Help us improve the site - Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion.

Print Page | Close Window

Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion.

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=52925
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 01:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion.

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Subject: Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion.
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 16:34

As a regular user of the PA site i often see opinions about that X band are aprove and that other band are rejected from X team, but as the general mayority of members, we do not see a document that X team rejecead a band for x or y reasons or approve a band for x o r y reasons.

I suggest that the admins should document the arguments in favor of aprove or arguments rejecting a band to be in PA, and publish that decision in some thread, that the mayority of the members we can read the arguments in favor of addition or rejection.

It can be like this:

XXXX team of PA of the veredict of add or reject x band we:

C O N S I D E R

In x month of the year 2008 zafreth, a senior member of PA suggest x band, he provide this with samples of music and a rudimentary biography to be added to PA, after he post this in the right thread, after that, a member of the team that evaluate the x band, answer in x month of 2008, that they take the x group and will evaluate in a time that no exceed four months.

Then the x team of PA evaluate the band and : Here the team can put the developemnt of the discussion in a general manner.

Then comes the arguments of pros and cons (specific) well written, well sustained and if a member want to do a particular vote.

R E S O L U T I O N

X o Y team, after we read and listen to samples of music of X band we decided the (adition) (rejection) of the aforemetion band in the following:

1.- We the x team after reading an evaluate x band we decided to addd or reject the x band because their fullfill or fail the requeriments of the general guidelines of PA.

2.- Make public this decision in the right thread of the forum.

3.- The member that suggest x band, can complaint to the admin team that evaluate this particular case in a time no longer than 15 days.

4.- The admin decision will stand and have no other action.

well hope that read it and suggest to admin team

Opinions, etc.

-------------

Replies:

Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 16:51

Nice idea Zafreth. I don' think it needs Admin involvement though. I'm sure the SCs and team members could come up with a means of doing this. It's best if the current forum facilites can be used.

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 16:58

As long as it doesn't necessitate much more work. I have suggested that teams post their progress, decision, and make comments in the "Suggest New Bands" threads. It's not hard to do, but one has to be in the habit of doing it.

-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:01

if you want i can do the veredict transcription and publish in a special thread

-------------

Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:03

At the very least, I think that it is important that something is posted in the suggest new bands thread that tells the general forum the final status for a band. This happens many times, but not all of the time. I think that there are many suggest new bands threads where it is uncertain to the general forum what happened to a band. Unfortunately, when a band is added, not only does the band have to be added, but something would also have to be posted in 4 or 5 different threads in the various collaborator zones, and general forum. So the person, might have posted in the special collab zone that they added the band, and in the genre team threads that they added the band, and maybe even in the general forum under "Recently added bands", but nothing might have been posted in the original thread that suggested the band. I don't know that it is really necessary for the genre teams to have to post their reasons for rejecting the bands, but certainly they could (and generally usually do) respond to further inquiry by those who might question why they were rejected.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:04

Easy Livin wrote:

Nice idea Zafreth. I don' think it needs Admin involvement though. I'm sure the SCs and team members could come up with a means of doing this. It's best if the current forum facilites can be used.

I put the admins as the final instance for a Member or a Collab, Prog Reviewer or SC, that can say a word about the rejection or addition of a band.

Like the justice system of law

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:10

rushfan4 wrote:

I don't know that it is really necessary for the genre teams to have to post their reasons for rejecting the bands, but certainly they could (and generally usually do) respond to further inquiry by those who might question why they were rejected.

As you point, i think that it is actually necessary to post their reasons, so with this, we can avoid endless threads concerning a band that are added or rejected, specially for newbies

-------------

Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:25

I think that the endless threads are pretty minor in comparison to the number of bands that are rejected or added. I could be wrong, but I think that that would add a lot more work for the collabs to have to add their reason for rejection to every band. Especially, since most of the time the answer is "in my opinion they weren't prog enough". This is an oversimplification, but I think you see my point.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:32

rushfan4 wrote:

I think that the endless threads are pretty minor in comparison to the number of bands that are rejected or added. I could be wrong, but I think that that would add a lot more work for the collabs to have to add their reason for rejection to every band. Especially, since most of the time the answer is "in my opinion they weren't prog enough". This is an oversimplification, but I think you see my point.

The collabs Must add their reason for rejection or for addition, that work is already done when they evaluate a band

I suggest that they do a document when they put their argumentations about add or reject a band.

So, any member can see why they added x band or why reject x band.

i think we can do an excercise to see if works

And BTW this will add transparency over the teams elections of add or reject a bands.

-------------

Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:52

All for it, but I still have to see someone come up with an approach that works in practise. I've tried a few times, but so far haven't found the way. Forum threads are cumbersome because of limited search facilities, progfreak makes some collabs suffer from allergic reactions Wink

and M@X doesn't have time to build something into the site to track inclusion progress and rejections.

But, by all means - if you have an approach that works, let's see if we can get it to do exactly that, work.

-------------
http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:21

Angelo wrote:

All for it, but I still have to see someone come up with an approach that works in practise. I've tried a few times, but so far haven't found the way. Forum threads are cumbersome because of limited search facilities, progfreak makes some collabs suffer from allergic reactions Wink

I think that is not necesarry to build something that tracks the progress of a decision of adding or rejecting a band, a whole thread can do that.

For example: "The Heavy Prog Team General Evaluation of Adding Bands", and in that thread the HP team can show the developemt of the discusion of addition or rejection of a band, and obviously the mayority of the members (mortals) can read and suggest to those team about the addition.

