR, it's totally meaningless, since a bunch of posters regularly take offence at others continuing to discuss Mick Taylor, occasionally criticising the band's playing and entertaining the possibility that not everything Keith Richards says is true.

+1 on that.

+2 on that.....the most pity thing here is that some of us feel the need to use the "Report This Message" too often........we still miss some great old funny posters........

__________________________

Quote
MrThompsonWooft

I repeat - who in their right minds gets offended by anything said on a music forum. Honestly, you'd have to be emotionally incontinent to get upset by anything that anyone types here.

Silly, humorless people, that's who.

"It's only rock and roll", except when something ironic or sarcastically funny gets posted, or anyone violates the orthodoxy, then it's more like "Back In The USSR."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-18 07:57 by 71Tele.

We all have very divergent opinions and must accept that there will be vigorous debate that sometimes seems uncivil but is mainly passion for the band...

Just because Ronnie and Keith smoke on stage ity does not mean you can smoke any place you like.

Just because Mick throw water into our face at shows does not mean you can do the same any place.

Just the same Mick says F**k this and f*'k that and act like a rebel even if he is a billionaire and he is 71 years old and 72 next week does not mean you can do anything like any place any time any age.

Just because some in the band shot heroin and did other "bad" things and recorded CS blues and probably a lot other things does not mean you can or should do exactly the same.

If you don't like the IORR policy then ask yourself if the local paper would print what you say oin their front page.

If bad words and bad images are posted on IORR then IORR will be ranked as inappropriate and you will have problems accessing IORR due to the category. It is my duty as editor to make sure that IORR is available to everybody, with no offending contents. Like I said, like it or not, that is the rule. If you don't like it, then feel free to open your own blog.

Bjornulf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-19 00:27 by bv.

Hate vs. Negativity vs. Criticism

There seems to be a movement towards classifying any ounce of criticism on this board as hate speech. There is a distinction between hate speech, negativity and criticism.

Hate speech is attacking a person based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. I think a victim of this would laugh at the assertion that a musician being criticized for their playing is the victim of hate.

Negativity is constantly dwelling on the bad aspects, or perceived bad aspects, of something. For example, someone who hasn’t liked anything the Stones have done since 1972.

Criticism is making judgments about the good and bad aspects of something. Would a review of a Stones show that didn’t like parts of the performance be considered “hateful”? In the IORR world it would because we can only have positive comments.

BV said the internet is full of hate and I agree. However, labeling the criticism of music as “hate” is asinine when there is hate in the world that costs people their lives.

EDIT: Just want to put this out there.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-21 18:54 by bv.

I don't think there is any harm in a passionate disagreement as long as we stick to the rules.
I have said everything i have wanted to say and expressed myself within the rules.
The thing is when you look on the internet and it is full of hate and f and c words it becomes meaningless. The argument is lost already when people resort to hatred and profanity's.
I have had to learn to express myself within the rules here on iorr and it has helped me get my points over in a more mature way.
The only worry is that i will have a few beers and uncensor myself and get banned. Its the same for all of us. Its a level playing field.

I glanced through your posts.

It's your 'god-given' right to say whatever you want. It's also BV's right as the owner of this private website to request for everyone using it to adhere to a set of his rules.

It's your choice as to whether to abide by them, and his choice how he 'enforces' those rules.

You can say that's not fair, that's your opinion.

I've been both positive and critical, with sarcasm thrown in.

To be fair you should add that on this board positivity and enthusiasm is often labeled as unintelligent subjectivity and superficial cheerleadering by those who describes themselves as objective and intelligent critics but, frankly, are more like "constantly dwelling on the bad aspects, or perceiving bad aspects"

I would probably manage this space differently from what bv does. but i surely respect his work and agree on one basic issue: there is a reason why a "fan" club is a club of "fans" and not a club of objective critics.

this is why, though I dont have much consideration for plain and constant jubilee, I like that better than the constant sorrowful comments.

and if you let me the stretch: a constance in sorrowful comments about a band in its "fan club" is not very far from hate because of the hate has the obsessivity



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-21 19:09 by maumau.

