The Locking of the Avril Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (792 of them)
it is difficult/impossible to ban a poster.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:03 (nineteen years ago) link

Pashmina I kiss you so hard for the McGonagall ref & sendup

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:06 (nineteen years ago) link

Is the movie of the Butcher Boy as completely harrowing as the book?

probably not quite, but still pretty damned harrowing. to my dismay, not the best date movie.

mookieproof (mookieproof), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:07 (nineteen years ago) link

Positive reinforcement is the ONLY method of behavior mod ever shown to work

Except when someone takes advantage of that to assume it is an indulgence on the mods part and therefore open to abuse.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:08 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't know how many times Pash's last post must be repeated before people understand this. (And the reason it is difficult is because the board code was never coded with security/authentication in mind, not because it's an inherently difficult problem.)

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:11 (nineteen years ago) link

This sounds like a subject for one of those old dramatic paintings:

http://jacketmagazine.com/11/px/seven-poussin.jpg

The Locking of the Avril Thread

Rockist Scientist, Friday, 18 June 2004 14:12 (nineteen years ago) link

with musclebound ilxors in wrenching hieratic poses.

or would it be bosch?

amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:35 (nineteen years ago) link

rs we addressed the movie treatment of the thread title upthread

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:36 (nineteen years ago) link

just to point out, it's fair to say that the vast majority of not entirety of threads that have been locked recently have been locked because they are STUPIDO rather than actually outrageous or offensive, no?

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:36 (nineteen years ago) link

ILXOTR 2 - TLOTAT

ken c (ken c), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:38 (nineteen years ago) link

with musclebound ilxors

We’re building fires that will burn until morning
The smell of books and hot stone surround us
Tough is the leather that strapped to my skin
Strong are the bonds that we make
We feel the steam as it rises around us
Up from the soil that is cracking it’s back
Tough is the leather that strapped to my skin
Strong are the bonds that sing
Work till you’re musclebound all night long
Work till you’re musclebound all night long
Gotta work till you’re musclebound all night long
Gotta work till you’re musclebound all night long

(aka, any given day in a mod's life)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:38 (nineteen years ago) link

that's the prob, stevem--the majority of threads are pretty stupido, how come so few get locked?

RJG (RJG), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:39 (nineteen years ago) link

Sorry, I came to the party late without doing my homework.

Rockist Scientist, Friday, 18 June 2004 14:51 (nineteen years ago) link

That's quite a mixed metaphor. Unless you normally do homework for parties.

Comment dits-on...eh... le NA? (Nick A.), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:56 (nineteen years ago) link

Yes, but there's nothing wrong with that thread. If you want to ban him, surely it's easier to just ban him?

I just want to chime in that I agree with this. It makes no sense to lock a thread just because of who starts it rather than because there's any offensive content in it.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:57 (nineteen years ago) link

i wouldn't say the majority are rjg. i'm not sure your thread should've been locked either, tho it was kind of funny in a way.

stupid threads include ones started because the author didn't use the search function first (tho fair enough if they state they did but found nothing tho another poster may know of a previous thread)

they also include threads that are repetition in premise e.g. most of calum's threads. nodody else really does that, that's why they get so much attention when discussing this issue. they make a few people laugh (but for the fifth/tenth/fiftieth time tho?) but seem to irritate more. if anything most people are indifferent and ignore them and that's fair enough too. there appears to be no 'solution' to this 'problem'. but surely everyone would agree that making the same not-that-funny-in-the-first-place joke over and over again on a much loved and valued message board is bad form? the 'tone' of them seems 'disrespectful' as well as half-baked opinions are spouted without real foundation. not that this is offensive, just kinda annoying really.

i don't mind the copycat threads so much altho i guess that joke wears pretty thin pretty quick too.

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 14:58 (nineteen years ago) link

the reason it is difficult [to ban posters] is because the board code was never coded with security/authentication in mind, not because it's an inherently difficult problem

More proof that lockism is the new rockism -- authentication is to lockism what authenticity is to rockism!

Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:00 (nineteen years ago) link

Lochism, surely. I mean, if we're going to invoke McGonagall...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:00 (nineteen years ago) link

i applaud andrew

kephm, Friday, 18 June 2004 15:03 (nineteen years ago) link

You know that bit in "Roger Rabbit" where the bad guy gets out the canister of "dip", and jessica rabbit goes "oh my god..it's dip!!" I was going to try to find a pic of jessica rabit, and add caption "oh my god it's calum meta!!!" (yes I know it's not funny really) the only thing is, I google image searched for "jessica rabbit" and I forgot I have safe search off by default. OMG WTF????

Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:08 (nineteen years ago) link

Basically C-Man's eternal tactic is to try and salt in 'serious' threads among everything else. Like him in general, it's obvious and tiring as an attempt to show he's a good citizen. Apparently Momus is the only one who buys it these days.

I don't care who starts a thread! If it's interesting, it has a right to live. It should only be aborted if it contains something really scary. The thread I linked had nothing wrong with it whatsoever. I agree with J0hn -- positive re-inforcement is the only solution. What's wrong with someone trying to show they're a good citizen? Even if it's a ruse, if it's taken at face value it may well settle into a permanent attitude. As for 'tiring', the tiring thing is surely running around trying to lock any and every thread by a particular poster. At the moment all anyone is proving is that Calum is right when he says 'ILX is obsessed with me'. He must be loving it.

Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:11 (nineteen years ago) link

but surely everyone would agree that making the same not-that-funny-in-the-first-place joke over and over again on a much loved and valued message board is bad form? the 'tone' of them seems 'disrespectful' as well as half-baked opinions are spouted without real foundation. not that this is offensive, just kinda annoying really.

Do you think this is perhaps getting into territory too arbitrary to justify 'punitive' moderator action? Like the thread Momus linked - it was totally harmless. If someone else had started it it would not have been locked, I don't think. I would have probably ignored it as much as I ignore every other thread about Britpop stars I've never heard but I don't see why it's worse than many other threads. And the REM vs Charlatans thread - that's a straight musical question (unless there's some joke about the Charlatans I'm missing out on - I've never heard them). These are no more 'ridiculous' than lots of (possibly better-written) threads that go on anyway (dave q's Microstoria vs Nazareth; my Doobie Brothers vs Chemical Brothers; Mark R's Alva Noto vs Aldo Nova).

sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:11 (nineteen years ago) link

I mean, if you can start locking threads for trying too hard to be funny or for not being that well-thought-out, that does start to seem rather excessive.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:12 (nineteen years ago) link

this thread is a total sausage party, funny thing

kephm, Friday, 18 June 2004 15:15 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't care who starts a thread! If it's interesting, it has a right to live. It should only be aborted if it contains something really scary.

I find that lately I agree with Momus a lot more than I used to. Perhaps it is because I am getting older and abandoning my once idealistic ways.

You know they say if you aren't anti-Momus when you're young then you've got no soul, and if you haven't become part of Momus by the time you're old then you've got no brain.

martin m. (mushrush), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:15 (nineteen years ago) link

i like cockfarmism personally

ken c (ken c), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:16 (nineteen years ago) link

i know sundar, it's just that enough people did seem to complain about it so locking seemed warranted

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:16 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't care who starts a thread! If it's interesting, it has a right to live.

shit i'm agreeing with momus here..

if we ban all cman stuff apart from the ones that have interesting potential (few and far between i know), then we're going to have interesting threads, and calum will be pissed off knowing that he's done something constructive, and will probably leave in tears to stuff his face with food to make it even bigger. everybody's happy.

wow we can turn calum into a clockwork orange

ken c (ken c), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:19 (nineteen years ago) link

There certainly was nothing wrong with the Vs. threads, but Ned has this weirdass obsession with me. I don't mind him, in all honesty, just as I don't mind 99% of people here. I think, in general, the place is full of good people - I just find it amusing that "C-Man" threads still get, like, 179 posts or end up locked after a few amusing picture captions. I DO find it funny. You guys often make me laugh out loud and for that I congratulate you. If I DIDN'T laugh then I don't know if I honestly would post here.

But certainly the Vs thread was fine. And Norm is welcome to review for my column.

C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:22 (nineteen years ago) link

If you do want funny, though, my mate in the picture with me paid £140 or something on ebay to get two tickets to Avril's concert at the Barrowlands because he has a stiffy for her. Even I laughed.

C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link

(Once upon a time they all used to hate on me. Now an upstart from my hometown has taken my place. Sob.)

Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:24 (nineteen years ago) link

why do you think people are obsessed with you calum? don't you want them to be?

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:25 (nineteen years ago) link

hang on, i'm pretty sure i asked you those questions a full year ago...

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:25 (nineteen years ago) link

where are you from, momus?

