Pineapple Thief abuse

johnobvious wrote: The Jerky Boys reference was obvious to me.  It seems to me that some of the posters on here are just hitting each other with the hot mops and are getting a little testy.   Maybe they need someone to fire some hot clam chowder on them. What I am most proud of is that I got two guys to sign up to the forum with my rantings!  Yeah for me.

Maybe we could order them a pizza....



...and then offer them a coupons afterward.

first of all, i wouldn't be writing anything here if it weren't for the heading, pineapple thief abuse. this topic now has the word abuse, tagged onto everything that go on this page. it does imply corruption or deception. i haven't put any words into anyone's mouth. i didn't open the topic i'm just trying to clarify something's said here. and perhaps i owe you an apology. i asked a few short questions and none of them were answered.
 
when i first read your post it seemed as though you were on a good plight and found some people may have abused a reviewing system. your intentions were honest and you should receive recognition for exposing such practices. it's sometimes hard to read every word someone writes on sites like this as one may try to skim a bit to weed out jabbering. so, after re-reading every word i'm still perplexed.
 
on your first response the guy says he actually likes the pineapple thief and you shouldn't point the finger at them as there may by others that do this as well. for the next two posts you hammer out stats and show concern about advertisers. and for several posts on people tend to all agree that something should be done to prevent people from abusing a review system with several great ideas. maybe at this point the topic should have been changed to, review abuse but it wasn't and still had the pineapple thief pinned to it.
 
your very next post you seem glad for those that responded so far were on your side and that's where you could have easily put in your closing, enough said. the topic would have probably ended and it would have been a dead issue. but you wanted to continue and that's where you pulled in the SoT voters. what you've done is fuse the two together. you say, if you think i am smoking dope, go to Sea of Tranquility and look at their january poll. best album of 2008. 40 options. guess who is winning? pineapple thief by a wide margin. i wouldn't want to implicate bruce in this bs but they certainly have a loyal following it would seem. a following who isn't afraid to color outside the lines.
 
although you tried to exclude bruce you've made it clear you were amazed at such results with 40 options. and you were certain they have a loyal following, that isn't afraid of coloring outside the lines. without putting words into your mouth, do you mean, cheating?
 
now what you've done is incorporate anyone that participated in the survey and dragged them into your topic, pineapple thief abuse.
 
then tony brings it back to the review issues and has great insight, hence review abuse. perhaps he can control reviews better. sid won't even post a note if it's off topic. but it is the freedom of speech thing. anyway, everyone see's something should be done. but you can usually see through a bad review and star rating.
 
now comes the confusing part. amcy had some valid points and you wanted to address the reviewers with multiple accounts and star system scandal. you skipped past the part of SoT and went on to say that you never said the SoT poll was fixed. and just used it as an example that there are fans of the band who may be willing to go above and beyond to get PT more notoriety.sorry,but i'm not sure you can separate yourself that easily as you just stated the fans are willing to go above and beyond,do you mean, cheating? and we are still under the heading pineapple thief abuse, right. then you continue but with doubt that bruce prodded someone to do it and you would doubt with 99.9% certainty. but your not clear, do you mean SoT or the reviews? you go on to tell amcy, he thinks everything is just fine when there is clear abuse. still uncertain but it sounds like your back on the review part. so, you've tried to get out of thing he was wondering about, which was the SoT survey.

 

i hope you can know see that there is two parts to this topic. one is the review and the other is SoT. so, with that in mind i was only concerned about the SoT survey and thought i made that point. you say me and amcy give these people the benefit of a doubt and i would have to say your back on the review thing now and i'm not willing to give anything away. your just flip'n and flop'n here. get it right, we see smoke and infer fire also.

 

and the best part is, you say you could care less about the whole thing and just wanted to let admin. in on your findings. well,then you did care. and they took action. that's a good thing. just don't drink that bong water.

 

 

oh yeah, i laughed (almost fell off the chair laughn') when i heard the record collection wasn't even his. that's like posing next to, bar refaeli and saying that she's your girlfriend.

 

listener of prog for forty years, peace.

 

see ya on another topic.

Edited by sparkslive - February 17 2009 at 12:03

I can't help but get some really absurd images in my head every time I see the title of this thread.

Sparsklive, I thought my posts have been pretty clear, but obviously, you don't think so.  So let's clarify:

1) I do not think there was any abuse whatsoever on the SoT poll.  What I concluded from the results was that some fans of the band went above and beyond to get the word out so that Tightly Unwound would have a better chance of winning.  That is okay. 

2) But you can not tell me that if you were to poll 500 impartial listeners to all of those albums that the results would have been so heavy on TPT.  Assuming this to be correct, it bolsters my argument (to some degree) that the one-day, five star people were not legitimate visitors to the site, but perhaps people who wanted to do something along the lines of the SoT poll.  And that is to get the word out on a fine band.  But there are no polls here.  So they decided to go about the business of getting the word out by going around the (perhaps unspoken) rules of this site and doing what they did.  I believed when I made the thread that most long standing members of PA as well as the admins would find this to be against the spirit of the site and would either want to voice their opinion against it or help address it if it was within their power.

3) I am sorry you do not like thread title.  I did not put a lot of thought into it as I did not think it that big of deal and figured people would get the jist after reading my first post.  While you may feel the title somehow impugns the band, I do not believe many others would share that view.

4) While I appreciate that you and amcy are ardent supporters of the band, you are losing sight of the problem here.  The problem is not the album or the band and I think down deep you know that.  You are trying to pick apart my posts in order to make me out to be the bad guy.  And I don't think the person or people who started this are necessarily bad.  They may have just made a poor decision by using loopholes in the system in the their crusade to get the word out.  A lot of people work very hard to maintain this site and to write legitamate reviews and for this type of thing to happen is not in the best interest of the PA or people trying to look into TPT.  That is all I was trying to bring to light.

Peace to you as well


Edited by johnobvious - February 17 2009 at 13:25

Yes, you used my exact words and then tried to study their meaning for heaven knows how long.  Reading between the lines seems to be your passion.

It is your opinion that "I roped the SoT survey by way of example into this thread." I don't think I can clarify my position any more clearly than I did in point one of my previous point.  Shouldn't that clarify everything?

As far as the impartial listeners quote, it certainly would never happen because of all the fanboys out there.  Hence any of those polls should be dismissed.  I was just using a hypothetical to make my point.

I am reading your posts and remember your Bevis and Butthead remark. Not cool.  And I would invite you to discover the SHIFT key.

And you certainly can not make the claim that the same people were not involved.  They may have been.  Not all for sure, but some perhaps.  What they did was acceptable on SoT, but not here.

I do not want to fight with you.  I'll concede the last word to you on your next post.  I have no more to say regarding your points.  My conscience is clear