Large professional posting networks are giving up on the trolls. Just see this recent article, read it carefully:

Ellen Pao explains why you will always hate Reddit's moderation

[www.theverge.com]

"The trolls are winning" ...

"Expecting internet platforms to eliminate hate and harassment is likely to disappoint," writes Pao. Automated systems and mistakes will erode trust, even if they rarely screw up. "No one has figured out the best place to draw the line between bad and ugly

AS FOR IORR, I AM NOT GIVING UP ...

A troll is someone who is ANONYMOUS. Hiding behind a nick. Trying to get others to support some opinion. Lack of respect. Holding on to the so called "Freedom of speech"... Freedom to hate. Freedom to say things undercover. Always balancing on a thin line, pretending to be nice, no worries, I am Mr nice guy, I just happens to hate other people. I don't usze the word hate, I use dislike, mor get rid of, or obsolete, or any other nicer word that basically say the same.

ANONYMITY:

I am more or less the only person here with a real name. Tell me your full name and your address and where you live and your picture, by e-mail privately, then we can talk. But the nature of a troll is to explode in daylight. That is why they hide.

IORR MODERATION:

You have to live with the basic rules. If you don't like my moderation then feel free to post your opinions other places.

POSTING ABOUT PERSONS

There is a very very good reason why you can not post about individuals. First of all it will break the privacy of that individual. What right do YOU have to discuss an individual private person on internet? Just an example:

Mick Jagger

Bla bla bla
I love Mick
I hate Mick
I think Mick should retire
Bla bla bla
love Mick, hate Mick, stupid Mick, fantastic Mic k , bla bla bla

Then replace Mick Jagger with YOUR OWN name.
Would you like to have your own person, your own name, as a subject on IORR,
so that we all could discuss YOU?

I have said this 100 times. It is not natural to criticize a person in public, and to tell a person into the face: "You are fat", "You are ugly", "You should quit running IORR", "I hate your red jacket", "Please never come back to USA" and so on. It is all hate hate hate nothing else. No positivity.

Would a football coach allow other players on a team to ask him to get rid of a fellow player, because you don't like him? That is mole talk. Would never happen in a pro team. It happes in Kindergarden all the time, but IORR is not kindergarden.

AND FINALLY:

I do not have hours of my life available every week to discuss IORR posting policy. So feel free to join any other network on internet for the so called free speech. Harassment of individuals will never be possible here on IORR.

Bjornulf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-21 19:26 by bv.

Tauk's Sexiest RS album post was wonderful. She came up with funny, fun, and interesting posts. Her photo threads were another strong point. Lots and lots of great photos that I had not seen prior to joining iorr.

Anyway, my question is, why would anyone go through the trouble to delete such harmless content? Why does it matter? Why waste your time and energy censoring fun?

I know that I am not supposed to make posts like this, and I know that I am not supposed to ask these questions. OH well.

it's not deleted. it's right here.

[www.iorr.org]

i think your question is probably "why was it closed?"

which i can't help you with.

Quote
Turner68
it's not deleted. it's right here.

[www.iorr.org]

i think your question is probably "why was it closed?"

which i can't help you with.

Thanks!!!

Quote
flacnvinyl
Not sure but Tauk didn't really take it too far either. She could've posted this.. https://youtu.be/BF5cOl9ti_Y

is that from SNL? the rehearsal?

Ew. I love Mick but that was 'Ew'.

Out of respect for my husband, I don't go on about Mick (or Keith from 1979-ish thru 1990-ish years).
At least out loud or in print.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-03 01:15 by 35love.

Now see I could post something (about Mick and the SNL clip) that would not be very lady like.

The Stones really are a bad influence. ;-)