# New Rules Regarding New Members, Anonymous Members, and Drama Magnets



## Mike Greene (Jul 4, 2020)

As you may know, we had some drama in the Spitfire Westworld Winner thread last weekend. Heated discussion isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except much of this drama wasn’t from actual VI-Control members. Several of the loudest voices were people who joined the same day, apparently realizing Paul and Christian are members here, so they took this as their opportunity to vent (sorry, "offer helpful suggestions") directly at them.

That’s not what this forum is for. Members (high profile or otherwise) come here to learn, share, and enjoy themselves, not to be annoyed by people they don’t know.

The challenge in moderating that thread was that we have very few actual rules to point to. That’s intentional, because this forum mostly self-moderates. 99% of the people here inherently know what’s cool and isn’t, so the “rules” are intentionally loose, since I don't want to fix something that isn't broken. (Our current guidelines, as well as my philosophy on rules, are here.)

I’m spotting some patterns in our recent dustups, though. Problem members tend to be new, with little understanding of what the vibe is here. Also, problem members tend to be anonymous. It’s a lot easier to come in guns a-blazin’ when you’re anonymous with no real ownership of your words. Lastly, problem members tend to be people who love to debate, and do so voluminously. In that Spitfire Westworld Winner thread, for instance, things were mostly cool, except for a handful of debaters who posted in such high quantity that it gave an appearance of controversy much larger than it actually was.

So here are three new rules:

1. If you are a new member (“new” is at a moderator’s discretion, and includes someone who may have joined long ago, but has little posting history), then you may not post anything that could be construed as negative (including “just offering suggestions”) about any person or company. (Critiques on products are okay, but be cool about it.) You also may not tag any member, unless you’re sure they want you to.

2. If you are an anonymous member, then be aware that you have much less leeway on any negative posts. If you’re not willing to let us know who you are, then you’re not entitled to give someone else what fer. Either own your words, or accept the fact that we may delete them.

3. If you’re someone who tends to get in a lot of long debates, and especially if you’ve been a magnet for drama, then moderators reserve the right to yank your posts if a thread is getting messy. That’s not to say you were the biggest problem in a thread, but sometimes to calm things down, we just need the overall posting to slow down a bit.

Note - These rules will probably not get enforced much. I’m only adding them so we’ll have something to point to in rare instances when we need them. You know the drill. There’s that guy who just won’t chill when you ask him to, and he instead complains, _“What rule have I broken???”_ So now we can respond, _“This _rule_.”_

In a week or two, I’ll add these (without this explanatory post) to our Posting Guidelines thread. For now, I’ll leave this here if anyone has thoughts or suggestions.


----------



## Anders Wall (Jul 4, 2020)

Great.
My five cents
1) remove the "especially celebrities". You'll prob. get a lot of "you only protect blah blah" from that.
2) if you don't use your own name please do introduce yourself in the xxx part of the forum. If you don't then...
3) yes please

Kind Regards,

/Anders


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 4, 2020)

Anders Wall said:


> My five cents
> 1) remove the "especially celebrities". You'll prob. get a lot of "you only protect blah blah" from that.


Good point. Done.



Anders Wall said:


> 2) if you don't use your own name please do introduce yourself in the xxx part of the forum. If you don't then...


That's a good idea, although I'm reluctant to spell out the ways they can be non-anonymous. (They could also add FB or SC klinks in their signature, etc.)

The truth is that I don't necessarily mind anonymous members here. It's only when someone is being problematic *and* they're anonymous. The bigger issue is the "problematic" part, so I'm reluctant to point them to a way to un-anonymize themselves, without fixing the "problematic" part.


----------



## ka00 (Jul 4, 2020)

Anders Wall said:


> 1) remove the "especially celebrities". You'll prob. get a lot of "you only protect blah blah" from that.



True, but you are now left with a rule that says you can not tag someone without consent. How would that work? Do you PM someone to ask for consent? Isn’t it worse to PM someone who you aren’t sure would like to be addressed by you in the forum?

Omitting the “especially celebrities” probably shifts away from the intent of the rule in the first place, which was to not annoy public figures to the point where they would abandon the forum. I justify the amount of time I spend on VI control to my wife by telling her HZ and a member of NIN regularly post here.


----------



## Gerbil (Jul 4, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> Good point. Done.
> 
> 
> That's a good idea, although I'm reluctant to spell out the ways they can be non-anonymous. (They could also add FB or SC klinks in their signature, etc.)
> ...


Glad to hear that because I don't do un-anonymous on forums. It's purely because I'm in education and have no wish to be tracked around the internet by students. It's a personal thing.


----------



## Anders Wall (Jul 4, 2020)

@Mike Greene
I don't really have a foot in this game. Love to be a user, would be so unhappy the 12 minutes I'd have as a moderator. I see what you're saying. But it's also hard to tell people not to be "problematic". I know from real life that most don't see them selfs as problematic and who am I to tell them they are etc....

@ka00
You are right. What about, don't tag anyone in anger?
(if that's a thing?).
I don't know, I only think that the word "celebrities" will get you into trouble.
Most citizens of the world don't have a clue to who I am. Yet some call me a celebrity (especially my mother  ). So where do we draw the line..?

Best,
Anders


----------



## JEPA (Jul 4, 2020)

1) New members posts allowed after a week/15 days of signing (healthy "lurker" time)
2) Be polite (first advice)
3) Be polite (second)
4) Be... banned
5) Insist? Be... out

just brainstorm, maybe drastic, maybe I am wrong...


----------



## Anders Wall (Jul 4, 2020)

Gerbil said:


> Glad to hear that because I don't do un-anonymous on forums. It's purely because I'm in education and have no wish to be tracked around the internet by students. It's a personal thing.


Ah, good point. But you could also write. " Hi ViC I'm a teacher at day and a ... etc. without writing you name or where in the world you're at.
That would make you less anonymous.
English is not main main language but I do hope you can understand what I mean.
Regards,
Anders


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 4, 2020)

ka00 said:


> True, but you are now left with a rule that says you can not tag someone without consent. How would that work? Do you PM someone to ask for consent? Isn’t it worse to PM someone who you aren’t sure would like to be addressed by you in the forum?


We're creating an app for that. Like Match, or eHarmony. If someone wants to tag you, and you have them on your _"Okay to tag me"_ list, then ... hearts aflutter!



ka00 said:


> Omitting the “especially celebrities” probably shift away from the intent of the rule in the first place, which was not to annoy public figures to the point where they would abandon the forum. I justify the amount of time I spend on VI control to my wife by telling her HZ and a member of NIN regularly post here.


You're right, that's the obvious intent, but as I think about, it doesn't matter whether the rule spells it out. If someone is bugging Hans, then the rule still does the trick.

Anders's point about the word "celebrities" is a good one, because there are a lot of people who get themselves wound up over the idea that we're "protecting" them. Which I suppose is true, except it's not because they're celebrities, it's because they're targets for trolls. If any normal member was also getting a bunch of unwanted tags, we'd protect them, too.



Gerbil said:


> Glad to hear that because I don't do un-anonymous on forums. It's purely because I'm in education and have no wish to be tracked around the internet by students. It's a personal thing.


Absolutely. You're all good. No normal member (the 99%) should change anything. These rules are entirely for problems, not to add new burdens to the members who make this forum what it is.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 4, 2020)

I like the ambiguity of the rules, their subjectivity. In the end, the difference between "persistent" and "trolling" can be in the eye of the beholder.

