How are things going around here?

[Ecopro]

I see several too, but why keep on pointing it out?

[Smedberg]

I see several too, but why keep on pointing it out?

Good then

[Ecopro]

Smed - What is the purpose of your last post?

Dylan only saw one user.
I saw several..

Main purpose is that I don't see any meaning to turn this forum into a narrow, closed minded forum where someone should decide what is ok.
Current rules is enough, for me anyway.

No one from the forum decides anything. Any complaints about rule-breaking will be taken into consideration by the admin team. That's how this forum works. Threads that have no objective, or take a destructive direction, will be locked and/or deleted by admins, at our own discretion.

[selig]

Smed - What is the purpose of your last post?

Dylan only saw one user.
I saw several..

Main purpose is that I don't see any meaning to turn this forum into a narrow, closed minded forum where someone should decide what is ok.
Current rules is enough, for me anyway.

I personally prefer a narrow (focused) forum, but not a close minded group (I don't see these as being related)!

And "someone" always has do decide what's OK and not OK, or you have the old PUF where just about everything was OK. Which is not OK with me. I would suggest the current rules in this forum already have a narrow focus (making music with Reason), and it's always been up to the mods to decide what is OK.

That being said, I also feel we would be crazy not to listen to suggestions such as those made by yourself and the folks you quoted. All we can do is hope we create an environment that appeals to most who are here and participating!

[avasopht]

Destructive posts are not constructive. Simples

[EnochLight]

I personally prefer a narrow (focused) forum, but not a close minded group (I don't see these as being related)!

And "someone" always has do decide what's OK and not OK, or you have the old PUF where just about everything was OK. Which is not OK with me. I would suggest the current rules in this forum already have a narrow focus (making music with Reason), and it's always been up to the mods to decide what is OK.

That being said, I also feel we would be crazy not to listen to suggestions such as those made by yourself and the folks you quoted. All we can do is hope we create an environment that appeals to most who are here and participating!

Yep, the way things are being done currently here seem to be working quite well, IMHO.  Just keep on doing what you guys are doing!  

As for Robert's remarks, it appeared as though everyone was pointing out the same thing (deleting/locking a non-useful/confrontational thread), thus my comment.  I have no illusions that this place would ever be like IKF or even Gear Slutz.

[CharlyCharlzz]

one thing :

Mods should be the one's who make shure rules are respected using the Ban hammer and not the one's who say this or that should be posted !

if you want to have only reason constructive threads then the kitchen is for what ? everything about gear and music is covered by other sections ?

now if it's the way dudes do threads to say Reason suck that bother some around here ....... it's phasys guys so who did not expect that ?!?!!

I myself think Propellerhead super suck from time to time but I also love this company it's natural to feel this way , for exemple in reason 7.1 you double click on a container and enter a mod but then what ?
there is no mouss way to get out of it so yhea Propellerhead are not serious .....(bang constructive comment) so if I do a thread saying Propellerhead suck for this I expect it to stay on the board .

I am not trying to say it's ok to drop all the hate on a thread or that Phasys is so cool that we should have him all over the board saying how much he thinks reason is pathetic but you get my idear right ?

it's not the PUF so peoples got no points to insult Props around here unless they mean it I would think or unless they got deep chronic trolling problems LOL
we got the coolest Mods around here from what I can see and the users of this forum are the coolest one's on the all web so lt's not even Worth it to even bring this sour visions of potential haters ,

I think we all doing great and I'm charlycharlzz so I am charly and if there is no freedom of speach I will fight for it LOL

that sayed guys all the best , see you in there and stop thinking about what could turn bad ! if a troll is around we will all react like it was on the Puf and he will learn to respect or be out of here because of the rules set .
peace

[3rd Floor Sound]

Hi SoftEnerji! Good to see ya here
-----------------
-----------------
To the side topic: I have to mention that one of the things I hated about the PUF was that users would get *poofed* occasionally, deleting all their previous content. A great thing, however, was that threads would be locked rather than removed, and only when people became truly abusive to each other. The ultimate in *poofing* was the deletion of the forum itself.
Even when something truly objectionable happens, I like the method used in the US constitution. There's a reason the 18th amendment (banning alcohol) is still there even though it was repealed by the 21st amendment. It serves as a reference point as a law that was a shitty idea. "Hey, don't try that crap again."
We're going to have the periodic shitty thread. There's also going to be disagreement over which threads those are, sometimes. People have differing opinions on everything, including, if it's the thread I think is being referred to here, on the humor value of what I thought was a pretty obvious joke going over most people's heads. Let's say I'm wrong on that one though, are people really so fragile as to not be able to view something they disagree with?

