Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Fri October 20th, 2017, 21:44 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri June 19th, 2009, 22:46 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed December 8th, 2004, 17:05 GMT
Posts: 4839
Location: dead galaxy mirrored in an ice mirage
guma wrote:
But this site should be able to tolerate a healthy level of debate, embrace the various charming and erratic personalities, curtail personal attacks and still function -- with the fun in it.

And, Street Beagle, that brings me to 8 posts.....am I still an underachiever?


kind of busy cause it's midsummers eve here in ye ole svedala, but i've gotten this far in the thread and i have to burst out in the most assured yes to all of this quote, the latter part because of the perfect eloquence and pertinent to the pointifiquity in the former.

oh, and go 3LM!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri June 19th, 2009, 22:51 GMT 

Joined: Thu March 16th, 2006, 19:39 GMT
Posts: 1680
Location: San Angelo, Texas
MatchStriker wrote:
I think that keeping our suggestions short, concise & on topic are what will get this board back up sooner rather than later. :wink:


And serious. You forgot serious and respectable. Oh, and sarcasm-free, with "meaning" and relevance. Correctly spelled and punctuated. And never, ever, ever criticizing anything a moderator might ever do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri June 19th, 2009, 22:58 GMT 

Joined: Sat May 23rd, 2009, 23:52 GMT
Posts: 4268
pswets wrote:
MatchStriker wrote:
I think that keeping our suggestions short, concise & on topic are what will get this board back up sooner rather than later. :wink:


And serious. You forgot serious and respectable. Oh, and sarcasm-free, with "meaning" and relevance. Correctly spelled and punctuated. And never, ever, ever criticizing anything a moderator might ever do.


pswets, perfect example of my suggestion!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri June 19th, 2009, 23:10 GMT 

Joined: Thu July 13th, 2006, 23:09 GMT
Posts: 1188
Mad Cow wrote:
We want this to be a resource and a good place to be for all Dylan fans . . . . If you are not a fan of Bob Dylan, you will most likely not visit here.

I hope the forums would also be a welcome place for people who would not classify themselves as “fans.” Fandom often borders on hero worshipping. The most relevant and substantive comments are often made by independent critics, pseudo-journalists and other objective, disinterested observers. It’s possible that a person has heard every publicly available recording of Dylan music and has keen insight into musical history and the influences of other genres on his music and the impact of his music on other songwriters, yet never label himself or herself a “Dylan fan.” It is essential for these voices to be heard if ER aspires to be a “serious website” with any degree of credibility.

Bullfrog wrote:
If the owners/mods want to set up a board where there's no recourse to publicly challenging mods on their decisions then please make it a requirement that mods stay out of all discussions - log in, observe, do your mod thing, exit. No further interaction. If you want to engage in a discussion be a member. if you want to mod, mod. If you want authority like that then depersonalize it . . . .

This suggestion is not an entirely bad idea. Moderators should act like an umpires and enforce their judgment without emotion or attitude, and without showing that they are taking pleasure or vengeance in their actions.

I certainly understand that moderators are also contributors to the forums and should be free to express their own personalities, and I can sympathize with the thought they should be able to do this when they are contributing individually in discussions, but when they are taking action with their “moderator hat” on behalf of the site, they should act more professional and businesslike. I did not view any of the recent arguments but in the past I have viewed moderators that in my opinion added heat to a fire that never existed to begin with instead of putting water on it. For the most part I agree that they have done an outstanding job and we are indebted to them for all the time and effort they put into the site, but everyone has weak moments and “provocation” works both ways.

Perhaps there should be a shared screen name called MODERATOR that all the moderators can use when they take an action and then allow of the moderators to post their own viewpoints and participate in the threads under their previously existing screen names. That way we wouldn’t even know which moderator made a decision when one is made and all complaints or comments about the action would have to be sent directly to the administrators as we have been instructed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri June 19th, 2009, 23:30 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat February 26th, 2005, 02:31 GMT
Posts: 10327
It's a bit silly for members who have been here a while to fret over these new terms of use. Both of the moderators, BZ and 3LM, are not hard ass, control, power freaks. There's some people who fit that type here, but they're not moderators. The jokes, the fights, will all be the same, I bet. No difference. As long as it doesn't get way out of hand, things will be the same and I am happy for that. So you all can nit pick these new terms of use if you want, but these moderators will always be more leniant than not. And that is good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri June 19th, 2009, 23:32 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun October 1st, 2006, 00:05 GMT
Posts: 6768
Please no more Schlongs and everlong pages of Posts by LJ sorry LJ. I just think it takes ups way to much space and read time and slows the Mods up....and no more Cut Up Chickens turned into P****** I think that is just sick and if we can't settle down may this weekend not be... I agree we need Two Weeks...They say It takes 21 days to get over an obsession......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri June 19th, 2009, 23:38 GMT 

Joined: Sat May 12th, 2007, 19:22 GMT
Posts: 3994
Location: Beside a wild stream
I have some questions. . .