Like the new rule(s)


----------



## hummingbird (Jul 4, 2020)

It seems a very reasonable approach imho.


----------



## rrichard63 (Jul 4, 2020)

What is the dividing line between anonymous and non-anonymous (un-anonymous, dis-anonymous)? Take my profile, for instance. I give a general geographic area, an occupation and an admission that I try to play guitar in addition to virtual instruments.


----------



## NDRU (Jul 4, 2020)

I like the idea put forward here.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 4, 2020)

rrichard63 said:


> What is the dividing line between anonymous and non-anonymous (un-anonymous, dis-anonymous)? Take my profile, for instance. I give a general geographic area, an occupation and an admission that I try to play guitar in addition to virtual instruments.


In your case, and most other people here, it doesn't apply, so it doesn't matter.  In fact, your posting history here is more of an investment in the forum than knowing what your last name is. In other words, that history and reputation means that if you say something controversial (which for you and 99% of the membership is totally okay), it carries way more weight than somebody we don't know from Adam.

But again, these new rules don't really apply to 99% of the membership. They're just there so when problems arise with people who have no stake in the forum, we can use those rules to fix that specific problem.


----------



## Brambleclaw (Jul 4, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> As you may know, we had some drama in the Spitfire Westworld Winner thread last weekend. Heated discussion isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except much of this drama wasn’t from actual VI-Control members. Several of the loudest voices were people who joined the same day, apparently realizing Paul and Christian are members here, so they took this as their opportunity to vent (sorry, "offer helpful suggestions") directly at them.
> 
> That’s not what this forum is for. Members (high profile or otherwise) come here to learn, share, and enjoy themselves, not to be annoyed by people they don’t know.
> 
> ...



So if I'm a lurker for years, and then something irks me so much that it moves me to comment in a negative, but constructive way. I'm in breach of the rules.

Okay capt'n


Also I agree with the above poster about keeping the "especially celebrities" about tagging. Doesn't replying count as tagging?

This forum does give preferential treatment to certain individuals, there's nothing wrong with that, and there is a logical justification for the policy, so it would be easier for everyone if the forum in its rules indicates this in an as open as possible way.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 4, 2020)

Brambleclaw said:


> So if I'm a lurker for years, and then something irks me so much that it moves me to comment in a negative, but constructive way. I'm in breach of the rules.


If you tag Hans (yes, quoting is the same as tagging) and write a long post starting with the words: _"I made an account just to reply to this comment that you have made. Great for all the name dropping and then the holyier than thou attitude you have ..."_, then yes, you are in breach of the rules. (And I must say, it's not a good sign that you seem surprised by this.)

If you then spend the next few posts complaining about how I run the forum (as you did), then that also is what these rules are for.



Brambleclaw said:


> This forum does give preferential treatment to certain individuals...


We get accused of that a lot, but it isn't true. Had any other member posted what Hans wrote, they would be fine, too. In fact, many people did.

But you didn't respond to any those other guys, now did you? You responded to Hans.

I won't go into the psychology of why people like to do that, but the fact is that when Hans, Paul, Christian, or any of the popular troll-targets post, they get more than their fair share of hostile responses. If one of our real members responds, that's fine. But VI-Control is not a free-for-all for people to _"I made an account just to reply to this comment that you have made."_

Just so we're clear, if Anders, John, Richard, or any other member finds themselves in a similar situation where they're getting inappropriately hostile responses, we'll step in there, too. It's just that since that almost never happens, it only _seems_ like the higher profile members are getting special treatment.


----------



## jules (Jul 4, 2020)

ka00 said:


> I justify the amount of time I spend on VI control to my wife by telling her HZ and a member of NIN regularly post here.


Come on, you don't speak about me to your wife ?? Let's go to the drama zone, pliz !


----------



## Brambleclaw (Jul 4, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> If you tag Hans (yes, quoting is the same as tagging) and write a long post starting with the words: _"I made an account just to reply to this comment that you have made. Great for all the name dropping and then the holyier than thou attitude you have ..."_, then yes, you are in breach of the rules. (And I must say, it's not a good sign that you seem surprised by this.)
> 
> If you then spend the next few posts complaining about how I run the forum (as you did), then that also is what these rules are for.
> 
> ...


My account was made 2 years ago. When I made the post it had nothing to do with the poster being Hans, it was the attitude that he had towards the competitors that irked me due to how condescending it was.

But that is how I felt at the time as a lurker. I didn't spend my next few posts complaining about the forum either or how it was run. I merely stated that you were being overly parental. There was even agreement on yourside that you give special treatment to certain individuals, because you don't want them (specifically) to leave (Not everyone is equal in the world, I understand that I'm not an idealist. Consider a desert island scenario and this becomes obvious). That is to say you will treat it with more sensitivity such that you will doctor the mild posts that are sitting in a grey area. The fact, that he subsequently posted in the thread that was split off from the main thread and where mine and other posters had been moved, says alot about that point.
The only reason that I can conclude for him to do this, is possibly relating to his personal feelings about the whole matter and how Spitfire Audio were being treated as a company. It is a very different thing to bash someones product, as opposed to bashing them as a company.

I don't have a problem, at all with this form of moderating. It is your forum, and if you think its in the best interests for the forum, then I am not to judge. I don't have the burden of running a forum, nor any of the responsibilities. So its not my place. At most, I might comment my disbelief or own view, but I'm not going to continually bludgeon on about like some others have been doing (that somehow you have exhibited unhuman levels of patience with. Hats off to you for that)

However, I don't really see why you in some posts you call the spade a spade, and in some posts avoid it. It just causes confusion all around. In this regards, I think it would be helpful to be clear about it rather than murky.

Clarity in many cases, will avoid the offense in the first place. Rather, than burdening you with clearing up the fallout, because the lines were not clearly drawn.



If it makes you feel any better, I didn't even make the connection that HZ was Hans Zimmer, until half way through my post.

I also had no idea who half of the people at Spitfire audio were, until that video by one of them as the follow up.

For me personally IDGF about the company, and I make it my business not to gaf about the company. If they make good products, and i find value in those products. Then I will buy them.


----------



## jason.d (Jul 4, 2020)

I think these new rules are pretty fair.

I consider myself in the category of members who have been around for a little while but don’t post all that much, and I don’t see any problems with what’s written in the first rule. I think at the end of the day- just treat others how you would like to be treated and everything is fine.

I love this forum and I don’t see these rules changing that.

Cheers


----------



## kgdrum (Jul 4, 2020)

@Mike Greene 

This sounds a bit clunky and weird to me:

“We're creating an app for that. Like Match, or eHarmony. If someone wants to tag you, and you have them on your "Okay to tag me" list, then ... hearts aflutter!”

Another approach you might want to consider on KVR a new user can not sell or post links until they have posted xx amount of times.

Why not implement a rule like a new member can’t tag anyone unless they have surpassed something like 50 posts?


Just a thought 

Thanks


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 4, 2020)

kgdrum said:


> This sounds a bit clunky and weird to me:
> 
> “We're creating an app for that. Like Match, or eHarmony. If someone wants to tag you, and you have them on your "Okay to tag me" list, then ... hearts aflutter!”