I think that the suggestion that i have can do better for the forum and the site.

And obviously the teams have to work more fast

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:22

specially for those bands that are "forgot" in the suggest thread, like Humus

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:23

zafreth wrote:

if you want i can do the veredict transcription and publish in a special thread

-------------

Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:34

These type threads exist in the collaborator and special collaborator zones, which aren't available to the general public. I think that there is a reason for it. Mike's website http://www.progfreak.com - www.progfreak.com shows the status of bands, and the yes/no votes of the collaborators. The collaborators are not required to say why they voted yes or no for a band. As I said above, sometimes the collaborators do write an elaborate reason for why they voted against a bands inclusion, but much of the time they either don't, or their answer is "because they weren't prog enough". That really isn't going to tell anyone anything. But as I also said previously, if a band is rejected and that rejection is questioned, more often than not the collaborators that made that decision will then explain their reason for that decision. But also, unfortunately, that usually leads to a 35 page thread where people threaten to quit the site because they either made the decision and don't like being flamed for it, or they disagree with the decision and think that we are all a bunch of morons that only add our favorite bands and screw everybody else.

-------------

Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:37

To add to that, as a Site Monitor, one of the things that we do is monitor the status of bands and communicate with the teams to see where bands are as additions and rejections. Generally, if someone wants to follow up on a bands status all that they have to do is post in the thread which suggested the band and either one of the site monitors or the genre team will usually respond with the band's status.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 20:27

rushfan4 wrote:

These type threads exist in the collaborator and special collaborator zones, which aren't available to the general public.

That's why the main reason that the veredict should be public, as a normal member, sometimes i feel that the addition of rejection of a X band, touch a "grey area", as you see as SC i understand your point of view (you have access to almost everything in the site) but put in the side of a normal amember like me and things change a lot.

I think that there is a reason for it. Mike's website http://www.progfreak.com - www.progfreak.com shows the status of bands, and the yes/no votes of the collaborators.

I recently visit Mike website, but i propose this to PA.

The collaborators are not required to say why they voted yes or no for a band.

I know that but they should do. For transparency of the decision.

As I said above, sometimes the collaborators do write an elaborate reason for why they voted against a bands inclusion, but much of the time they either don't, or their answer is "because they weren't prog enough".

I think if a SC say that, that's not an argument, my proposal is to improve the site, to make more SC with a wide angle of argumenting and avoid such flat opinions.

That really isn't going to tell anyone anything. But as I also said previously, if a band is rejected and that rejection is questioned, more often than not the collaborators that made that decision will then explain their reason for that decision.

I think that a SC has an enormous responsability to add or reject a band, so at least, they have to argue why yes and why no.

But also, unfortunately, that usually leads to a 35 page thread where people threaten to quit the site because they either made the decision and don't like being flamed for it, or they disagree with the decision and think that we are all a bunch of morons that only add our favorite bands and screw everybody else.

For that (in)famous thread let's improve the site and the kind of working of the team, my proposal is to make things clear and consistent.

And by far for this matters, evidence must stay.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 20:31

rushfan4 wrote:

To add to that, as a Site Monitor, one of the things that we do is monitor the status of bands and communicate with the teams to see where bands are as additions and rejections.

And i think that you should communicate with the general members (in a thread or general announce or sticky), at least they are the final people that actually reads the reviews and put their opinions. Again looking through your view is like a SC, but i insist, put in the other side.

Generally, if someone wants to follow up on a bands status all that they have to do is post in the thread which suggested the band and either one of the site monitors or the genre team will usually respond with the band's status.

And that's why many, many bands, sleep the justice's dream...

-------------

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 03:07

OK, hope not to sound confrontational in any way, but what I saw so far really rubbed me the wrong way (and heaven knows if I need that now).

While I understand people who suggest bands like to see some follow up to their suggestions, I would like to remind ALL of you that we have lives outside this board, and that all the work we do on behalf of the site is something we do for FREE. As things are, I think the genre teams do much more than could be expected from them. Bands are added to the database almost every day, and that in itself is quite a lot of work, especially if the act in question has been around for some time (which means more albums to be added, and more detailed bios to be written). If the workload of the genre teams increases any further, they are very likely to find themselves short-handed sooner rather than later, and it is not always easy to find replacements for absentee members.

As for providing an explanation for the rejection, in principle I agree, being a supporter of transparency in all things. However, seen as some members of this board seem unable to behave civilly to others, I am afraid things would get unmanageable very soon, with disappointed members attacking the SCs responsible for the rejection (I've already seen this, so I know what I'm talking about). The Admins' workload would also increase exponentially, and the atmosphere of the forums would be seriously damaged.

As regards that mock-legal verdict, well.. I'd rather not say anything unpleasant, but I'd also rather NOT see anything that reminds me of work in a place which I visit in order to relax and socialise. I do take my job as a SC seriously, but there are limits.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 03:26

^ thank you ..been wanting to say the same but just hadn't put it into words yet. "Collaborators must add their reasons for rejection or for addition" .. excuse me but you need to take a big step back for all the reasons stated above and a whole bunch of others. Nice try but most of us bust our butts and take the work very seriously. Moreover, Collabs often post in Suggest New Bands with comments and thank yous, and frequently follow-up on the decisions. And BTW, rushfan is right, that's what Site Monitoring does, and they do it very well.

Thank you.

Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 04:54

To be honest, I'm not really all that interested in reasons for acceptance or rejection; concering borderline cases I can usually imagine what the decision was based on, so no big deal.

