ron4urthi 
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2006/08/27 04:21:32
- Status: offline
Criteria for banning forum members
I noticed this post over on the Sonar forum and thought it might apply. http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=843955&mpage=1&key= I'm still in the dark as to what the criteria for banishment is. As you see by my comment on that thread, I observed Rick McNab get banned for his comments and criticisms, yet many other members who "attacked" back at McNab, in defense of Freeky, seem to be in no danger of retribution from the "person behind the curtain" who decides these things "on behalf of" the Cakewalk forum community. I especially think of member pfunque, who repeatedly uses crude and offensive language in his attacks, yet never seems to be called out on it. Seems to me, from simple observation, that the criteria for banishment is criticism of a member which goes against the majority opinion, such as McNab (although it was interesting that later on he seemed to gain a couple of supporters). Thus, McNab's attackers, who seemed to enjoy complete latitude in the harshness and crude style of their responses, will receive no reprimand from the "powers on high", since their opinion "appears" (another subjective call by the single all-powerful judge) to be in the majority. Doesn't seem like a whole lot of justice or equal treatment. Just my opinion, however.
|
fac
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2427
- Joined: 2004/06/15 10:08:48
- Location: San Luis Potosi, Mexico
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/08/31 21:39:19
(permalink)
As far as I know, Rick McNab was never banned. He just deleted his own posts. He said he wouldn't post in the P5 forum anymore. No one has received any preferential treatment from Cakewalk staff or forum moderators.
|
ATS
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 877
- Joined: 2006/06/09 23:32:48
- Status: offline
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/08/31 22:09:36
(permalink)
Hate posts and personal attacks will not be tolerated on the Cakewalk forum. Treat other forum members as you would like to be treated. Unproductive trash talk will be met with criticism and possible disciplinary action including banishment. The same rules apply to trolling – or posting topics specifically to provoke a negative response.
He openly admited to posting sometimes to stir things up. Technically trolling. However I should point out http://forum.cakewalk.com/showProfile.asp?memid=25700 From this it appears he is currently still an active member (albeit he hasnt logged on in a while). It is well within Cakewalks right to do what they like to the forum. Posts do disappear , hence the creation of the P5 refugee forum where you can quite easily go and play around with no cencorship (within reason) where politics and religion and offtopic posts and thread rediversion abound in much greater quantity than here. All forums have their official (and to some extent unofficial rules). Off topic posts are perhaps a bit more tolerated here than in the Sonar forum, the Sonar forum sees a considerable amount more traffic than here. So it requires a bit heavier policing.
post edited by syrath - 2006/08/31 22:23:49
|
pfunque
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 707
- Joined: 2006/02/25 19:11:48
- Location: quebec, canada
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/08/31 22:51:15
(permalink)
Yeah, I'll get kicked again for this, but you 'tards need to go back to the home. How did the nurses not see you leaving. If I were your momma, I'd ask for a rebate for the money she's spending on your therapy.
And more importantly Ron, it would have saved us all a whole lot of time if your momma swallowed.
That way you wouldn't have been able to form an opinion since you weren't actually formed yourself.
It seems you are a pro at what I suggest your momma should have done.
|
ron4urthi
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2006/08/27 04:21:32
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 01:46:45
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: pfunque
Yeah, I'll get kicked again for this, but you 'tards need to go back to the home. How did the nurses not see you leaving. If I were your momma, I'd ask for a rebate for the money she's spending on your therapy.
And more importantly Ron, it would have saved us all a whole lot of time if your momma swallowed.
That way you wouldn't have been able to form an opinion since you weren't actually formed yourself.
It seems you are a pro at what I suggest your momma should have done.
Case in point - why is it that this kind of language, aggressive behavior, and certainly attack posture is allowed (almost encouraged by those that post snicker-faces subsequent to his posts) for some members but not others? Who makes these rules? Who is/are the mediators of these issues? Is everyone being treated equally? BTW, McNab has been banned from the forums. With no warning from the moderators. Is that standard policy around here - no warning, just banishment for only some members?
|
SuperGreenX
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 973
- Joined: 2004/01/09 04:37:15
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 02:18:03
(permalink)
Who cares. This forum is hosted by cakewalk as a service for customers to get support for their product. If something is disrupting that, it is their call to stop it. 1st amendment does not apply here, don't expect total freedom. The right to post on some message board is not some sort of noble cause that deserves a call to action or a second thought.
How does something so impersonal as a web forum get underneath people's skin so much anyways?
Haha...Guyunique in the other thread is sad because his off topic post got moved to off topic??
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 02:22:41
(permalink)
Rick did openly admit to being a troll. Something that is not tolerated on about 95% of forums period. That may have had something to do with it.
|
xenohazard
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 218
- Joined: 2005/08/08 17:26:28
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 03:05:08
(permalink)
Maybe there is no criteria. Maybe if Joe Blow says your banned, then your banned. Like SGX says, Who Cares.
Maybe its time to wake up and realise that life IS NOT fair.