1.) What's the status of older threads? When are they withdrawn from use? I once tried to access an older thread by doing a search with words I was certain I had used when I made a long ago post. The thread had vanished.

2.) At this writing, as of today, who owns the copyright of poetry, song lyrics, or 'pencilings' posted on this site? I'm referring to anything not yet registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 00:33 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue November 9th, 2004, 21:09 GMT
Posts: 6343
Location: Whorehouse in Buenos Aires
Honestly, there is something to be said for no private messaging abilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 01:09 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun October 1st, 2006, 00:05 GMT
Posts: 6768
So Tom Paine I don't subscribe to rare recordings I never went in there ever......I guess that means I could be a good Moderator for that because I could at least be unbiased about it All Still all and all I would love the Bob section better but isn't being in here all about bob anyway......Everybody have a nice Weekend!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 01:26 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun October 1st, 2006, 00:05 GMT
Posts: 6768
Three legged man wrote:
I sent you to your room once. It was good for you.

Wait, we can't talk about that stuff because of the moderator!!! :oops:


I guess we now all know who is one of the "New" Moderation Team..... :cry: Oh Good Nite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 01:34 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu July 10th, 2008, 15:11 GMT
Posts: 11532
Location: brighton uk
can i be the first to say "all things in moderation" (although ive never personally subscribed to this...) nighty night.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 01:55 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat December 16th, 2006, 00:10 GMT
Posts: 5728
slimtimslide wrote:
can i be the first to say "all things in moderation" (although ive never personally subscribed to this...) nighty night.


ALL things? Really? Isn't that a bit...immoderate :wink: ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 03:49 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
My bet: "The forums are closed for maintenance for a few weeks"=IRANIAN CYBER ATTACK!

AHMADINEJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! You've gone too far this time!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 05:04 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 29th, 2005, 23:21 GMT
Posts: 1850
Location: NoCal
I am clueless...what happened? Was there a big fight or something?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 05:15 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon March 5th, 2007, 18:40 GMT
Posts: 462
Location: In the dime stores and bus stations
It's alright ma, it's the internet and the internet only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 06:30 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun April 1st, 2007, 09:49 GMT
Posts: 1777
Location: Some Australian mountain range.
Fuss? I missed all the fun...and the fuss. And glad I did, except it's always the case isn't it. A few stirrers wreaking havoc and spoiling it for the majority. Such is life.

Go for it 3LM. Bring peace, maturity and commonsense in decently large doses. It's obviously needed. Most things needed a good flushing out occassionally and ER is no exception.

And more power to Karl Erik and Mad Cow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 10:41 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue June 7th, 2005, 18:01 GMT
Posts: 9585
Location: Greenwich meridian
"Never quote when you are replying to the last post made to a thread".

I anticipate a practical difficulty here:

It's by no means an unusual event to respond to a post (without quoting from that particular post), only to discover that another poster or posters has/have replied in the meantime with a different observation. This leaves the post you've just made hanging in mid-air because it doesn't refer to the remarks made by the intervening poster or posters. The problem is one of continuity of comprehension.

I hope you might reconsider this stipulation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 10:57 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue June 7th, 2005, 18:01 GMT
Posts: 9585
Location: Greenwich meridian
Mad Cow wrote:
Avatars that are offensive, animated, pornographic, racist or violent will be deleted. Avatars mimicking those of the moderators or administrators will be deleted without warning.


I'd suggest that some clarification of the term "animated" would be helpful here; it seems strangely incongruous on that particular list.

Some of the very best and most creative avatars on ER- I'm thinking, in particular, of the cat monorail or the "Street-Legal" album cover with added traffic- could reasonably be described as "animated" effects. Does the site view these as a problem?