That lump under the carpet over there is destined to get bigger and dirtier.

[zeebot]

Smed - What is the purpose of your last post?

Dylan only saw one user.
I saw several..

Main purpose is that I don't see any meaning to turn this forum into a narrow, closed minded forum where someone should decide what is ok.
Current rules is enough, for me anyway.

I dont think users want something like that but for a successful forum to flourish there needs to be a certain amount of moderation. What is chosen to be locked/deleted will be dictated by the common sense of the mods.
I think saying the closure of certain threads will result in a narrow closed minded forum is a little black and white and also a little extreme.
I'm all for a free and open forum but honestly some censorship is needed because if we let it run free we will end up with another PUF on our hands and none of us want that do we?

[EnochLight]

Dylan only saw one user.
I saw several..

Main purpose is that I don't see any meaning to turn this forum into a narrow, closed minded forum where someone should decide what is ok.
Current rules is enough, for me anyway.

Robert,

Agreed - which is why I said:

Things seem to going quite swimmingly here so far, so my suggestion would be: see Reasontalk.

[jappe]

Smed - What is the purpose of your last post?

Dylan only saw one user.
I saw several..

Main purpose is that I don't see any meaning to turn this forum into a narrow, closed minded forum where someone should decide what is ok.
Current rules is enough, for me anyway.

Hey Smedberg, the forum turned out to be great!
Please come back and share your awesome music!
Listened to "I'm still alive"...super good; I'm thinking of John Farnham when I listen to this.
https://soundcloud.com/two-far-out

[Emerton]

Deleting problematic threads is maybe a good idea, because even if a thread is locked, it can still be read, and if it's particularly inflammatory, it can still get readers worked up, and then they might express their ire on other threads before they have a chance to cool off. I know I am prone to that.

Sorry for the slight derailment. Carry on. 

Actually it would inflame the situation even more.
The moderating here is out of control. Individual moderators act in ways contrary to the ToS, and there's no consistency, accountability or objectivity in the enforcing of the rules. They'll lock a thread after having "the last word" or comment on locked threads after another moderator has had the last word.

Locking threads just because a conversation goes offtopic is incredibly frustrating. Human conversations go offtopic. There's a flow.
Treat people like adults and they act like adults. Treat people like children - with overpolicing of topics, content and emotional expression - and people act like children.

Threads should be locked if there's abuse. If there are personal threats or libel. Simply disagreeing with someone isn't lockworthy.
Deleting these things also doesn't give any indication to anyone about what behaviour is accepted or not.

Leaving locked threads up is instructive to everyone else about what the moderators deem is unacceptable.
So it's necessary to leave locked threads.

[Emerton]

Smed - What is the purpose of your last post?

I would suggest the current rules in this forum already have a narrow focus (making music with Reason), and it's always been up to the mods to decide what is OK.

No, it's narrower and more constrictive than that. If anyone mentions they professionally make music in a church or synagogue with Reason they're breaking the ToS. "Leave your job description at the door" and all that.

JCiL had a thread asking about other musicians using Reason for worship and was accused of trolling and received all sorts of abuse for having a religious avatar, despite OldGoat's Satanic image not getting even a whispered mention.

It's far a narrower forum than just "making music with Reason".

[Emerton]

It was one of the main issues with the PUF, lack of moderation which is why it turned into a turdfest.
Threads that contribute nothing to the community should be locked and deleted, as well as derailed threads that enter into personal mud slinging.
I know some former puffers (my name for PUF users) didn't see eye to eye but lets draw a line through that and all start with a fresh outlook.
Lets make this the forum PUF could have been

So, who decide if a thread is useful or not?
Will there be a board of members that will delete threads?
Should an OP be held responsible for following users posts just because "they are prone to respond"?

Is an expression of dissapointment worse than personal attacks and being made fun of?

And like the example from CharlyCharlzz, who decide what function or product you can be negative about?

Well said

[jappe]

No, it's narrower and more constrictive than that. If anyone mentions they professionally make music in a church or synagogue with Reason they're breaking the ToS. "Leave your job description at the door" and all that.

JCiL had a thread asking about other musicians using Reason for worship and was accused of trolling and received all sorts of abuse for having a religious avatar, despite OldGoat's Satanic image not getting even a whispered mention.

It's far a narrower forum than just "making music with Reason".

Heh, I resurrected this thread because months have past and Smedberg hasn't been active: I think the forum works fine, and I just wanted to share that with him in case he'd consider returning.

Personally, I'm for a more liberal policy regarding moderation, but I do respect the other opinion since I see the problems narrow moderation aims to prevent.