RJG (RJG), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:26 (nineteen years ago) link

What's wrong with someone trying to show they're a good citizen?

When, based on months upon months of idiocy, there is little reason to believe it. Very, very little. And when he does try and be 'serious' he does so only to set people up and make them believe he's somehow better. For myself, and only for myself I'll emphasize, I find that boring.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:26 (nineteen years ago) link

Actually, jokes aside... Momus is completely right. Half the time I don't even notice who started a thread. I often don't look unless the thread is really funny or in very poor taste.

I'm not even Calum's 2nd biggest fan, but stopping all threads he creates just because he created them isn't really fair, and I don't think it's productive.

Recently I replied to a thread started by what seemed to be a random Googler asking a bunch of sex-related questions. None of my replies were serious, some were intended to be funny and others were just kinda mean. At least one other ilx0r objected saying that even a thread started by a random Googler could turn into a reasonable discussion if people just answered the question seriously instead of dogpiling on the person who started it because they write in AOLese (lol!!!1) or have shitty grammar.

While I disagree that humor (even lowbrow and childish humor) shouldn't be an option for replying to any thread, I do agree with the point that just about any thread can morph into a serious (or at least worthwhile) discussion even if it doesn't start as one or doesn't look promising from the outset.

martin m. (mushrush), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:26 (nineteen years ago) link

i'm bored of the Vs threads now for sure. in the past it was fun to make the odd sarcy remark on them. but we must all move on. fun can be found quite easily elsewhere after all.

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:27 (nineteen years ago) link

Ned has this weirdass obsession with me.

pot meet kettle, calum!!

I'll see if I can find anything interesting to say about "Aguirre" after I've watched it. Word rates as applicable from previous writing work I assume?

Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:28 (nineteen years ago) link

Two reasons why Edinburgh is the home of 'trolls' (you would call us that; we call ourselves 'kappas'):

1. A lot of bridges with shadowy arches, stalagtites, etc.
2. A history of oppression by the English, resulting in intense resentment of authority figures.

Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:29 (nineteen years ago) link

Also, you all might find this thread of interest.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:29 (nineteen years ago) link

i look at calum's threads usually because i suppose i am intrigued by that kind of behaviour and attitude. it's not the sort of thing i would do, it's different therefore i'm curious. perhaps the frustrating thing is that i never really find the answer, because it appears there isn't one (and most of the time nor is there a question).

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:29 (nineteen years ago) link

it wasn't interesting this time Ned :|

stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:31 (nineteen years ago) link

I do think people are being a bit hard on Ned here. Plenty of posters have expressed intense annoyance at calz' previous shenanigans, and many continue to do so.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:32 (nineteen years ago) link

Norm - I'd say keep it within 500 - 600 words. But please go right ahead and I'll put it online!

P.S. Like I said, I don't have much of a problem with Ned. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent guy *OVER A BEER*

C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:34 (nineteen years ago) link

This is all so futile. Despite whatever the "best way" to treat Calum might be, whether it's humoring him or ignoring him or encouraging his more relevant posts, you're never going to get everyone to act that way. Someone's always going to get mad, or just be in a pissy mood, and take the Calum bait or start a fight. In that weird way, he serves a purpose here; he's a punching bag.

Comment dits-on...eh... le NA? (Nick A.), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:35 (nineteen years ago) link

i think calum would be very amusing under a pint of beer, that is tipping

ken c (ken c), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:36 (nineteen years ago) link

This is like going into some Wild West saloon bar and getting the table shot out from under you every time you try to put your glass down. You ask the sherrif for why and he says 'I was shooting at McGee' or 'McGee put that table there, it's not a real table' or 'McGee touched that glass, sorry, had to shoot it out of your hand'.

Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:38 (nineteen years ago) link

her name was McGill, and she called herself Lill, but everyone knew her as Momus

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:39 (nineteen years ago) link

Every argument I've seen advanced on this thread reminds me of the slew of arguments regarding him back in November. Quite a LOT of talk about trying to encourage his 'good' side and all that. And he plays along with it by doing things like what he's doing right now, saying things like: "I don't have much of a problem with Ned." Of course. Why WOULDN'T he say that right now?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:39 (nineteen years ago) link

...You begin to wonder who this dangerous, dangerous McGee might be. Then the doors swing open and in he walks: a little Scotsman who writes film reviews and is a bit disappointed by the new Morrissey record.

Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:39 (nineteen years ago) link


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.