But one thing I would be interested in is a listing of artists whose status is a) being considered or b) have already been rejected.

In the first case it would be sort of like waiting for the lottery numbers to come up, especially if you'd like to see the artist included but can also see possible arguments against that.

Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 06:00

zafreth wrote:

I think that is not necesarry to build something that tracks the progress of a decision of adding or rejecting a band, a whole thread can do that.

I think that the suggestion that i have can do better for the forum and the site.

And obviously the teams have to work more fast

Being as you've quoted the HP team, Zafreth, I'd like to share some insight into the detailed reasoning that goes on in our hang, behind the addition/ rejection of Band X...

Fandango: hmmm...although I've only heard a handful of tracks, they are certainly heavy enough, but I'm not sure whether they are consistently proggy enough to be included...

David: well, I've listened to the album through a couple of times now, and I'm personally satisfied that they are...let's see what Whizzle has to say...

Whizzle: c'mon guys, the bloke's singing about pastries, and he using a flute... he also reads a lot of Jean Paul Satre...I'm not sure how much more prog you can get...

Fandango: OK, I'll agree on condition that you write the Biog, Whizzle...I'm sure its your turn...

I'm just not entirely certainly how you'd capture a conversation quite like that on a spreadsheet...

-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 12:03

Ok with the point, i also have live outside, but i actually organize and try to do my best in mantain my blog and participate in this forum.

As things are, I think the genre teams do much more than could be expected from them. Bands are added to the database almost every day, and that in itself is quite a lot of work, especially if the act in question has been around for some time (which means more albums to be added, and more detailed bios to be written). If the workload of the genre teams increases any further, they are very likely to find themselves short-handed sooner rather than later, and it is not always easy to find replacements for absentee members.

As to find replacements, i tell you that are many to want to collaborate with you.

As i said before being a SC is a enormous responsability, so i think that the guy that want to be a SC, knows the name of the game.

As for providing an explanation for the rejection, in principle I agree, being a supporter of transparency in all things.

Good!

However, seen as some members of this board seem unable to behave civilly to others, I am afraid things would get unmanageable very soon, with disappointed members attacking the SCs responsible for the rejection (I've already seen this, so I know what I'm talking about).

I see too but my suggestion would shut up their mouths for once and for all

The Admins' workload would also increase exponentially, and the atmosphere of the forums would be seriously damaged.

I really doubt that, in terms of transparency i think the addition/ rejection procedure would be more easy to cacht.

As regards that mock-legal verdict, well.. I'd rather not say anything unpleasant, but I'd also rather NOT see anything that reminds me of work in a place which I visit in order to relax and socialise. I do take my job as a SC seriously, but there are limits.

Of course are limits, but as i tell to Rushfan4 you see the point of a SC, and as SC you are aware of everything in the site.

-------------

Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 12:12

Honestly, I don't know how much easier it is for you just to go to ProgFreak and look at the charts there. What you're suggesting would basically mean that the SCs on here would have to work on here a good amount of time per day, and no one would want this to turn into a second, unpaid job. Jobs aren't meant for fun, and PA isn't meant to be a job

If it means pleasing one person, why don't you just go to ProgFreak where it basically already does everything you're suggesting. The teams all post their results there anyways, and like so many others have said, you can always PM a site Moniter if you're curious about the addition of a certain band.

These guys bust their asses as it is, would you stop giving them such grief over this matter?

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 12:16

Atavachron wrote:

^ thank you ..been wanting to say the same but just hadn't put it into words yet. "Collaborators must add their reasons for rejection or for addition" .. excuse me but you need to take a big step back for all the reasons stated above and a whole bunch of others. Nice try but most of us bust our butts and take the work very seriously. Moreover, Collabs often post in Suggest New Bands with comments and thank yous, and frequently follow-up on the decisions. And BTW, rushfan is right, that's what Site Monitoring does, and they do it very well.

Thank you.

Exactly David, if you said that take the work very seriously, that document stand like an evidence of that hours or weeks of hard work.

As you see, we all win with this suggestion!

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 12:16

zafreth wrote:

zafreth wrote:

if you want i can do the veredict transcription and publish in a special thread

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 12:25

King By-Tor wrote:

Honestly, I don't know how much easier it is for you just to go to ProgFreak and look at the charts there. What you're suggesting would basically mean that the SCs on here would have to work on here a good amount of time per day, and no one would want this to turn into a second, unpaid job. Jobs aren't meant for fun, and PA isn't meant to be a job

If it means pleasing one person, why don't you just go to ProgFreak where it basically already does everything you're suggesting. The teams all post their results there anyways, and like so many others have said, you can always PM a site Moniter if you're curious about the addition of a certain band.

These guys bust their asses as it is, would you stop giving them such grief over this matter?

Can't believe that all of you are so reluctant to adopt an a good idea.

King i do this for the benefit of the site and the forum, not for disturb the collabs, i think that this kind of procedure give the addtions rejections a more transparency and fruitful job, but as i see from you you like the Status Quo of the site, what a pity.

And you haven't to see this as a second job, i think that if you spent time, (hours days), to do a review, if you see you ALREADY do that kind of work that i try to suggest.

But nevertheless, nobody gave me yet arguments to reject this idea, only complaints.