Or are we using "animated" here in the sense of "heated" or "over-wrought"? As I say, it would be useful to have more detail about the requirements here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 11:15 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue August 9th, 2005, 20:52 GMT
Posts: 416
These TOS are well-thought through and will help to improve the quality of this forum.

Have you considered adding a forum for in-depth discussion of Dylan's works? There's nothing wrong with levity and good-humoured banter, but the times I've been most frustrated with this forum is when someone tries to start a serious discussion on, say, Dylan's sources, and the forum gets spammed with joke threads and sarcastic responses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 11:17 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue June 7th, 2005, 18:01 GMT
Posts: 9585
Location: Greenwich meridian
Others have already touched on the Copyright issue, but it might be useful to contribute a practical example of the implications of this measure:

Would this mean that the Copyright on the many personal poems Serafina Magdelena has posted on the "Non-Bob Dylan lyrics" thread now devolves to ER, rather than remaining with the author?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 11:48 GMT 

Joined: Wed June 14th, 2006, 10:23 GMT
Posts: 938
Location: St James Hotel
I don't seek a gratuitous cut and pasting of the offensive "flare-up" of last week, but I would find it most helpful to know -broadly speaking - the nature of the offence, so as to set all of this in some kind of context. I resisted asking until now but surely, as a matter of logical construction, it is fair to offer some sort of characterisation so that the majority of people here who were not privy to the "flare-up'' might have some inkling of what went on. Was the objectionable material pornographic? racially offensive? Was it the sarcastic abuse of moderators that lies at the heart of the problem?

I realise that, in one sense, it just doesn't matter, and that we've all seen this kind of unfortuate thing before. However, given the rather drastic consequences here - suspension of normal business, much hand-wringing over rules and regulations etc - it seems sensible to give some kind of sanitised description of what occurred. I for one would be most grateful. (And yes, I confess, there is a small element of base vulgar curiousity there as well.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 12:06 GMT 

Joined: Mon January 9th, 2006, 09:01 GMT
Posts: 3023
Location: Manchester UK
First - can I say how good it is to see Eddie posting again. Banning Eddie was the point when I thought "what the fjord"?

Second - Tambo says a lot of sensible things. But the argument that the new Terms of Use will be exactly like the old Terms of Use, means only one thing. We don't need new Terms of Use, we need to abide by the old terms a little more carefully.

Third - I'd hate to have the moderators not post at all - 3LM and BZ are great contributors (excluding BZ's absurd liking for the dismal Denny Freeman), but I really like Code Examiners suggestion that when they are acting as a Moderator, they post as "Moderator". This would de-personalise necessary actions that moderators have to take, and probably prevent the sort of blow-up we've seen here.

Fourth - all bans should be temporary. Permanent has no meaning anyway when people can come-back with another identity.

Fifth - I love this site - Goddammit I met my astonishing and wonderful wife here. I don't want a cleansed spelling-error-free punctuation-perfect ER, I want ER with its warts. I think some people need a much better sense of humour, and others a much better sense of proportion - but isn't that just a reflection that the place is a mirror of life.


So, restart the forums, don't make any changes (other than moderating as MODERATOR), and certainly allow Eddie to make multiple successive posts on his own threads. The place wouldn't be the same without Eddie's developing musings on such a range of incredible topics.

And we promise to try to behave. I missed all the nonsense a week ago, so have no idea whatever what happened. There's certainly no need to personalise attacks on moderators - it isn't like they get paid for the job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 12:08 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat March 12th, 2005, 13:29 GMT
Posts: 2980
Location: East Coast liberal enclave
I suspect (and that's all it is) that this has more to do with it...

Big fine could be big trouble in downloading case
By Chris Williams, Associated Press Writer | June 19, 2009
MINNEAPOLIS --The $1.92 million verdict against a Minnesota woman accused of sharing 24 songs over the Internet could ratchet up the pressure on other defendants to settle with the recording industry -- if the big fine can withstand an appeal.

"Normally in our American legal system, we say the punishment should fit the crime," said Ken Port, director of the Intellectual Property Institute at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul. "Now she's being ordered to pay, in some ways, an incomprehensible amount of damages."

Port has closely watched the recording industry's case against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, of Brainerd and wrote a brief that helped persuade the judge in her first trial in 2007 to grant her the retrial that ended Thursday.

In the latest trial, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled that she must pay $1.92 million for willful infringement of the recording industry's copyrights by posting the music on the file-sharing site Kazaa.