That's just a joke. We're not really going to make a dating app. 



kgdrum said:


> Another approach you might want to consider on KVR a new user can not sell or post links until they have posted xx amount of times.
> 
> Why not implement a rule like a new member can’t tag anyone unless they have surpassed something like 50 posts?


Coming up with definitive metrics would be a never-ending task, and still not do the trick. Consider, for instance, that gspot (the guy started this whole thing) has over 50 posts already, yet definitely isn't in the group of people who "get it."

Instead, we're keeping things purposely vague. Then when problems arise, we have our little Bag O' Rules at the ready.


----------



## JJP (Jul 4, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> That's just a joke. We're not really going to make a dating app.



Well, it's been nice everyone. I see no reason to stay anymore. The thrill is gone.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 5, 2020)

I have joined a few composer forums on FB where new members can't post untill they have been a member for a certain period.
Yes it is frustrating but it will stop annon from registering just to post vile things like the 'Westworld Incident'.
Yes, thet would have included me not being able to say my bit but i would have accepted that but a troll would have just left the forum. Maybe.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jul 5, 2020)

I like the fact we don't have rules. Sort of like anarchy crossed with a benevolent dictator thing going on. With Mike Greene as El Presidente....





(Mike Greene - seen here shortly after 'moderating' some posts)​
But if we are going to have rules, we probably only need these:

1) Don't behave like a twat.
2) See rule No 1.

Problem is that not everyone will understand rule No 1.

I've occasionally dropped in and read the ongoing 'group therapy' thread in the drama zone, often with my head in my hands. I really sometimes want to post something there, but I refrain because I don't want to keep it going.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 5, 2020)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Another question: what about as part of the “ignore” function that prevents an ignored member from viewing the posts you make? This could help the forum “self moderate” in the event a member continuously acts in bad faith.



I don't think that's a good idea because it signals to the person who was put on ignore, that they were put on ignore and by whom. I see that as a new potential source of drama. On another forum I have about 3 dozen people on ignore, I wouldn't be comfortable with them all knowing about that, because I don't announce these ignores. I mostly just use them as a reminder function not to get into arguments with those people.


----------



## emilio_n (Jul 5, 2020)

I am not so long here, maybe around one year, but I am quite active. I think I read new posts every day and join the conversations always that I have something valuable to say or something stupid to ask (most of the times)

I found that the community on VIC is mainly good people, very talented professionals and for sure loving music and virtual instrumentation. I found a lot of people joking, giving great advice and sometimes in a hot but polite discussion. I discovered some users a little bit in the troll side, but no more than 1% of the total but they are noisy.
Everybody that comes here knows who they are and most are new users.

I love the lack of strict rules because this is mainly a very cool community and most of the times are not needed. When I discovered for the first time the drama zone, I thought is a great idea to keep out threads that are maybe funny and even useful but a little bit out of control.

About the "celebrities" I am sure that they participate and read on this forum because the majority of the users just treat them like colleagues with similar passions. I absolutely agree with @Mike Greene  that as constant point of trolls they deserve a little bit of care, same is someone suddenly start trolling me everyday. This is the hard work of the moderators.

Just want to point out how I love the community of VI and how much I am learning, enjoying and sharing my GAS drama with all of you.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 5, 2020)

I think trolls should be kicked as soon as they troll.
Trolls are for Twitter and FB and places like that.
This is a place where people with the same passion for composing music can come and share weather we are celebs or bedroom composers.

If a celeb joins this forum, he is here for the same reasons as us but because of his status and high profile, he will be more likely to be trolled, they get enough of that on social media so they don't want it here.

So looking after them seems logical.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 5, 2020)

Just be glad, folks, that I don’t moderate this forum. I would not be anywhere as laissez faire as Mike is.

I would say, my house, my rules, and if you leave, don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out.

Mike is doing a good job on an impossible task.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 5, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I have joined a few composer forums on FB where new members can't post untill they have been a member for a certain period.
> Yes it is frustrating but it will stop annon from registering just to post vile things like the 'Westworld Incident'.
> Yes, thet would have included me not being able to say my bit but i would have accepted that but a troll would have just left the forum. Maybe.


That would be overkill, since usually when someone joins, they have positive contributions. (Like you.) They're often very timely, as well, since we've often seen instances where a person or company is discussed (positively), then that person finds out and comes here to give us more info. I don't want to restrict that.

Although the Westworld issue was a loud one, it's actually pretty rare, so I don't want to implement a cure that causes more problems than the disease. I think the three new rules should do the trick.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 5, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> Coming up with definitive metrics would be a never-ending task, and still not do the trick.



Mike is articulating the "principles-based" argument, by contrast with the "rules-based."

*Rules Can Be Outsmarted*

The distinction matters because, no matter how thoughtful one is about "bright line rules" (like, "You can't call people a _____") is that someone will then devise a way of spelling the same word differently, or using an indirect synonym that nevertheless means the same thing.

Besides, can we picture the length any such list of words would have to reach to accomplish that task? And that's just in English.

And anyway, sometimes people deserve to be called a "____"

*Principles -- in the Eye of the Moderator(s)*

By contrast, Mike's going for "principles-based" regime, which I support. That's more like, "be helpful" or "constructive," or "attack the post, not the person." Or something like that.

Most people here are grownups, so have at it. Nevertheless it's worth remembering that not everyone is, in fact, an adult. Not everyone is a man of European descent (or whatever you think the predominant tone is).

On that subject, we all should remember that some posts can be extremely fraught for one set of people even though you might hear them even on television in some places; if you or your ancestors have been victimized in one way or another, jokes or casual remarks on that topic are not so "casual."


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 5, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> As you may know, we had some drama in the Spitfire Westworld Winner thread last weekend. Heated discussion isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except much of this drama wasn’t from actual VI-Control members. Several of the loudest voices were people who joined the same day, apparently realizing Paul and Christian are members here, so they took this as their opportunity to vent (sorry, "offer helpful suggestions") directly at them.
> 
> That’s not what this forum is for. Members (high profile or otherwise) come here to learn, share, and enjoy themselves, not to be annoyed by people they don’t know.
> 
> ...


I think 💭 this is all reasonable, Mike. And, it’s great you are communicating clearly about this for all who appreciate the vibe of your forum.


----------



## Confuzzly (Jul 5, 2020)

I guess I'll go against the grain here and say that I very much disagree with the implementation of these rules. Specifically 1 and 2. Perhaps I am missing something, in which case I hope someone will clear things up for me.

To my eyes, these rules serve no purpose but to be vague, confusing, alienating, while simultaneously solving nothing at all.


1) Am I new? Maybe? I've been registered for over 6 years now, but I have a low post count. Is this post negative? Maybe? I'm disagreeing with people, but I would like to think I am being constructive and mostly respectful with how I am voicing my opinion. Am I breaking this rule? Possibly? Thankfully, I have been here long enough to know that even if I am breaking this rule, that nothing will happen since moderators don't tend to intervene unless things get extreme. However, an actual new user who just joined is not going to know that. They will look at these rules, take them at face value, and assume that they cannot voice their own opinion if it is negative (whatever that means). That is not how a forum should be in my opinion. We should be encouraging users of all "ages" to have and voice their opinions as long as it is done respectfully. However, instead of having a rule that simply states "Be Respectful", we have a rule that is instead putting a muzzle on anyone who dares to have the audacity to register for this forum beyond this date. That does not seem fair nor reasonable to me.