-------------

Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 12:36

The basic idea stands as a good idea, my problem lies in the fact that you seem to be trying to guilt the teams into getting on board with this. If you weren't trying to in the first place then you should reconsider the wording of some of your posts. Having seen many additions take place the teams usually post in the suggestion thread as to whether the band was accepted or not. My argument is that doing something like these threads as you suggest is simply another step which seems a little pointless. If the teams are willing to collaborate with you and you're going to do the threads yourself, then that's fine - but I think you might eat your words when you see the number of bands discussed DAILY by EACH TEAM. That's a lot of work.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 14:38

zafreth wrote:

Exactly David, if you said that take the work very seriously, that document stand like an evidence of that hours or weeks of hard work.

As you see, we all win with this suggestion!

not what I was saying but whatever... no, we don't all win with your suggestion, believe me

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 14:39

King By-Tor wrote:

The basic idea stands as a good idea, my problem lies in the fact that you seem to be trying to guilt the teams into getting on board with this. If you weren't trying to in the first place then you should reconsider the wording of some of your posts. Having seen many additions take place the teams usually post in the suggestion thread as to whether the band was accepted or not. My argument is that doing something like these threads as you suggest is simply another step which seems a little pointless. If the teams are willing to collaborate with you and you're going to do the threads yourself, then that's fine - but I think you might eat your words when you see the number of bands discussed DAILY by EACH TEAM. That's a lot of work.

WELL SAID !

Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 15:18

As for this suggestion - I have enough paperwork and red tape at the place I earn my money. Getting another level of it here makes me think of documentation, journals, archives and having to spend time on routines that gets in the way of the stuff I want to do in here (for my sake pestering the various teams a lot lately...) - but still: It would reduce the joy and initiative to do something here.

Knowing that for every decision made one way or the other there's a need to provide documentation after the fact would primarily add incentive to postpone a decision for my sake, and I would think I'm not all alone in feeling that way.

A good idea though - if this had been a place where we worked, got an hourly salary and had to comply with ISO-standards.

(profanity edited)

-------------
Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 19:06

Eat my own words? might not.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 19:49

zafreth wrote:

zafreth wrote:

if you want i can do the veredict transcription and publish in a special thread

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 19:50

fandango wrote:

zafreth wrote:

I think that is not necesarry to build something that tracks the progress of a decision of adding or rejecting a band, a whole thread can do that.

I think that the suggestion that i have can do better for the forum and the site.

And obviously the teams have to work more fast

Being as you've quoted the HP team, Zafreth, I'd like to share some insight into the detailed reasoning that goes on in our hang, behind the addition/ rejection of Band X...

Fandango: hmmm...although I've only heard a handful of tracks, they are certainly heavy enough, but I'm not sure whether they are consistently proggy enough to be included...

David: well, I've listened to the album through a couple of times now, and I'm personally satisfied that they are...let's see what Whizzle has to say...

Whizzle: c'mon guys, the bloke's singing about pastries, and he using a flute... he also reads a lot of Jean Paul Satre...I'm not sure how much more prog you can get...

Fandango: OK, I'll agree on condition that you write the Biog, Whizzle...I'm sure its your turn...

I'm just not entirely certainly how you'd capture a conversation quite like that on a spreadsheet...

-------------

Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 21:02

zafreth wrote:

zafreth wrote:

if you want i can do the veredict transcription and publish in a special thread

Quite aware - I just don't think you know exactly how much work that would be

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 21:16

_And BTW i have a job that i enjoy so much!

Someone said this many many years ago: "If you find that your job isn't fun or you do not enjoy that job, is better to quit and find another job until the job in question become unbereable and damages your heatlh"

Just for the record guys...

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 21:32

oh I see, well thank you for that sparkling and most helpful advice.

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 02:34

zafreth wrote:

_And BTW i have a job that i enjoy so much!

Just for the record guys...

OK, just for YOUR record, I will be 48 in December, and there is NO way in hell that I could find another job in Italy at this age - even if my job killed me (and it almost did a few years ago). And the rest of Europe is no better. So, please, keep your advice to yourself, unless you know everyone's personal circumstances. We can crack jokes about music, but please, let's leave people's private lives out of it.

Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 03:18

I can't see the point on asking any of the team to write the reasons for not including a band or artist. This would almost be tantamount to writing reviews on albums you don't like because it's not your kind of music. Horrible thought.

That time could be much better spent on writing about prog sttuff.

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 04:08

Normally when I'm asked about a band, I give my opinion, and revcommend the band to another sub-genre if it's OK in my opinion,

But to make a Resolution?

I have too manyveredicts in the Court every day, this is suposed to be fun, not a projection of my work i the real world, but people want to give us more work.

BTW: It's not easy to find replacements for people, in first place, you can't replace a friend, and we are friends in the team.

In second place, I seen people asking for a promotion and vanishing after they saw how much they had to do.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 11:33

Raff wrote:

zafreth wrote:

_And BTW i have a job that i enjoy so much!

Just for the record guys...

Ok Raff i only put that advice because I do that in my personal life, i someone want or not want to follow, that, as you said, would be a personal problem for anyone...

And yes is for MY record.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 11:35

Well as i see this dead end discussion, i'm done with this suggestion.

So Please any Admin close this thread. Thank you.

I preffer keep having my friends here that to spoil that friendship.

-------------

Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 11:58

You know, I'm having the feeling that this "search for arguments" was caused by the latest Metallica and Stranglers discussions. The first thread was built on several members' strong & complete pro-arguments, while "simple no" were panned. Meanwhile, in the Stranglers's case, one Collaborator was not happy about a Team's decision (vote) not having been sustained with arguments.