I come here to learn about music and music tools not philosophy.
|
e0nic
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 587
- Joined: 2006/02/22 01:39:54
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 04:49:13
(permalink)
I come here to learn about music and music tools not philosophy. AMEN!
|
Andy C
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1272
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:09:38
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 05:33:32
(permalink)
Maybe its time to wake up and realise that life IS NOT fair. Arr yes Rule 1: Life's not fair Rule 2: See Rule 1 Boils down to, it's cakewaks call, it's their forum they do what they want. Andy
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 05:52:35
(permalink)
It should also be pointed out that pfunque has in fact been banned before although if someone comes back and registers with a new email address there is little Cakewalk can do about it. As to the moving posts , Grandpa Mojo (who created the demo tune for Project 5) has also had a post moved before into OT. So , cakewalk are not acting on favouritism here.
|
muso_price
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 496
- Joined: 2006/04/21 09:16:25
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 06:20:55
(permalink)
It should also be pointed out that pfunque has in fact been banned before although if someone comes back and registers with a new email address there is little Cakewalk can do about it. Just as Rick McNab has done with his new handle ron4urthi 
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 06:43:18
(permalink)
I kinda noticed the dates. In fact this kind of makes this post a troll post as well doesnt it.
post edited by syrath - 2006/09/01 06:58:31
|
ron4urthi
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2006/08/27 04:21:32
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 07:36:56
(permalink)
I didn't realize you could come back with your same name and just a different e-mail address. BTW, how does this become another troll post? Is the "force" being "disrupted" in some way?
|
muso_price
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 496
- Joined: 2006/04/21 09:16:25
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 07:41:55
(permalink)
hmm, kinda makes your first post sad, don't you think?
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 07:51:25
(permalink)
Ill quote again.
The same rules apply to trolling – or posting topics specifically to provoke a negative response.
Forgive me if Im wrong but considering Ricks last post and your first appear at similar times. If you only just joined the forum then how come you are so familiar with Rick. Just a small question. Your original post is definitely on the provocative side. If you have a problem with someone elses posts then see down the bottom where it says report. Then report them, this is no the place for soapboxing. (yeah and Im soapboxing now)
|
muso_price
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 496
- Joined: 2006/04/21 09:16:25
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 07:54:26
(permalink)
I didn't realize you could come back with your same name and just a different e-mail address. *cough* *cough* Stuart, it is Rick
|
syrath
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4075
- Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
- Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 07:58:41
(permalink)
|
muso_price
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 496
- Joined: 2006/04/21 09:16:25
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 08:07:35
(permalink)
No, I know
|
naughtyhill
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1037
- Joined: 2005/04/15 19:18:51
- Location: Holland (am I the only Dutch guy here?)
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 08:14:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: ron4urthi
I noticed this post over on the Sonar forum and thought it might apply.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=843955&mpage=1&key=󎃔
I'm still in the dark as to what the criteria for banishment is. As you see by my comment on that thread, I observed Rick McNab get banned for his comments and criticisms, yet many other members who "attacked" back at McNab, in defense of Freeky, seem to be in no danger of retribution from the "person behind the curtain" who decides these things "on behalf of" the Cakewalk forum community. I especially think of member pfunque, who repeatedly uses crude and offensive language in his attacks, yet never seems to be called out on it.
Seems to me, from simple observation, that the criteria for banishment is criticism of a member which goes against the majority opinion, such as McNab (although it was interesting that later on he seemed to gain a couple of supporters). Thus, McNab's attackers, who seemed to enjoy complete latitude in the harshness and crude style of their responses, will receive no reprimand from the "powers on high", since their opinion "appears" (another subjective call by the single all-powerful judge) to be in the majority.
Doesn't seem like a whole lot of justice or equal treatment.
Just my opinion, however.
I didn't realize you could come back with your same name and just a different e-mail address. Please let him be. A town should have a town's fool. He makes me laugh! 
|
badbib
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1921
- Joined: 2005/04/08 21:31:03
- Location: France, Lyon
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 09:07:32
(permalink)
Tales of the misterious Troll
Rick Also known as Rick the Dick transformed himself into an evil monster : ron4urthi
but that's going way off topic anyways...
|
fac
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2427
- Joined: 2004/06/15 10:08:48
- Location: San Luis Potosi, Mexico
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 09:10:47
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: ron4urthi
BTW, McNab has been banned from the forums. With no warning from the moderators.
If that was true, then the only person who would know that would be Rick McNab, wouldn't he? Especially since there is no indication that he was banned (e.g.- he has posted relatively recently and we can still see his profile). Why don't you PM one of the moderators and ask him why McNab was banned?
|
tclark
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1525
- Joined: 2004/12/23 07:16:20
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 09:11:11
(permalink)
Put it like this, about your annoyance at how Rick was "Banned" (Im still not sure he was), because of the provocative language he used, and how other users seemed to use similar language in response but got nothing.
Well, the point of trolling is the response you get, not the language you use. If you use harsh language to put over a point, but do it well, it is NOT trolling. However, if you use harsh language to put over an ego-boosting point which puts others down and is unhelpful, then that is trolling, because it is deliberately to provoke a bad response.
There are lots of knitty gritty (i love that phrase now) about the rules, but the technicalities are what make the difference between banning and non-banning.
One of the reasons I am skeptical about Rick being banned is the fact that there was no warning.
With Phil, when he was banned, admins gave him a warning telling him to stop talking about controvercial things. I also think he got a warning in the form of a PM.
If Rick was banned, he might have got a PM, and not a public warning. But Cake usually give a public one, to let everyone know, and to dissipate the situation.
It's possible he got a PM and was banned, but Im skeptical he was banned.
T
 
|
blipp
Max Output Level: -5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7006
- Joined: 2004/11/22 17:43:50
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 09:29:20
(permalink)
tclark wrote There are lots of knitty gritty (i love that phrase now) well you could at least spell it correctly.  Oop, sorry, i must have had a Rick moment. I'm sure i'll be better again soon. 
|
Tom Roussell [Cakewalk]
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 295
- Joined: 2003/11/04 09:19:40
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Criteria for banning forum members
2006/09/01 09:45:46
(permalink)
Violations of the Terms Of Service -- especially repeated violations --are cause for losing forum privileges. Any moderator has the right to ban a forum member. Please consult the Terms Of Service for further information.
|