Additionally this just doesn't seem like a good way to welcome new users to the forum.

2) Mike admits two replies into this thread that anonymous users aren't a problem, only "problematic users" are. Yet this rule does nothing to address problematic users, and only alienates users who chose to stay anonymous. 

Some anonymous users are jerks. Most anonymous users aren't. Yet rather than have a rule that says "Don't be a jerk", we have a rule that singles out anonymous users as though we are all just waiting for our time to be an ass.

3) I don't really have an issue. I just hope it is applied fairly instead of ignoring some high profile, long time users who can, at times, be drama magnets.


To reiterate, I guess I am just having trouble understanding the purpose of these new rules. Additionally, Mike openly admits that the rules won't be enforced, which only makes me further question what the point is. It just seems confusing, alienating, and unwelcoming for no reason at all.

If Mike is just looking for justification to act on problematic users, then "Don't be jerk" seems like more than enough while also not singling out entire groups of users, most of whom have nothing to do with the problem. Of course there could be a subset of rules clarifying what being a jerk entails (racism, sexism, harassment, etc.), but this seems like a better option to me rather than having a set of rules that are merely confusing, alienating, unwelcoming, and that some users, especially new ones, will take as gospel.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 5, 2020)

Confuzzly said:


> I guess I'll go against the grain here and say that I very much disagree with the implementation of these rules. Specifically 1 and 2. Perhaps I am missing something, in which case I hope someone will clear things up for me.
> 
> To my eyes, these rules serve no purpose but to be vague, confusing, alienating, while simultaneously solving nothing at all.
> 
> ...


You're over-thinking this.  

The only real rule on this forum is, as you suggest, _"Don't be jerk."_ The problem, though, is that there are some people who don't "get it," and don't believe _they're_ being the jerk.

So these new "rules" are for them. I'm announcing them here, with a wink and a nod, so that the majority of people here (including new members) who already understand _"Don't be a jerk,"_ will know that they don't need to concern themselves with these new rules at all.


----------



## chillbot (Jul 5, 2020)

Mike I am going to send you a fridge magnet that says "drama" on it so you can have your very own drama magnet.


----------



## Confuzzly (Jul 5, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> You're over-thinking this.



Fair enough.

I am still left wondering what the point is though. If "Don't be a jerk" is essentially the only rule, then why muddy the waters with arbitrary rules that overthinking idiots like myself will misinterpret?

If someone wants to be a jerk, then they will be. No written rule, no matter how specific is going to change that. That is what moderators are for. To deal with people who just feel like being a jerk for some reason.

If someone is not understanding of what being a jerk is, then surely having "rules" that clarify what that means is a better solution, no? Instead we have weirdly restrictive "rules" that aren't rules, but will be used as rules by the mods if those not-rules are broken.


----------



## sndmarks (Jul 5, 2020)

Welp, I guess that explains why I'm tagged as a new member after 11 years on the forum! 

Did you have any idea it was going to be so much fun when you took over this place, Mike?!? How hard is "No Asshattery Allowed" for some people?!? smh


----------



## JohnG (Jul 5, 2020)

Confuzzly said:


> Instead we have weirdly restrictive "rules" that aren't rules, but will be used as rules by the mods if those not-rules are broken.



they're mushy on purpose, since they're principle-based, not prescriptive. The SEC uses the principles approach in some areas so that clever people can't comply with the letter of some rule while blatantly violating its spirit.

I tried to clarify above (in this thread) the distinction between "principles-based" and "rules-based." It's talked about by lawyers with some frequency.


----------



## Anders Wall (Jul 5, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Mike I am going to send you a fridge magnet that says "drama" on it so you can have your very own drama magnet.


Please, please send one my way.
I‘ll pay for postage, pasta and (p)beer.
/A


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 5, 2020)

When a driver is pulled over by police and told they were speeding, or have a tail light out, or have expired tags, etc. that's usually enough for most drivers to accept that the stop was justified. But we've all seen those videos of drivers who turn into obstinate roadside lawyers. Regardless of why they were stopped, they vehemently insist the officer had no reason whatsoever to pull them over. They are of a different mindset than law and order. They take the traffic stop personally and internalize it as an act of infringement on their freedom. Some of these drivers will go so far as to label themselves "free inhabitants" and insist they are exempt from traffic laws.

Internet forum troublemakers usually share the same mindset as these "free inhabitants." When they are warned or penalized for their conduct on a forum, they don't get it. Instead of making any attempt to understand what happened and why, they internalize the penalty as an act of infringement on their freedom and hold the moderator/owner in contempt.

The new rules may or may not help, but if anything, they'll give Mike written leverage when dealing with disruptive new members.

The only thing I may suggest is that the first rule, as written, does sound perhaps a tad intimidating. I'd take out the part about not being allowed to tag another member, because it's a fundamental function of the forum that no one would assume would be off limits. I understand the meaning behind the rule, but it should probably be coded into the site itself rather than imposed as a rule.

Also, not being allowed to be negative in certain ways could be a little intimidating to new members as well. What I would do is post a rule that gets straight to the point...

_"If you're a newer member whose apparent reason for joining was to bitch, whine, and throw shade, you stand a much higher chance of being suspended or banned. This especially goes for newer members posting anonymously. That kind of toxicity may be acceptable on other sites, but it's not welcome in the VI-Control community, and we will not hesitate to nip it in the bud."_


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 5, 2020)

I think i joined at a bad time. I did hear about this forum on one of Christian Henson's vlogs (didn't tag him lol) and i thought i would check it out but didn't get round to it.
Then a few days ago during the YouTube storm, i saw this forums name and i joined. Yes i did say a bit on the Westworld post as it was happening at the time and i was a part of it.
When i join a forum, it's usually because i have something in common with the members and it's great to make new friends that share my passion.

I am still a bit worried that i may do the wrong thing as i don't know the site or the members yet and tagging someone is usually a good way of getting their attention and making friends.

If that is a rule now, i will abide by it but i would need to know how long i would have to wait before i am able to if that makes sense.


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 5, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> If that is a rule now, i will abide by it but i would need to know how long i would have to wait before i am able to if that makes sense.



I know this wasn't directed to me (I don't work here) but I think it's safe to say the rule was primarily designed to keep toxic newbies from overloading established members' notification alerts. Just the fact that you're genuinely concerned about the rule is enough to indicate you probably never have to worry about breaking it.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 5, 2020)

I always believed and still do, that all problems in the world would be solved pretty fast if everybody would listen to the inner compass of right and wrong behavior and would behave according to it. (I believe there is such a compass within everybody- but more often than not ignored) There would be no need for laws, punishment, cults, priests and a lot of other time wasting things.
Obviously the world of humans doesn't work like that unfortunately. But the forum and the way Mike handles the issues of members that seem to be a bit separated from a well balanced feeling of right and wrong comes close to a world where we are directed by an inner compass and not rules. This to me is what "Don't be a jerk" is all about. I mean we more or less all know what it means without rules.
So I enjoy this environment and learned an awful lot during the years from this forum and I'm thankful that there are some guys that take care for vi control being what it is. (I hope this is right english 🙂).
Anyway I think you do a great job Mike.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 5, 2020)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> I always believed and still do, that all problems in the world would be solved pretty fast if everybody would listen to the inner compass of right and wrong behavior and would behave according to it. (I believe there is such a compass within everybody- but more often than not ignored)



I wish I still believed that, but there are too many sociopaths for that to be true. Estimates range that from 1-4 % of the population are sociopaths.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Estimates range from 1-4 % of the population.