Meanwhile, I would even be a spokeman in saying that the evaluation, while taking place behind the scene for many senior members, is in fact rigurous. I can guarantee to you, Zafret, that most of us avoid blank voting, but in fact support the vote with a proper impression (which can be taken as an argument). Sure, at the end of the day, votes equal a rejection or approval, but each member who voted tried, at one point, to explain best why did he vote the way he did. From "Iván the meticulous", who takes often time to search & buy CDs, not to mention he'll disect well into the music, to other member who just make their speech short, statements of a band's evaluation are constantly made.

That being said, there's, on one hand, nothing to fear, if you are a senior member and have the impression that the promoted Teams are giving thumbs up or down like Roman Emperors, but, on the other hand, the whole "official note about the evalution's final evaluation" could be a tad too much. Collaborators have already stated here that it would be extra time they, normally, can't truly afford (prog work =/= life, and more importantly life beats prog work). I myself would say I enjoy more listening to the music and discuss it, then working with papers - though I'm crazy about making tables, on the other hand. LOL

To add, the process of adding bands would slow down considerably - and weren't we Collabs sometimes accused of intense slacking...?

If (I'm trying to exhaust all the viewpoints) this is about Collabs communicating with Senior Members about a certain band being added or rejected, there's pros and cons, I believe anyone could say that. For one thing, if band X is rejected, those who agree with the decision will ... do just that, agree, while those who don't agree will not be happy - in extreme cases, they might even say to the Collab that he didn't listened properly.

Edit P.S.: didn't saw Zafreth's above post before proceeding to write this stuff.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 12:03

It's Ok Rico, i'm convinced with my suggestion was a bad one. don't worry.

-------------

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 12:24

Raff wrote:

OK, hope not to sound confrontational in any way, but what I saw so far really rubbed me the wrong way (and heaven knows if I need that now).

While I understand people who suggest bands like to see some follow up to their suggestions, I would like to remind ALL of you that we have lives outside this board, and that all the work we do on behalf of the site is something we do for FREE. As things are, I think the genre teams do much more than could be expected from them. Bands are added to the database almost every day, and that in itself is quite a lot of work, especially if the act in question has been around for some time (which means more albums to be added, and more detailed bios to be written). If the workload of the genre teams increases any further, they are very likely to find themselves short-handed sooner rather than later, and it is not always easy to find replacements for absentee members.

As for providing an explanation for the rejection, in principle I agree, being a supporter of transparency in all things. However, seen as some members of this board seem unable to behave civilly to others, I am afraid things would get unmanageable very soon, with disappointed members attacking the SCs responsible for the rejection (I've already seen this, so I know what I'm talking about). The Admins' workload would also increase exponentially, and the atmosphere of the forums would be seriously damaged.

As regards that mock-legal verdict, well.. I'd rather not say anything unpleasant, but I'd also rather NOT see anything that reminds me of work in a place which I visit in order to relax and socialise. I do take my job as a SC seriously, but there are limits.

What the lady said!!!

Including some irking/ittritation

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 13:45

In an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters here, I think both sides of the debate have substance.

On the one hand, our collaborators work long and hard for the site, and are understandably resistant to proposals which they feel would imply more red tape and unnecessary work for them. They can also be touchy about any questioning of their actions or decisions.

On the other hand, people who propose bands in the genuine belief that the suggestion has merit do not see all the work which goes on in assessing their proposal, they just see the decision at the end.

There's no easy answer to all this, but I think there needs to be a little more sympathy and understanding from both sides towards the position of the other.

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 14:05

Easy Livin wrote:

In an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters here, I think both sides of the debate have substance.

I understand that of course, but the Collabs that have make clear their opinion are very touchy

Exactly !! that's the main point we the senior members only see part of the movie and sadly is the final one, addition or rejection.

My ex suggestion was in a way to add more transparency to the desicions of the SC and teams when they add and reject bands, they claim that is a hard work, and that's fair enough for me, but all the process of the discussion, only sees by those teams and SC, and often i see threads about : "yeah that band was rejected for the x team", but never sees why they were rejected, so i wonder Why???

There's no easy answer to all this, but I think there needs to be a little more sympathy and understanding from both sides towards the position of the other.

For me no problem!

,if i never interest in the site and forum i never would have be a member at all.

But i'm interest!!!

-------------

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 14:23

Easy Livin wrote:

In an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters here, I think both sides of the debate have substance.

There's no easy answer to all this, but I think there needs to be a little more sympathy and understanding from both sides towards the position of the other.

Bob: As a fact, we usually do something similar in the Collaborators Section:

In this first case, to recommend two bands being deleted:

Antares: A 100% mainstream band that shouldn't even be in Prog Archives, the bio describes them as:

"A German symphonic rock band with reminiscences to GENESIS, MARILLION, PENDRAGON and YES. The band is lead by the composer, singer and multi-instrumentalist Claus Neide. Even if they don't sound as professional as PENDRAGON, this is perhaps the closest comparison"

The fact is that this bio is absolutely misleading, they sound more like Genesis but as 80's and 90's Genesis, it was added with no reviews and only one rating by the member who included them, we recommend to delete them, but if not possible, Prog Related is the only place for them.

ART IN AMERICA: This one has barely Proggish elements but it's AOR and just AOR, they had no reviews until HT added one, I recommend to move them to PROG RELATED.

Thanks

HT, Bob, James, Iván

The Symphonic Team

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40350&KW=PN%3D15&PN=1 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40350&KW=PN%3D15&PN=1

In this second cae, to justify a rejection of a band and recommend it to another genre:

Originally posted by Rivertree

HOKR
A classic czech band with compelling dramatic organ work, wonderful melodies, native vocals
symphonic, art rock, fusion ... hard to decide .. I think symphonic is most applicable ...
take time to explore ...

