What's new

[OLD] Rules Regarding New Members, Anonymous Members, and Drama Magnets

Mike Greene

Senior Member
Moderator
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.

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. :grin:
 
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.)

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. :grin:
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.
 
@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
 
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
 
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!

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.


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.
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.
 
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
 
@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
 
Last edited:
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. ;)

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.
 
Top Bottom