A middle-way could be to let the thread creator have a greater say in what's OK to discuss or not - and not the moderator/admin. Strict moderation if members don't respect the OP:s thread rules. If a member don't like the tone in the thread: Easy - leave the thread without commenting.

A forum is not a democracy so at the end of the day, the admins rule. But I am pro thread autonomy.
Let each thread be the OP:s dictatorship, but have admin invade if OP starts spamming threads or misbehaving in some way that ruins other threads.

[Emerton]

No, it's narrower and more constrictive than that. If anyone mentions they professionally make music in a church or synagogue with Reason they're breaking the ToS. "Leave your job description at the door" and all that.

JCiL had a thread asking about other musicians using Reason for worship and was accused of trolling and received all sorts of abuse for having a religious avatar, despite OldGoat's Satanic image not getting even a whispered mention.

It's far a narrower forum than just "making music with Reason".

Heh, I resurrected this thread because months have past and Smedberg hasn't been active: I think the forum works fine, and I just wanted to share that with him in case he'd consider returning.

Personally, I'm for a more liberal policy regarding moderation, but I do respect the other opinion since I see the problems narrow moderation aims to prevent.

A middle-way could be to let the thread creator have a greater say in what's OK to discuss or not - and not the moderator/admin. Strict moderation if members don't respect the OP:s thread rules. If a member don't like the tone in the thread: Easy - leave the thread without commenting.

A forum is not a democracy so at the end of the day, the admins rule. But I am pro thread autonomy.
Let each thread be the OP:s dictatorship, but have admin invade if OP starts spamming threads or misbehaving in some way that ruins other threads.

That's a pretty good policy actually.

[hydlide]

If I wanted to point out a message, I would contact the Administrator / Moderators of the site. Instead of spreading the same message on the forum over and over again.

It gets boring at some point. And no, I am not a moderator, I am just a techhead doing things in the background.

[Kenni]

Pre-warning: Wall of text.

I'm the type that loves a good discussion. Even when it comes to religion and politics. To top it off, I'll even argue that I have the right to throw opinions left and right whenever I feel like it in front of likeminded people.

This goes perfect at private come-togethers, and generally, in the real face-to-face life (until somebody tells me to shut up, basically). However, this forum is the continuance of the old ReasonTalk, which were a continuance of the old PUF. On some level, we represent the face of the users that use this wonderful piece of software. This is why the forum is called ReasonTalk. It's a place where we put our differences aside, and talk about Reason. We even have "The kitchen", where you can talk freely about stuff not related to Reason, as long as these discussions comply with the ToS.

The ToS is there to avoid discussions turning into he said/she said, and arguing who has the most political correct opinion (political correct, which is another way of saying "my opinion is of more value than yours"). In that respect, those kind of arguments are pointless. Another thing to consider is that Propellerhead decided to have their official Reason 8.3 beta discussion here. That means that whatever we put here is more public than one would expect from a forum that is privately driven on a volunteer basis. For me, that's a very good Reason to aim JUST a bit higher, and avoid becoming nonsense trolling, like you would see on GearSlutz.

Since all cards are on the table, I'm a bit perplexed by your statements, Emerton. You're quick to defend a user on this board, because you feel we attack his religion. You always appear to have all the correct moral standards, but right now, you're raising hypocritical awareness in the moderators books.

Not only do you comment everything we do here (on a volunteer basis, even though we're busy getting this forum back on track), you do it publicly, and without anything remotely positive to say. You also went and posted a 30-page essay on the English language, and the correct usage of the English language, in a thread that was merely a service notice to inform people how to use the forum in a user friendly manner. You completely ignored the fact that there's human beings behind words written here, just like yourself.

I mean, I joined this forum june 2nd. Since then, I've gone from being a complete stranger in this community, to be the proprietary owner of ReasonTalk, including a lot of development, establishing a team of volunteers who's willing to put in countless of hours to make this place run smoothly, and enforce the ToS as originally created. I even gave you the opportunity to suggest changes to the ToS in public. In that timespan, my PM Inbox has gone from 0 to 56% full, only containing messages between me, the moderators, and you, about your behavior. I even wrote you 3 PM's trying to set the records straight, before issuing your first warning.

All of this makes me realise, that this forum is doing just great! People participate in challenges and events, and conversation here goes about as always. The only problem I've been seeing here so far, is you, your negativity, and your never-ending urge to correct everything and justify your actions. All that is fine, but in the end, this is a privately driven forum.

I don't even have to carve out the details for you, or try to reason with you on a pedagogical level - Being the adult you seem to be, you must already know that you're testing not only mine, but everybody who reads your constant critique's patience.

I'm asking you this, only once more, as the seemingly smart person you are: Stop what you're doing, or you're out.