And 40-50% of composers. I'm pretty sure.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I wish I still believed that, but there are too many sociopaths for that to be true. Estimates range from 1-4 % of the population.


That's why I said it's ignored more often than not. And in the worst possible manners. Ignoring or consciously acting against your conscience doesn't mean there is none. If it wouldn't be like that nobody would understand what "Don't be a jerk" means.
The reason why this is so seems to me one of the big secrets of humanity. And btw it's the source for most stories that are told and we support through our music.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 6, 2020)

JohnG said:


> And 40-50% of composers. I'm pretty sure.


Might well be true. I met some sociopathic musicians but most of the time we can get along quite well with each other. Regardless of culture and opinions. As long as you play in time and don't f***up the changes of course😀.


----------



## gpax (Jul 6, 2020)

I wish people would recognize this notion of a so-called self-moderating forum for what it is: we are mostly made up of respectful and aware contributors each day, yes, but the trade-offs for such self-declared autonomy will be these periodic contentious and/or exploited threads.

To me, after several years here, it strikes me more that the belief in self-moderating is the thing unto itself, like a shared perception, but where it’s not necessarily a tangible thing (just my view). But even as we espouse such an idea, we must also own up to these moments when so-called self-moderating fails. The thread in question is also a failure of appropriate moderating, no matter how it can also be blamed on trolls. 

These cartwheels to reassure everyone’s autonomy, after a Moderator or Admin intervenes, has never made sense to me. Only where some prize their untouchable autonomy over the public pummeling of a forum member do you then see threads go on for page after page. To me, it exposes the limitations, if not the myth of a forum experiment that seeks to moderate itself. I’m not saying it can’t be tried, and most definitely the better voices do defend and diffuse. But I just think we need to be honest about the ups and downs, and how intervention also has its place, rather than constantly touting this ideal of virtue in the form of a self-moderating clan.

It’s not about the heated or contentious discussions themselves. It’s about the duration, and the failure to recognize when or how to put on the brakes when accusations fly. It’s about forgoing mechanisms that in other realms, actually get triggered in tandem with stated rules - not just after the fact. 

I recently read about this referee under review for letting a fight go on too long, when it was obvious to everyone else the loser was injured and still being pummeled by the opponent. I immediately thought of our forum.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jul 6, 2020)

The new rules sound fine to me.

The thing about user anonymity is that whilst there are good reasons why _some_ members would require it, the need doesn't apply to most of us. I can't help thinking that many of the more toxic conversations would never happen if everyone had to identify themselves. It's a tricky one.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Mike and the rest of the mods. I couldn't believe the amount of prose in the aforementioned Westworld threads and I gave up reading them pretty early on. I don't envy anyone who had to spend time moderating it. Thanks guys for your hard graft.
A


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 6, 2020)

Alex Fraser said:


> I can't help thinking that many of the more toxic conversations would never happen if everyone had to identify themselves. It's a tricky one.



You'd think that, but of the top of my head some of the most toxic people we've seen here were posting with their real full names (or at least linked to a website with their full name in their signature, makes no difference imho) and they weren't total nobodies either. Those people don't think they're doing anything wrong, so posting under their full name isn't a concern for them. They think all the _others _are the jerks and they're just defending themselves. *Not *thinking of DJ by the way, just to be clear!




Alex Fraser said:


> I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Mike and the rest of the mods. I couldn't believe the amount of prose in the aforementioned Westworld threads and I gave up reading them pretty early on. I don't envy anyone who had to spend time moderating it. Thanks guys for your hard graft.



+1


----------



## JohnG (Jul 6, 2020)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> Might well be true. I met some sociopathic musicians but most of the time we can get along quite well with each other. Regardless of culture and opinions. As long as you play in time and don't f***up the changes of course😀.



It's funny you should say that -- it's often struck me that you can perform for years with people and never know anything much about them other than whether they sing flat or something.

It's a curiously intimate relationship on one level, performing together, and yet not at all.


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 6, 2020)

JohnG said:


> they're mushy on purpose, since they're principle-based, not prescriptive. The SEC uses the principles approach in some areas so that clever people can't comply with the letter of some rule while blatantly violating its spirit.
> 
> I tried to clarify above (in this thread) the distinction between "principles-based" and "rules-based." It's talked about by lawyers with some frequency.


Lawyers love to write contracts in legalese that no one including a judge can understand just so they can explain what their words mean depending on which side of the fence they are on at anytime. Other than a very small handful of lawyers in the world that are honest and do good, the rest should be ejected and jettisoned with the garbage the next time the Imperial Star Destroyer is about to go into hyperdrive.


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 6, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I wish I still believed that, but there are too many sociopaths for that to be true. Estimates range from 1-4 % of the population.


Don’t you mean only 1-4% of the population are not sociopaths? 😜


----------



## JohnG (Jul 6, 2020)

Well, I don't have such a dim view of lawyers as you do. Maybe humans just aren't so hot?

Amazing to witness how people can twist the shining principles of liberty and compassion for others into justifications for cruelty, bigotry, "othering," and oppression.

Nothing new, of course; been reading a bunch of Plutarch's Lives over the years and nobody's invented a new form of awfulness for quite some time!


----------



## Lea1229 (Jul 6, 2020)

rrichard63 said:


> What is the dividing line between anonymous and non-anonymous (un-anonymous, dis-anonymous)? Take my profile, for instance. I give a general geographic area, an occupation and an admission that I try to play guitar in addition to virtual instruments.


I too must confess to playing the guitar. Ah, at last it's out in the open!


----------



## JohnG (Jul 6, 2020)

Lea1229 said:


> I too must confess to playing the guitar. Ah, at last it's out in the open!



You are not alone; there is help. 

..just...put...the...guitar...down.....


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 6, 2020)

Lea1229 said:


> I too must confess to playing the guitar. Ah, at last it's out in the open!


I think you clicked Reply on the wrong post. Obviously you meant to reply to Jay's post:
_"Estimates range that from 1-4 % of the population are sociopaths."_


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 6, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Well, I don't have such a dim view of lawyers as you do. Maybe humans just aren't so hot?
> 
> Amazing to witness how people can twist the shining principles of liberty and compassion for others into justifications for cruelty, bigotry, "othering," and oppression.
> 
> Nothing new, of course; been reading a bunch of Plutarch's Lives over the years and nobody's invented a new form of awfulness for quite some time!


Actually, many entertainment attorneys in London are rather nice people because they are not driven by the greed culture in the States. Because Hollywood entertainment attorneys typically charge 5% it doesn’t create the inherent problems that come with non-entertainment attorneys, especially if you are paying by the hour where their entire motivation is to milk 🥛 the clock for all it’s worth and allow things to go on and on. Too often attorneys are either too motivated by greed or simply lack character. I’ve had the pleasure to work some wonderful lawyers in my lifetime, but from my experience this is an absurdly short list of people. I don’t think humans have changed much for thousands of years. Every blue moon you run across someone so exceptional, but more often than not that is not what one normally has to deal with.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 6, 2020)

If you consider for a minute, I think you'll agree that avarice is not confined solely to the US. Unfortunately, over time, most people's behaviour can be predicted by two feelings: fear and greed. What do you think built the British (and Egyptian, Assyrian, Spanish....) empires?

