| |
Official: Archived: ATRL HQ (2013-2014)
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,891
|
Quote:
Originally posted by supaspaz
Thank you, Vin. It's nice to know our work is valued.
ATRL strives to foster a community built on respect, which is why we have the extensive set of rules that we do. Ultimately, that's going to change, but we are always open to your questions and concerns and suggestions for how to improve things, hence this thread.
|
From what I've witnessed, the way that ATRL is fostering this community built on respect is by preaching & enforcing suppression rather than through maturity & tolerance.
A very basic, simple and honest opinion that goes against the views of any select group of people will result in a warning. I find that to be ridiculous if the opinion was shared tactfully. An opinion that someone have will not always be positive, and it doesn't have to be. Not EVERYTHING is positive to everyone and I feel like both point of views should be able to be expressed in a way that brings about insightful discussion. That's what the point of a forum is. I feel like freedom of expression is majorly suppressed due to the thought that if the idea goes against what most of the members feel that it shouldn't be posted and the member given a warning if it is.
This is the hugest flaw with ATRL. Instead of encouraging a respectful and tactful dialogue, the moderators of ATRL side with whatever stan group has a complaint about someone not liking an element about their favorite artist. It's, incredibly, childish & it needs to change or else this site will never be taken seriously. Obvious trolling and flamebaiting should be dealt with in threads, but when a member is just sharing their honest opinion tactfully... why should they be faulted for that?
I see warnings up and down threads for the smallest things & I can't help but to feel how ridiculous that is.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
You can actually say negative things if it actually engages in debate and communication. What is the point in saying "-insert artist here- sucks/ -insert-song-title here- sucks." This is pure flamebait and only exists to provoke an individual or group. It's about removing useless clutter that adds no discussion, not remove opinions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,891
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Meowster
You can actually say negative things if it actually engages in debate and communication. What is the point in saying "-insert artist here- sucks/ -insert-song-title here- sucks." This is pure flamebait and only exists to provoke an individual or group. It's about removing useless clutter that adds no discussion, not remove opinions.
|
My warning point from a few days ago says otherwise.
I didn't even say something like, "such and such artist/song sucks" it was just a simple opinion based on my observation of an artist's character.  It wasn't even negative.
I see instances of that all over the site, warning points given for the most trivial and miniscule things.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/4/2011
Posts: 29,960
|
That reminder was so unnecessary and no don't quote me with "You want me to warn you instead?"
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Meowster
You can actually say negative things if it actually engages in debate and communication. What is the point in saying "-insert artist here- sucks/ -insert-song-title here- sucks." This is pure flamebait and only exists to provoke an individual or group. It's about removing useless clutter that adds no discussion, not remove opinions.
|
I agree, although I think flamebait moderation is supposed to be a bit more lax toward songs; If I were to say something like "'Shake It Off' sucks," it isn't necessarily flamebait in and of itself. That depends a lot more on context. If I said something like "Taylor Swift sucks," I'd almost definitely get warned, regardless of context, even if it's a completely sincere sentiment that I 100% agree with and I'm not saying it just to make people angry.
But yeah, some people would be surprised with how much blatant flamebait you can get away with as long as it's well embedded within a larger constructive point.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,891
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
I agree, although I think flamebait moderation is supposed to be a bit more lax toward songs; If I were to say something like "'Shake It Off' sucks," it isn't necessarily flamebait in and of itself. That depends a lot more on context. If I said something like "Taylor Swift sucks," I'd almost definitely get warned, regardless of context, even if it's a completely objective statement that I 100% agree with and I'm not saying it just to make people angry.
But yeah, some people would be surprised with how much blatant flamebait you can get away with as long as it's well embedded within a larger point.
|
If you addressed her fan base directly and/or just went all over the site saying that, then I agree... you should get a warning.
If you made that statement in a thread about Taylor and expounded on that thought in relation to the thread, then I don't think it should result in a warning. That's the point of a forum, and this one is not dedicated to Taylor or any other artist for that matter.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 1/21/2012
Posts: 13,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Gotham Aurora
My warning point from a few days ago says otherwise.
I didn't even say something like, "such and such artist/song sucks" it was just a simple opinion based on my observation of an artist's character. It wasn't even negative.
I see instances of that all over the site, warning points given for the most trivial and miniscule things.
|
You got one WP out of your 1600 posts. I really don't feel like that is any reason to complain that we warn posts like that "all the time".
Besides, people often forget that we have a WP system. You need to make 10 flamebait posts, within a month, before getting banned. And then you only get banned for a month.
On other forums, if you make that many clearly flamebait threads within a short period of time, any other forum would have banned you already. And not just for a month.
The problem why it seems more strict here is because when you make one flamebait post you instantly get a message in your inbox. It seems strict because you instantly get punished. However, you need TEN of those to even get banned, for just a month. It's really not strict, at all.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Gotham Aurora
If you addressed her fan base directly and/or just went all over the site saying that, then I agree... you should get a warning.
If you made that statement in a thread about Taylor and expounded on that thought in relation to the thread, then I don't think it should result in a warning. That's the point of a forum, and this one is not dedicated to Taylor or any other artist for that matter. |
The rules are in place to preserve some level of civil discourse on the forum. If flamebait rules weren't in place, this forum would essentially be just like SYG and constructive discussions would largely cease to exist. If you want to say stuff like that either stay in SYG all the time or learn how to disguise your shade so it doesn't get warned. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,891
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenetic
You got one WP out of your 1600 posts. I really don't feel like that is any reason to complain that we warn posts like that "all the time".