Honestly I see no place for them in Symphonic (still have to talk with the team though), they use a lot of organ, but in such way as Deep Purple or Uriah Heep but harder in some cases, the vocals are closer to Goth Metal than to Prog, they claim being an Alternative Underground Rock band, not a Prog band.

Their site is in Czech, so it's little what I can get from them, but their MySpace site also mentions:

"HOKR - rock / alternative "
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=273862904 - http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=273862904

That song full of hens sounds weird, but weird and organ is not necesarilly Symphonic.

Maybe Hard Rock or Eclectic (because songs as Skvrny that sounds more Jazzy Metalic) will find them suitable.

Cheers.

Iván

Sopmetimes the justification is shorter, but always justify it

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Sunchild: Have downloaded all the songs availlable and I don't believe it's Symphonic, if KARFAGEN was in the borderline between Symphonic and Prog Related, I believe Sunchild is in the border of XOVER and Prog Related.

Yes they sound Symphonic in moments, but also Folksy and Jazzy with a lot of mainstream elements.

I recommend Crossover to check them, if not Prog Related is where their home is.

Iván

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40350&KW=PN%3D15&PN=12 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40350&KW=PN%3D15&PN=12

Other times extremely detailled:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Logan wrote:

You might remember this one, as according to Erik, Bhikkhu was preparing the addition. It's clearly right for the archives (possibly symph, but I don't know as I'm just listening to it now and seems rather Eclectic to me). Very good retro.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51534 - Hobson's Choice
By http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=3684 - erik neuteboom , Today at 13:38

Today is the first time I ever listen the name of this band, and this is my impression according to the 5 complete songs I listened:

Raging Sun: Spacey introduction with a dramatic organ/mellotron and a a guitar a la Gilmour, followed by a Symphonic passage that leads to a Neo vocal section. Some distorted guitars proper of Neo Prog, for God’s sake, this guys blend everything because they return to a Symphonic atmosphere with a hint of Fusion
Procession: Despite the Emerson oriented keyboard, this is Fusion territory, not Symphonic by any chance even with the lush keyboards and the dramatic organ.
Steps of Eight: Soft piano intro for a ballad “A la Lake” which around the middle gets closer to Fusion but very diluted and returns to the ballad, which IMO is not Symphonic despite the nice piano.
New Horizons: Very close to ASIA, even the vocals sound very Wetton oriented, the instrumental break points towards Neo Prog, with very 80’s sounding keyboards, something in the border between Neo and AOR.
Jan E. Moll: Acoustic track, melodic and nice, flowsa gently from start to end but doesn’t allow to choose any sub-genre.

The band in their own MySpace site says

“...specializing in the classic prog-rock of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s (Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Traffic, Genesis, Yes)- says much about the pedigree of the quartet’s debut CD of original music, “New Horizons.” “..they conjure up a lush mix of synthetic and acoustic art-rock.” -Keith Spera, New Orleans Times-Picayune Lagniape.

http://www.myspace.com/hobsonschoicemusic - http://www.myspace.com/hobsonschoicemusic

Any band that combines elements of all those bands, surely is ECLECTIC

But that’s not all, later in their same own page they claim as influences:

Gentle Giant, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Genesis, Yes, Focus, Premiata Forneria Marconi, Pink Floyd

http://www.myspace.com/hobsonschoicemusic - http://www.myspace.com/hobsonschoicemusic

So I agree with Logan they probably belong in ECLECTIC.

Iván

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40350&KW=PN%3D15&PN=12 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40350&KW=PN%3D15&PN=12

We normally avoid the open forums because by mutual experience we know any post may cause controversy and a passionate fanboy insisting ad nauseam and even getting aggressive.

But in some cases I sent Private Messages to a determined member to explain why the band he proposed was rejected, messages that I can't post for obvious reasons (Is against te site rules to post PMs)

So I rather keep acting like this, posting in the CS and sending PMs in some cases, bbecause a post like this in the open forum can cause WW III

Iván

-------------

Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 18:00

Clearly there's a balance Ivan and I was not proposing any change, just a recognition of the reasons behind the various perspectives here.

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 20:11

Easy Livin wrote:

Clearly there's a balance Ivan and I was not proposing any change, just a recognition of the reasons behind the various perspectives here.

I know Bob, I see your point, but my point is that if we start a thread explaining why a band is rejected in an oipen forum, God knows how it will end.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 20:33

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Easy Livin wrote:

Clearly there's a balance Ivan and I was not proposing any change, just a recognition of the reasons behind the various perspectives here.

I know Bob, I see your point, but my point is that if we start a thread explaining why a band is rejected in an oipen forum, God knows how it will end.

Iván

agreed.. just made a post, thread, in the SC zone regarding this.. and deleted it. Mainly because you said what I said... only much less inflammatory and much more succinctly. (imagine that sh*t huh)

open forum is NOT the place to discuss what goes on behind closed doors regarding team decisions.

we call them as we see them... agree or disagree.. don't care.. just respect it as the decision we come to honestly

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 20:59

Well of course all this could be avoided if all members could view but not post in the Collab Zone.

But of course you guys need your elitist club. ;-)

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 21:07

micky wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Easy Livin wrote:

Clearly there's a balance Ivan and I was not proposing any change, just a recognition of the reasons behind the various perspectives here.

I know Bob, I see your point, but my point is that if we start a thread explaining why a band is rejected in an oipen forum, God knows how it will end.