That doesn't mean everyone is irredeemable, but it takes, in the words of Mad-Eye, "constant vigilance."


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 6, 2020)

JohnG said:


> If you consider for a minute, I think you'll agree that avarice is not confined solely to the US. Unfortunately, over time, most people's behaviour can be predicted by two feelings: fear and greed. What do you think built the British (and Egyptian, Assyrian, Spanish....) empires?
> 
> That doesn't mean everyone is irredeemable, but it takes, in the words of Mad-Eye, "constant vigilance."


I didn’t mean to imply that Her Majesty’s Royal Navy when it ruled the world’s seas was earnest in its practice. Yet, John, if you were a producer and needed an attorney to negotiate the contracts for the Broadway director and writers and print out the red herrings for investors you would be paying $160,000 or more to a Manhattan lawyer while his counterpart in London for the same work for your West End play only charges $7,000. How does that make sense even slightly?


----------



## toomanynotes (Jul 6, 2020)

Ah that's why i keep getting deleted, fair play but I'm too famous to have my name known..


----------



## JohnG (Jul 6, 2020)

Maybe the lawyers in Manhattan are better?

I mean that mostly facetiously; not better, exactly but more to worry about. My agreements with non-US production companies, studios, whatever are far shorter; sometimes a quarter the length for a similar project. At Disney, when I wrote cartoon music they required -- for each cue -- huge long agreements that each had to be notarized (a less onerous process in the US than in England, but still).

Call it whatever you want -- greed maybe -- but the machinations of commerce in the US grind exceeding small (as the saying goes) and lawyers here have to anticipate problems that are omitted in my non-US agreements.

I don't really mean "better" of course. But more thorough? Yes.

Plus, shop around. It's not considered in poor taste to negotiate in the US.


----------



## rrichard63 (Jul 6, 2020)

Lea1229 said:


> rrichard63 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I give a general geographic area, an occupation and an admission that I try to play guitar in addition to virtual instruments.
> ...


I suspect there's a difference between us. The really important word in that sentence was "try".


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Jul 6, 2020)

*Anonymous Members*

Catch me if you can...

*



*


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 6, 2020)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> I always believed and still do, that all problems in the world would be solved pretty fast if everybody would listen to the inner compass of right and wrong behavior and would behave according to it. (I believe there is such a compass within everybody- but more often than not ignored) There would be no need for laws, punishment, cults, priests and a lot of other time wasting things.
> Obviously the world of humans doesn't work like that unfortunately. But the forum and the way Mike handles the issues of members that seem to be a bit separated from a well balanced feeling of right and wrong comes close to a world where we are directed by an inner compass and not rules. This to me is what "Don't be a jerk" is all about. I mean we more or less all know what it means without rules.


The issue here is that there are, in fact, differing cultural expectations about what's right and wrong in many cases. There are certainly things that are universal, but I think a decent amount of conflict, especially in online communities where people come from different places, comes from differing ideas of what behavior is and isn't appropriate.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 7, 2020)

Arthur Lewis said:


> The issue here is that there are, in fact, differing cultural expectations about what's right and wrong in many cases. There are certainly things that are universal, but I think a decent amount of conflict, especially in online communities where people come from different places, comes from differing ideas of what behavior is and isn't appropriate.


I'm not sure if different cultural expectations is what we are talking about. I think it's more about a "jerky" kind of destructive behavior that was the reason for the new rules. I don't have a lot of experience with online communities but I doubt that there is a place where this kind of behavior is appropriate. And if there is such a place it is certainly necessary to keep it out of the forum. IMO
It seems to me a little bit like in a school class where sometimes one jerk can take the energy from the whole class. Not necessarily coming from a different culture. Just messy family circumstances maybe. 
As far as I witnessed threads where misunderstandings because of culture or language or whatever occurred they are most often solved pretty fast and usually don't lead to the drama zone.


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 7, 2020)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> I'm not sure if different cultural expectations is what we are talking about. I think it's more about a "jerky" kind of destructive behavior that was the reason for the new rules. I don't have a lot of experience with online communities but I doubt that there is a place where this kind of behavior is appropriate. And if there is such a place it is certainly necessary to keep it out of the forum. IMO
> It seems to me a little bit like in a school class where sometimes one jerk can take the energy from the whole class. Not necessarily coming from a different culture. Just messy family circumstances maybe.
> As far as I witnessed threads where misunderstandings because of culture or language or whatever occurred they are most often solved pretty fast and usually don't lead to the drama zone.


I don't know enough about this specific case to know whether or not that's true, but I believe you. I was responding specifically to your larger point about the world's problems and priests and whatnot.


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 7, 2020)

Actually no, let me double down on this a bit. I used to co-admin a Slack with thousands of members, where the only rule was "Be kind", and we often found that the folks who caused the drama would claim that other folks were the ones being unkind to them. And then that would escalate, and people would start arguing about each other's values and perspectives and yada yada yada, and most importantly, everyone involved would think they were in the right. There were certainly clear cut cases where one person was just being a jerk, but there were also cases where people were behaving in ways that were accepted and encouraged in other online environments, but not in ours. I think it's often not as simple as just being able to separate things into Good People and Bad People.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 7, 2020)

Arthur Lewis said:


> I don't know enough about this specific case to know whether or not that's true, but I believe you. I was responding specifically to your larger point about the world's problems and priests and whatnot.


It seems to me that the small little nastiness between individuals relates a lot to the larger "world" problems. But I really want to avoid a discussion on world problems, politics. It's not the place for this kind of stuff here and far to complex. But I understand what you are trying to say.


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 7, 2020)

Yup, I'm with you on both counts!


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 7, 2020)

Arthur Lewis said:


> . I think it's often not as simple as just being able to separate things into Good People and Bad People.


This is very true.


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 7, 2020)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> I don't have a lot of experience with online communities but I doubt that there is a place where this kind of behavior is appropriate. And if there is such a place it is certainly necessary to keep it out of the forum.



It's not appropriate behavior most anywhere, but one thing that makes forums different from each other is the extent to which such behavior is tolerated. There is a lot that one can freely say on sites like Craigslist, YouTube, or LiveLeak that is not acceptable here.

People who cuss like sailors at their local tavern tavern will naturally act different in church, but online forums don't have the benefit of steeples and stained glass windows identifying them as places of better conduct. So, when people who are used to lambasting on other forums join VI-Control to continue their behavior, their first VI-Control experience is usually getting moderated.

When that happens, depending on the thickness of their skin, they will:

Read the rules and accept them (albeit begrudgingly) or...
Decide this forum is not a good fit and leave, or...
Launch a non-stop, multi-post, dramatic tirade against the forum citing censorship and favoritism, and declare Mike Greene to be the world's most arrogant, pompous, self-righteous, self-centered, egotistical, haughty, conceited, domineering, imperious, overbearing, overweening, cocky, sanctimonious, moralizing dictator better known in the Book of Revelations as the Antichrist.
Every forum on the internet has to deal with people like this, and decisive moderation is necessary to prevent them from turning a forum like this into Craigslist.