Besides, people often forget that we have a WP system. You need to make 10 flamebait posts, within a month, before getting banned. And then you only get banned for a month.
On other forums, if you make that many clearly flamebait threads within a short period of time, any other forum would have banned you already. And not just for a month.
The problem why it seems more strict here is because when you make one flamebait post you instantly get a message in your inbox. It seems strict because you instantly get punished. However, you need TEN of those to even get banned, for just a month. It's really not strict, at all.
|
It's one warning point that I don't feel that I deserved. It wasn't a negative statement nor flamebait; it was an honest opinion that was respectfully stated and wasn't directed at anyone.
The warning point is not what I'm worried about though; as you said, it's just one. The policies and logic that said I should have that warning point is what I'm concerned about. I love this site. It's the only real Pop forum that I'm a member of and care to be a member of. I just don't want to feel like I have to walk on egg shells when taking part in forum discussions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,891
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
The rules are in place to preserve some level of civil discourse on the forum. If flamebait rules weren't in place, this forum would essentially be just like SYG and constructive discussions would largely cease to exist. If you want to say stuff like that either stay in SYG all the time or learn how to disguise your shade so it doesn't get warned. |
To preserve civil discourse, I feel like the stanning should be controlled. Right now, all I see being controlled is the opinion's and thoughts of members.
It wouldn't be like SYG if the moderation team didn't allow it to be.
I don't take part in shade. I say exactly what I mean, with tact.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
The rules are in place to preserve some level of civil discourse on the forum. If flamebait rules weren't in place, this forum would essentially be just like SYG and constructive discussions would largely cease to exist. If you want to say stuff like that either stay in SYG all the time or learn how to disguise your shade so it doesn't get warned. |
The biggest irony of it all is that I've had more constructive discussions in SYG than the rest of the site. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Gotham Aurora
It's one warning point that I don't feel that I deserved. It wasn't a negative statement nor flamebait; it was an honest opinion that was respectfully stated and wasn't directed at anyone.
The warning point is not what I'm worried about though; as you said, it's just one. The policies and logic that said I should have that warning point is what I'm concerned about. I love this site. It's the only real Pop forum that I'm a member of and care to be a member of. I just don't want to feel like I have to walk on egg shells when taking part in forum discussions. |
Honestly, I feel that your point was warranted. It may not have been an extreme example and it may not have been your intention to come across badly, but whichever mod warned it found the comment to be a bit more harsh than necessary or advisable.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Meowster
The biggest irony of it all is that I've had more constructive discussions in SYG than the rest of the site. |
Well, that's because people who actually frequent SYG and who aren't trolls have grown tired of using it to just shade and drag, so it's sort of a catch-all pop culture thread with very lax moderation.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,891
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 4AM.
Honestly, I feel that your point was warranted. It may not have been an extreme example and it may not have been your intention to come across badly, but whichever mod warned it found the comment to be a bit more harsh than necessary or advisable.
|
Warning point aside...
I don't see how anyone can look at that text, think it was harsh and negative to the overall site and be "concerned with my recent activity".
The reaction from hard core stans should be more cause of concern than the actual opinion itself, no?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Gotham Aurora
To preserve civil discourse, I feel like the stanning should be controlled. Right now, all I see being controlled is the opinion's and thoughts of members.
It wouldn't be like SYG if the moderation team didn't allow it to be.
I don't take part in shade. I say exactly what I mean, with tact. |
I understand your feelings; I too have gotten warned for things that didn't seem nearly incendiary enough to merit a WP, but as long as you're not in the habit of posting things like that regularly, it's really not that big of an issue.
You can always send a help request if it's that big of an issue.
Quote:
Originally posted by Meowster
The biggest irony of it all is that I've had more constructive discussions in SYG than the rest of the site. |
I do agree that it's quite possible to have constructive conversations in SYG and there are some great members in there, but I'd say probably a good half of the people in there simply post in there so they can get away with throwing out pointless drags and shade artists they don't like with less fear of repercussions. If the whole forum were like that I doubt I'd be nearly as active.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Gotham Aurora
Warning point aside...
I don't see how anyone can look at that text, think it was harsh and negative to the overall site and be "concerned with my recent activity".
The reaction from hard core stans should be more cause of concern than the actual opinion itself, no? |
But, first, there's the fact that "concerned with your recent recent activity" is just a nice way to put it, and second, that's the entire point behind the idea of flamebait. Your post was worded in such a way that stans would definitely react to it. It's not what you meant, it's how it came across.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,891
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 4AM.
But, first, there's the fact that "concerned with your recent recent activity" is just a nice way to put it, and second, that's the entire point behind the idea of flamebait. Your post was worded in such a way that stans would definitely react to it. It's not what you meant, it's how it came across.
|
This goes back to me believing that ATRL approves of, stands by and protects stans that stan hardcore, which I feel is wrong. The reaction, by only the stans, was far more disruptive than my comment.
My post should not have warranted the reaction, only amongst hard core stans, that it did.
I could understand the warning point if I posted it in their base (that would have been flamebaiting), but it was posted in a general discussion thread having to do with a topic that related to the artist.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 40,566
|
Are you allowed to say The Lord or not?
So you can't call Kanye Yeezy but you can call Taylor Swift The Lord? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/6/2012
Posts: 15,354
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 11,808
|
Wait, are Yeezy and Drizzy warnable ??
Those are the same as saying Riri or Madge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