Under federal law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement but the law allows the jury to raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful. The jury decided on $80,000 per song.

"They now have a verdict they can use in other cases around America," Port said of the recording industry. "The prices that they will charge for settling is going to go up."

Thomas-Rasset was the first -- and so far only -- music file-sharing defendant to go to trial.

The music industry has threatened about 35,000 people with charges of copyright infringement over the past five years, typically offering to settle the cases for $3,000 to $5,000. The recording industry estimates that a few hundred of those cases remain unresolved, with fewer than 10 defendants actively fighting them.

In December, the industry said it dropped its strategy of going after individuals to instead focus on Internet service providers.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said Friday the verdict should remind those who share music illegally about the penalties in copyright law. "For the few existing cases, this verdict is a reminder of the clarity of the law," she said.

She noted that the $1.92 million was not a figure requested by the industry. "That was not our number, that was what 12 regular folks rendered," she said of the jury, adding that the industry remains open to settling the case with Thomas-Rasset.

Kiwi Camara, one of Thomas-Rasset's attorneys, said his client planned to appeal the ruling, but the legal team would take a few days to settle on its legal arguments. The damage award will probably be part of it.

"There really is a problem with the statute, because she's been fined $1.9 million for stealing 24 songs that went for about $1.99 on iTunes," he said, slightly overstating the cost of songs on the site. "There's no way that can be the correct result."

Even the presiding judge in the case might find the $1.9 million excessive. When Judge Michael Davis ordered the retrial, he also implored Congress to change copyright laws after Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $222,000 in the first trial, an amount he called "wholly disproportionate." The new fine is more than eight times the first amount.

Camara and co-counsel Joe Sibley represent two other people being sued by the recording industry -- Brittany English, a student at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, and Joel Tenenbaum, a student at Boston University.

He said the Thomas-Rasset verdict wouldn't change how he approaches those cases. "Every jury is different," he said. "So the conclusions of this jury really has no precedential effect on the conclusions of the next jury."

Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the nearly $2 million verdict may even hurt the recording industry, making it more vulnerable on appeal and bolstering the argument that the copyright system is broken if it can impose such huge penalties for noncommercial activity.

"A $2 million verdict for sharing 24 songs?" he said.

Unlike Port, von Lohmann didn't believe the verdict would raise settlement costs for file-sharing defendants because the industry doesn't want more trials like Thomas-Rasset's.

"It's not about getting a big number," he said. "It's about getting a number that people will pay without a fight."

And the verdict will do nothing at all, he said, for the millions of people who share music but haven't been targeted by the recording industry. "The word on the street is that they are no longer going after people to sue," he said.

However, the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank, defended the verdict and said $1.92 million was reasonable.

"Legally acquiring a license to give copies of a song to potentially millions of Kazaa users might well have cost $80,000 per song," said Tom Sydnor, director of the foundation's Center for the Study of Digital Property. "Moreover, if the jury concluded that the defendant falsified her testimony, it could fairly seek to punish and deter such flagrant wrongdoing."

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.

The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 12:08 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Wed December 8th, 2004, 17:05 GMT
Posts: 4839
Location: dead galaxy mirrored in an ice mirage
oh, oh, oh, i got the new moderator blues down
is the matter 'overhill' or does loopy garble get the mip-mopping honor
won't anybody tell me who the friggin' elks crown wears the 'dapt gown.
by this query, don't deem me a softheaded, lousy clown.
just friggin' tell me cause i got the new moderator blues all the way down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat June 20th, 2009, 12:23 GMT 
*Senior Contributor*

Joined: Sun September 25th, 2005, 23:45 GMT
Posts: 8487
Location: Asylum
CodeExaminer wrote:
Perhaps there should be a shared screen name called MODERATOR that all the moderators can use when they take an action and then allow of the moderators to post their own viewpoints and participate in the threads under their previously existing screen names. That way we wouldn’t even know which moderator made a decision when one is made and all complaints or comments about the action would have to be sent directly to the administrators as we have been instructed.


CodeExaminer... that is a brilliant suggestion... pure and simple brilliance... it is so obviously 'right' that I would suggest that the 'powers that be' initiate it immediately... if not sooner... I would also suggest that you receive a luxury gift as a reward for your brilliant mind... I love common-sense, logical thinking and your suggestion just oozes that in bucketloads... Bravo, CE... bravo.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group