----------



## MDMullins (Jul 7, 2020)

I posted a critique of StaffPad recently. I thought it was even-handed and apropos. Where does something like that fit? If the forum is just for companies to offer their wares without any critical response, then wouldn't this just be an advertising forum and not a forum for discussion? And this post that I'm posting now, is this allowed? Just trying to get a feel for what's really allowed and what's not.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 7, 2020)

MDMullins said:


> I posted a critique of StaffPad recently. I thought it was even-handed and apropos. Where does something like that fit?


You're overthinking this. As I said in Rule 1: "_Critiques on products are okay, but be cool about it."_ _"Even handed and apropos"_ fall under the umbrella of "_be cool about it,_" so you're fine.

There are lots and lots of post critical about products by Spitfire and just about every other company here. (Except Realitone, of course, which would get you banned immediately!  ) Totally fine. Honest opinions (both good and bad) about libraries is probably the biggest function of the forum. In fact, it's how the forum got started. (Check out the masterfully written _"A Short Forum History"_ post on the Portal Page.)

The purpose of the new rules isn't to stop critiques, the purpose of the new rules is to get people not to be jerks when they do it.


----------



## MDMullins (Jul 7, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> You're overthinking this. As I said in Rule 1: "_Critiques on products are okay, but be cool about it."_ _"Even handed and apropos"_ fall under the umbrella of "_be cool about it,_" so you're fine.
> 
> There are lots and lots of post critical about products by Spitfire and just about every other company here. (Except Realitone, of course, which would get you banned immediately!  ) Totally fine. Honest opinions (both good and bad) about libraries is probably the biggest function of the forum. In fact, it's how the forum got started. (Check out the masterfully written _"A Short Forum History"_ post on the Portal Page.)
> 
> The purpose of the new rules isn't to stop critiques, the purpose of the new rules is to get people not to be jerks when they do it.



That seems fair. No desire to be a jerk, but I do use the forum to get a feel for new products, so honest opinions which don't come from a place of financial gain are important to me.


----------



## Rory (Jul 7, 2020)

I think that there are things going on here that are quite a bit more damaging than Westworld posts. I'd like to know why people who are being paid to market products while posting here are not required to state that in their posts. I have a lot of respect for the one participant on this forum - yes, one - who states as a matter of course that he has received free product from companies that he talks about. It's amazing that that is not the norm, especially in cases where people are actually being paid. This is a matter of basic ethics and transparency. When people hide these business arrangements, it hurts the credibility of this forum and badly serves participants. I don't know about this forum, but on some platforms, such as YouTube, failing to disclose such relationships is believed to actually be against the law, and for good reason. Why is a blind eye turned to this here? Who gains from turning a blind eye to this?


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 7, 2020)

Rory said:


> I have a lot of respect for the one participant on this forum who states as a matter of course that he has received free product from companies that he talks about. It's amazing that that is not the norm,



I've seen other members do that. They'll add something like "I received a free product for review." (In fact, one member posted it so often that other members politely asked him to stop. LOL) But if a reviewer doesn't post that, it really doesn't matter to me, because the requirement to do so assumes the reviewer is corruptible and may not be delivering an objective review. I honestly don't think that's the case 99% of the time. The VI-Control members who receive free libraries for review, in my opinion, don't obscure the libraries' weaknesses. If there's a problem or a major shortcoming, they'll mention it.




Rory said:


> Why is a blind eye turned to this here?



In my opinion, it would be creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I think requiring people to mention free/discounted products on Amazon, eBay, YouTube, Facebook, or other major websites used by millions and millions of people is standard fare, because the potential for financially-influenced reviews is inevitable.

VI-Control is made up of only a few thousand members, which is so insignificant compared to those other sites that individual problems are still manageable and handled personally by a small group of moderators. If the disclaimer rule were added to reviews, all of the honest reviewers would follow it, but it would be ignored by anyone wanting to post a deceitfully positive review for financial gain.

By default, I read ALL reviews with skepticism... not because I believe the reviewer's opinions may have been influenced by financial gain, but simply because no two reviewers are the same. Every reviewer has a different set of ears, different set of skills, different musical background, different needs and expectations from a library, etc. Ultimately it's up to me to make an informed decision by vetting the reviews I read the same as the demos I hear and the walkthrough videos I watch.


----------



## Rory (Jul 7, 2020)

@Polkasound I’m talking about people who have a paid business relationship as well as people getting free product, although I regard that as a distinction without a difference. If you don’t know that the former is happening here, that underscores the problem.

The thing that’s interesting is that some people oppose transparency about receipt of financial benefits in money or in kind. Why? What legitimate basis is there for the opposition?

If it doesn’t matter, why do legislatures routinely require that these payments be disclosed on public platforms? Why do legitimate newspapers pay for their critics’ tickets and meals instead of accepting freebies.

This is a pretty straightforward issue.


----------



## Buz (Jul 8, 2020)

It doesn't even have to be disruptive - just a universal flag on any post where there's a relationship.

I agree that people are review savvy these days, but it's the more subtle stuff like making helpful recommendations that aren't a great fit, or constantly bumping things to the centre of attention. This seems kinda dirty. Hype from genuine users also happens but it's nice to be able to separate the two at a glance.


----------



## Brambleclaw (Jul 8, 2020)

JohnG said:


> they're mushy on purpose, since they're principle-based, not prescriptive. The SEC uses the principles approach in some areas so that clever people can't comply with the letter of some rule while blatantly violating its spirit.
> 
> I tried to clarify above (in this thread) the distinction between "principles-based" and "rules-based." It's talked about by lawyers with some frequency.


You mean arbitrary justice. 

Arbitrary justice. A despotic regime where people are punished without rhyme nor reason and no one knows where they stand. The laws are so malleable you can be charged with a crime for merely existing.

Dworkins theory was more nuanced tbf.

The teleological approach is a gross offense to basic logic and morality. But hey ho. 

If this was truly a principle based approach, then he wouldn't need such a lengthy set of rules, he could sum it up for this forum as "don't cause drama and don't be a dick".


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 8, 2020)

People causing drama tend not to believe they are the cause of the drama.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 8, 2020)

Brambleclaw said:


> You mean arbitrary justice.
> 
> Arbitrary justice. A despotic regime where people are punished without rhyme nor reason and no one knows where they stand. The laws are so malleable you can be charged with a crime for merely existing.
> 
> ...



You don't have any idea what I'm talking about. It is not arbitrary at all, any more than your suggestion would be.

Speaking of which....


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 8, 2020)

Rory said:


> The thing that’s interesting is that some people oppose transparency about receipt of financial benefits in money or in kind. Why?



I believe in 100% transparency as far as charitable donations go, but in everyday business, no. We know that there are employees of developers here. We know that there are affiliates and third party sellers here. But I don't see that as a problem. Many of them identify their affiliation through their custom title or logo. Some don't, but they make their affiliations obvious by the content of their posts here and on other forums. Personally, I don't see such posting as deceitful and requiring special notation.

Now and then, however, a member comes along who touts a product in such a way as to raise suspicion, such as bumping or burying posts. A little detective work may indicate they're obviously in cahoots with that developer, or they are in cahoots with a competing developer and trying to stir up some controversy. Do you think this kind of member is going to voluntarily follow an "admit your affiliation" rule?

If any posting activity seems intentionally deceitful to you, report the posts and let the mods deal with them. A great way to weed out deceitful posting activity from honest posting activity is simply to stick around VI-Control for a while and get to know the community.