Iván

Understand your point Micky, but i think if you do a digest of adding /rejecting reasons of x bands and we, the seniors members not posting only look that would be nice

-------------

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 21:14

Although making it publicly viewable might be like allowing cameras into a courtroom. ;-)

I don't care about the reasons for approval/denial, and I think it's weird people do, but I would like to see what they're talking about. It would be a nice way to find music that is new to you, and I'm vain enough to wonder if they're talking about me. ;-)

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 21:19

it would be nice... but in my mind it simply isn't practical to do.... as I've said.. if someone wants an explanation about a decision... I have a PM box.... but prog is extremely subjective.. no matter how people recently have tried to make mathematics out of it and prove something is prog... in the end... it comes down to the taste test... does it taste like prog to you... does it feel like prog.. do you feel it has a place here. That sh*t can not be explained. Prog is not a science.. and trying to discuss it as such is stupid.. and a waste of time.

my two cents on it.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 21:30

micky wrote:

it would be nice... but in my mind it simply isn't practical to do....

Are you talking about us being able to view the Collab Zone? Because unless I vastly underestimating this forum software, it would only require mailto:M@x - M@x changing the user privileges, which would be like a few clicks.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 30 2008 at 21:52

Henry Plainview wrote:

Well of course all this could be avoided if all members could view but not post in the Collab Zone.

But of course you guys need your elitist club. ;-)

There are discussions, sometimes not related to music itself, that need to stay in the Collaborators section.

Like problems among Collaborators
Discussions among teams
Issues that the owners or Adms need to keep in a reduced group
Personal issues
Debates about bands we want to keep short. (In the open forums last longer)
Discussions about behaviour in the open forums
Many more

It's the same for us, we don't have access to the Adm section, the problem is not posting in the CS or in the AS, the problem is that some laundry must be done at home.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 05:11

Henry Plainview wrote:

micky wrote:

it would be nice... but in my mind it simply isn't practical to do....

no.. I wasn't talking about viewing the collab zone.. that is closed viewing for many reasons. Ivan touched on most of them. I was talking about the general gist of this thread. The collabs here have enough to do without being bogged down trying to explain what can not really be explained. We listen to the groups and the votes reflect what we think of the music in our personal interpetations of prog. Like I mentioned with the Stranglers. They were rejected for Crossover, a team of 3 people, for 3 different reasons. It is enough that they were rejected... why they were... really doesn't matter does it. As I said there.. and here... if you want to know a particular team members thoughts.. a simple PM works. I personally would try to place my thoughts and feelings into words. But don't have the time nor patience to do that in open threads. Too many here have shown time and time again that they are much better at talking and judging than listening. What difference would it make to explain it...people have their minds made up... if they didn't... they wouldn't get so worked up about it now would they?

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 11:56

I'll try again, and once again I'm not proposing any changes. There does seem to be a relcutance though to understand the genuine reasons behind the proposal. Simply putting up the shutters and saying that any questioning of a decision is wrong and insulting misses the point.

People are simply saying that they have come along in good faith suggesting that in their opinion there is a good case for a band to be added to this site. All they see at the end of it is a simple rejection. They are told that the matter will have been discussed in detail in an area they have no access to, and that they msut simply accept that.

Now the essence of that is true, and there is good justification for it being that way. Our teams do work long and hard and they take great care in their decision making process. We may disagree with what they decide, but their integrity is beyond reproach.

What is needed though is a little more tact in conveying the message back to those who made the original request. This does not need to be an issue charged with emotion, simple practial expanations are all that is needed. That way, I'm sure those asking for the feedback will understand the reasons why it is not done.

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 12:44

Micky has made some good points (This is getting to civil for mw, Micky and myself agreeing

micky wrote:

But don't have the time nor patience to do that in open threads. Too many here have shown time and time again that they are much better at talking and judging than listening. What difference would it make to explain it...people have their minds made up... if they didn't... they wouldn't get so worked up about it now would they?

I'm sure tha if we said:

It doesn't sound Symphonic (Or Xover or Eclectic or whatever)....Ten posts will appear saying it sounds Symphonic or Xover or whatever to them.
If we said, "We don't believe it's a Prog band and no site includes them"....20 posts with sites in German, French, Spanish or Swahili that mention the word Prog close to the name of the band willñ appear (Of course most would be unknown or fan clubs who want the band added)
If we gave A, B and C reasons why the band wasn't accepted in an open thread....The next post will come with D, E, F......X, Y and Z" reasons (Most of them personal.subjective or invalid) saying why they should be added.

And this will never end, some would complain to the Administrators, mailto:M@X - M@X or the public opinion and call us close minded biggots (I, a Peruvian Latino have been called racist for rejecting a band).

So the most I do is explain in the Collaborators section and PM the person who inducted them (When I know, because sometimes the band comes from a secind or thirsd source or from a band who previously rejected them).

Iván

-------------

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 13:13

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem sharing my band evaluation in Suggest New Bands, and discussing it there rather than in a team thread. It can get cumbersome and very time consuming thought when one is discussing merits with many people, and therefore having to spend much more time responding to points. An advantage is that now sometimes band discussions take place in many team threads (deciding which category it would fit best), and things sometimes slip through the cracks. Discussing it between teams in a central topic, as well as getting other opinions, can be very helpful. Also, I do think it important that people know where their suggestions stand. There has to be give and take, though. It should be understood by suggesters that when a decision has been reached that it's improper to moan and groan, or argue about it. Respect the decision even if one doesn't agree with it. We can't spend forever arguing and counter-arguing positions. Also, it should be understood that the suggester is willing to prepare the materials for addition after a decision is reached (I have quite a few bands I suggested that were accepted that I still haven't prepared the bios for -- they take me a long time to write and it can only be when there are limited distractions, and I have enough free time -- usually late at night, but I'm very tired these days, work at night, and take care of my kids during the day).