I want to emphasize I'm not writing your suggestion off. What you're suggesting may be of interest to some members, especially newer ones, and it certainly wouldn't hurt existing members to have an affiliation flag attached to their profile. I just personally feel it would be a frivolous feature added to the site because it wouldn't do anything to delineate the intention behind the posts we read.


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 8, 2020)

Brambleclaw said:


> Arbitrary justice. A despotic regime where people are punished without rhyme nor reason and no one knows where they stand. The laws are so malleable you can be charged with a crime for merely existing.



The rules here are based on rhyme and reason. Quoting Mike Greene...



Mike Greene said:


> The purpose of the new rules isn't to stop critiques, the purpose of the new rules is to get people not to be jerks when they do it.



If you're a jerk in this forum, you may get punished. If you're not a jerk, you won't be punished. This rule satisfies the 99% of the members who never have been, nor ever will be, punished.

Typically, it's the 1% who ask for guidelines explaining exactly how much of a jerk they're allowed to be before they get punished.


----------



## Studiodraven (Jul 8, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> As you may know, we had some drama in the Spitfire Westworld Winner thread last weekend. Heated discussion isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except much of this drama wasn’t from actual VI-Control members. Several of the loudest voices were people who joined the same day, apparently realizing Paul and Christian are members here, so they took this as their opportunity to vent (sorry, "offer helpful suggestions") directly at them.
> 
> That’s not what this forum is for. Members (high profile or otherwise) come here to learn, share, and enjoy themselves, not to be annoyed by people they don’t know.
> 
> ...


I don’t have a problem with any of that. I’m not sure why people would, to be honest. I’m a new member, and I’d much rather lurk for a while, putting my oar in where appropriate every now and then, and get a feel for somewhere than blunder straight in and irritate people. This is not my house, and I wouldn’t want to annoy my hosts.

I also made an introduction post almost as soon as I joined. I’m glad I did, since it turns out there are members near my than I would have expected! Hopefully we can meet up after all this COVID stuff is over.
In the meantime I’m happy to chill, watch what goes on, help if I can, and make new friends.


----------



## Brambleclaw (Jul 8, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> The rules here are based on rhyme and reason. Quoting Mike Greene...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It wasn't a direct comparison of the current rules, it was a comment about the notion of "principle" based systems, that another guy is in favour for. 

The current rules are fairly explanatory and Mike seems a very reasonable and patient guy. The fact he feels the need to be able to point to some publicly explained/announced rule(s) before taking action that would otherwise be arbitrary, is a very health sign for the forums moderation.


----------



## Fredeke (Jul 9, 2020)

Anders Wall said:


> 2) if you don't use your own name please do introduce yourself in the xxx part of the forum. If you don't then...


+1


----------



## sndmarks (Jul 9, 2020)

To paraphrase a certain owl..... How many posts does it take to get to the chewy center of VI-C and lose "new member" status?


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 9, 2020)

sndmarks said:


> To paraphrase a certain owl..... How many posts does it take to get to the chewy center of VI-C and lose "new member" status?


I don't know. I always wind up going for the chocolatey center before I can find out.

I'm not sure what number the software is set for determining the switch from "New Member" to "Senior Member" under your avatar. You can edit that yourself, by the way, and say whatever you want there. (See Stephen's avatar above.)

For purposes of these new rules, though, "new member" isn't related to the designation under your avatar. I'm being intentionally vague (ie - flexible) with that.


----------



## Brambleclaw (Jul 9, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> I don't know. I always wind up going for the chocolatey center before I can find out.
> 
> I'm not sure what number the software is set for determining the switch from "New Member" to "Senior Member" under your avatar. You can edit that yourself, by the way, and say whatever you want there. (See Stephen's avatar above.)
> 
> For purposes of these new rules, though, "new member" isn't related to the designation under your avatar. I'm being intentionally vague (ie - flexible) with that.



Can mods edit that status as well?


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 9, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> I'm not sure what number the software is set for determining the switch from "New Member" to "Senior Member" under your avatar. You can edit that yourself, by the way, and say whatever you want there.



I don't know either, but based on observation and deduction, I think it goes like this:

New Member (1-49 posts)
Member (50-149 posts)
Active Member (150-499 posts)
Senior Member (500+ posts)


----------



## Anders Wall (Jul 17, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> I don't know either, but based on observation and deduction, I think it goes like this:
> 
> New Member (1-49 posts)
> Member (50-149 posts)
> ...


Senile Member (5000+ posts)



/Anders


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 17, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> New Member (1-49 posts)
> Member (50-149 posts)


This is post 48 for me, so I’ll report back whether the transition does indeed happen at 50.


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 17, 2020)

Just fell wayyyyy down the VI-Control rabbit hole looking for a place to do post #50 with no success, so I’ll just make it here and edit with my results.

EDIT: Confirmed! Post #50 removed the “New” from my description. I’m a real boy!


----------



## Anders Wall (Jul 17, 2020)

Arthur Lewis said:


> EDIT: Confirmed! Post #50 removed the “New” from my description. I’m a real boy!


Yay! Only 450-ish posts to senior. I’ll give it a week 
Best,
/Anders


----------



## FinGael (Jul 17, 2020)

Anders Wall said:


> Yay! Only 450-ish posts to senior. I’ll give it a week
> Best,
> /Anders



I gave a little motivational speech to myself, to steadily speed up my posting frequency: 2023 and Senior Member status - here I come! 

It's good to have goals in life. I was thinking about some other goal too, but I already forgot what it was.


----------



## Arthur Lewis (Jul 17, 2020)

Given my join date, looks like I’m on track for Dec. of next year. That seems very soon. I may have a (VI) control problem...


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 19, 2020)

Angry avatars..

I can only say I avoid those threads because I have LASS and love it.

But anyone complaining about the way this forum is run, you can always get your own show unless you fear failure or not enough likes leaving you with a sense of unwanted-ness.


----------



## Fredeke (Jul 20, 2020)

Arthur Lewis said:


> People causing drama tend not to believe they are the cause of the drama.


Apparently I'm a big practitioner of that in my couple.


----------



## LamaRose (Jul 30, 2020)

@Mike Greene Please add another pointer about unnecessarily creating multi threads, especially in the Commercial announcements. Just this morning, there are two threads running in the Commercial section for the Emotional Viola - one via Best Service, the other via a regular member... and BS is having to comment in both sections which requires reading both threads for info. Same thing in Sample talk as new users will start a new thread to ask a question that could/should be answered in an already established thread. Seen up to three threads running simultaneously. It's like a monkey-see, monkey-do phenomena/virus that is getting worse.


----------



## Ivan M. (Sep 26, 2020)

_"your job and mine is to walk this land and make sure no one harms it. If you show up on time, speak honestly, and treat everyone with fairness we will get along just fine." _
Ron Swanson

There, simple as that :D


----------



## Ivan M. (Sep 26, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> 3. If you’re someone who tends to get in a lot of long debates, and especially if you’ve been a magnet for drama, then moderators reserve the right to yank your posts if a thread is getting messy. That’s not to say you were the biggest problem in a thread, but sometimes to calm things down, we just need the overall posting to slow down a bit.



Oh, c'moooon, that's bread and butter of the internet, I just love to get into discussions, and especially disagreements, it's just sparring, a status competition, a male thing, it's just fun! :D


----------