That said, different teams work in different ways.

-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 14:35

As mine was one of the first response, I'd like to make it clear that I was NOT objecting to giving explanations about the reasons why a band is rejected. What I objected to was the over-formal, mock-legal format that was suggested in order to provide those motivations. I already have misgivings about the excessively serious atmosphere of the discussions regarding band additions, as well as the sometimes overheated reactions of disappointed users - I'd like the site to stay a source of fun and relaxation, not a reproduction of a work environment without the pay.

Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 14:38

Raff wrote:

I'd like the site to stay a source of fun and relaxation, not a reproduction of a work environment without the pay.

Hear, hear!

-------------
Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 14:41

Raff as i said early, i reject my own suggestion. That because in general the opinions of the SC and Collabs and Admin would not like that.

So, i shut my mouth again.

-------------

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 14:42

and BTW nice cats

-------------

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 14:49

Thank you! Smile

I really hope you didn't feel attacked... It was never my intention, and I saw the merit in your suggestion. As I said in my original post, I value transparency in all things. However, I can't help being worried about possible repercussions. I care about this site a lot, even on a personal level, and I don't want to see it go to the dogs.

Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 14:53

I used to have a little cat named Yoda, was a orange one, but my ex wife took me over so i haven't see then...

But now i have a beatiful daughter

And hope that she grow up have again a cat, i love the cats.

About the discussion, i understand it and i'm not a narrow mind so i recognize my own faults and learn. don't worry about, it's part of the bussiness.

-------------

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 17:46

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Henry Plainview wrote:

Well of course all this could be avoided if all members could view but not post in the Collab Zone.

But of course you guys need your elitist club. ;-)

There are discussions, sometimes not related to music itself, that need to stay in the Collaborators section.

Like problems among Collaborators
Discussions among teams
Issues that the owners or Adms need to keep in a reduced group
Personal issues
Debates about bands we want to keep short. (In the open forums last longer)
Discussions about behaviour in the open forums
Many more

It's the same for us, we don't have access to the Adm section, the problem is not posting in the CS or in the AS, the problem is that some laundry must be done at home.

Iván

You can't see the admin forum, but you also don't have any admin powers, so I don't think it's a fair comparison.

I would say that all of those are topics that should be discussed via PM between the parties involved or in the open forum instead of in your semi-secret forum for people who have no authority over the forum itself. Except for 2, I'm not sure what that means, and I don't see the problem with people seeing 5--it's not like some random noob jackass can butt in and extend the thread forever. ;-)

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 19:29

Henry Plainview wrote:

You can't see the admin forum, but you also don't have any admin powers, so I don't think it's a fair comparison.

You don't have Collaborators powers, Collaborators dobn't have Special Collaborators powers, everything works like this, each one has their section to discuss issues that should be kept in eachb section.

Can you add bands?

Can you modify information?

Is there any reason for a member or a troll to know that his cadse is being discussrd?

Maybe some powers, even when small, but we have some, and we gained them with hours and/or years of work here.

BTW: Sometimes the issues between teams and collaborators have to be discussed in a restricted area but with the knowledge of the other collaborators, we can't do it on an open forum.

Except for 2, I'm not sure what that means, and I don't see the problem with people seeing 5--it's not like some random noob jackass can butt in and extend the thread forever. ;-)

Yes they will, we have modified groups of 30 bands per session in two pages of discussion, many of this bands like King Crimson, Gentle Giant, VDGG (All moved from Symphonic), would had taken months each one

But at the end, neither the administrators, you or I have created this system, it has been created by the owners and neither you or me can change it, it works for us and that's how a system is judged.

Iván.

-------------

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 20:39

No, my point was that you were making it sound moderatoresque, when you have no powers over the forum; therefore, the personal discussions in the semi-private forum isn't the same. If you're willing to talk about it in front of other people who don't have power over other users, you should be willing to talk about it in front of everyone.

And I think you misunderstood me: I fully support that the Collabs should have their own forum to talk about their decisions or what have you, but people being able to read it wouldn't change anything on that front.

I know it is never going to change, and I don't really care, either. I'm just saying, I personally think it is inappropriate.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 31 2008 at 20:55

Henry Plainview wrote:

No, my point was that you were making it sound moderatoresque, when you have no powers over the forum;

No, I'm concious of my clearence in this forum

therefore, the personal discussions in the semi-private forum isn't the same. If you're willing to talk about it in front of other people who don't have power over other users, you should be willing to talk about it in front of everyone.

Even when we are not mods, we havce other fubctions and issues that need to be private.

I don't believe so, there are issues that only concern to the Collaborators.

I know it is never going to change, and I don't really care, either. I'm just saying, I personally think it is inappropriate.

I think is perfectly appropriate as in most forums.

If we have to do some work /and it's a lot), if we need to discuss teams issues that are also a lot, if we want to discuss PROBLEMS among two or more teams, if we have to receive general passwords or clearence to do some things for the forum, privacy is required.

And if mailto:M@X - M@X needs to say something only to the people that work directly (less than the Adms we know) or give us guidelines, or whatever he wants, he needs his privacy.

Iván

-------------