I don't think it makes a difference approo. Let me change the context. If I invite you into my house and then after inviting you I find out that you talk Leno about me when you're visiting with your other friends I get to say, hey, if I hear you talking Leno about me again then I'm not going to let you back in my house. Regardless of whether it's fair or cool or good for Inforoo is irrelevant. It is relevant that people understand when you are a guest you play by there rules or you risk not be invited back.
According to the statement made by adam, in chat, the banning is a result of using the IRC chat, not the context of the discussions in chat. So its not a result of the mods feeling slandered.
Isn't there a suspension or a probation period for these types of things? Banishing someone because they were chatting past the deadline seems harsh. It's like expelling a student for walking off school grounds.
Post by Homer J. Fong on Apr 4, 2011 15:45:17 GMT -5
Eh, seems pretty petty to me. For a bunch of tree-hugging longhairs you people are a bunch of toadying corporate stooges. You're going to ban someone for using a chat room because you don't like what they're saying?
First, I DID NOT ban any of those folks, Adam did! He has been paying particular attention to certain members for a while and has noticed the same thing I have, that some people use this forum for the specific purpose of quacking with people. That is not what inforoo is about, that is not why we exist, and Adam made the decision that people who were using this forum for those pruposes will be banned. they do not fit the vibe of inforoo and they only bring the board down.
Make no mistake, these individuals WERE NOT banned for "using a chatroom" as some on here have implied. This was a long time in the making, everyone of them have had many chances and opportunties to cool it with the crap, THEY chose to continue, so Adam chose to ban them.
Now I know that Adam specifically says that if they don't stop using the chat, then they will be banned. But some keep making it seem like the chat was THE ONLY thing happening when we were told it's not the only reason. Now I can't give specifics about why some members were banned because I don't know.........but what I do know is that apparently they were given a few chances and warnings about things.....as opposed to just banning them because they used a chat once.
I love when some of the only people who still contribute anything to this message board get banned.....
I stay out of this shiz usually but the majority of the people banned were always nice and helpful, and not out to get n00bs and bash-happy like is being implied. I know my opinion isn't worth anything and won't change the situation, but as a member not involved in this whos on the outside looking in, this doesn't bode well for the future of this place.
my only hope is cooler heads will end up prevailing, and the priorities of this board will be re-evaluated.
Post by fearthestupid on Apr 4, 2011 16:39:56 GMT -5
It can't be because of ryan hashton, i took my shots too, certain it was a troll account. Having said that, I agree, if I owned the name, and others were using that name for a chat site bashing me, I would most certainly ban them. They were told to stop using the name, not the site. It could have been called something else, even "the Adam haters club". They made a stand, they lost. The End. So i hear there's lineup additions this week?
to be fair, there was nothing ever negative said in chat about adam or other mods until after the trademark arguments happened... at least from what I noticed. Don't talk like chat was 1 big room of hate when it really was just a place for people to talk about the lineup and sports, to be honest. I got more pissed that 1/2 the time I went in there we were discussing football than I got mad from any supposed negativity produced from there.
Yeah, several people come in the chat seeing "what it's all about" like there is going to be some kind of crazy revolution going in there. I frequent it on occasion, and like was stated above, it's 80% fantasy sports.
yeah we talked about all the fantasy sports leagues we compete in together (many of which use the trademarked inforoo name because it was the bond that brought us together). i'm kind of proud that i helped create such an intense and exciting thread, but i hate that it came from the troubles of my friends. in their defense, originally adam told us to not advertise the chat or use the inforoo name, so we did what we could to change the name and not advertise the link. some reason this was not good enough and last night the Leno hit the fan. i guess i dont get on it enough or post enough to be deemed ban-able (or suspendable, which is really the case here. at least in nod's case so i assume everyone else. but i have heard full ban for others is possible).
it is kind of sad that boothead had one of the best arguments of this whole thread, even if this is all his fault. seeing as how we (they) are not a group of people who treat others like shiz, and in fact provide a large portion of the interesting conversations of inforoo, it will be a great loss for this site if they truly do get fully banned. in reality, this group of young adults are probably some of the biggest fans/supporters of inforoo of anyone! try and find any thread in here without one of them contributing. its just a sad situation. lets do the right thing and come to some kind of peaceful agreement.
EDIT: this is sang's fault for leaving for a week, btw
First of all no one has been banned over this - yet. A few members were given 10 day suspensions for pissing me off and being disruptive. There is an unwritten rule here - don't piss off the moderators. As long as you follow the rules, and not question us when we ask something reasonable of you, there wont be any problems.
Some people, despite multiple warnings, continued behavior that ended up causing me, and other moderators, grief. For that they have been suspended. If it continues they will be banned permanently. I trust that they will act like adults when they return and that there wont be any further issues.
I like the analogies some of you have posted. While I've tried hard to make this a collborative community that we can all feel a sense of ownership in, there comes a point when enough is enough. At the end of the day, every organization needs a leader and at Inforoo™, it falls to me. So if you're going to make my life difficult, I'm not going to want you around anymore.
BTW, quoting me from another forum/method of communications here is a good way to get on my bad side so be forewarned.
Post by aquariumdrunk on Apr 4, 2011 20:20:28 GMT -5
Of course, folks will believe what they want to believe, but we're not just suspending people for no good reason. Some stuff, lest we do one of the many things that has lead to these problems, just doesn't need to be dictated or completely aired out here. We've had this board around for quite a few years without these types of problems - some of those years were before the suspended folks were around, some of those years were with them.
And just a reminder, folks - this is a message board...on the internet...
Post by JustSoYouKnow on Apr 4, 2011 21:18:17 GMT -5
I don't know the entire case, but INFOROO is not your biznatch! CHILL OUT.
Not a total loss, they had their chance. They reserve the right to blah blah blah and not go down without a fight. Banning does not mean inforoo killed you, follow the rules and you'll get 1,000 beneficial things from inforoo from the time you read this till the next bonnaroo and beyond. THANK YOU INFOROO AND FREE NOD (yes i play both sides, because like i said i dont know the entire case)
I hate this thread, but I'm contributing because I want something good to come out of all this. I don't see that happening without increased understanding on the part of some involved parties.
I want to first point out that I think part of what makes this place great is that it adheres to the Do It Yourself philosophy. There are many examples around the board of users stepping up to enhance the Inforoo brand. We have bearing the Inforoo name: - a campsite - a brunch - a t-shirt contest - numerous fantasy sports leagues - an Inforoo on Facebook group Probably more. My point is that there are other spinoff activities using the Inforoo name which haven't drawn the same scrutiny as the chat room in question. I actually think the seemingly-yearly unofficial ticket giveaways present more of a potential legal liability to Inforoo than the naming of any related group, and I haven't seen action taken against any of them. Not all of those activities are operated by moderators, and as far as I can recall, none of them have been targeted as guilty of trademark infringement or otherwise harming the Inforoo name. It seems to me that the problem with this chat is more how its operators act in connection to how that reflects upon the Inforoo trademarked name. If this were merely a matter of trademark enforcement, this wouldn't be the first crackdown of this type we've seen.
A brief history of the chat in question and why it's controversial now: A couple years ago, some users decided the Inforoo chat included on the home page of this site was underwhelming enough to merit creation of another room. This led to users migrating to a newly-created chat for the Inforoo crowd on a free host other than Inforoo. Inforoo moderators stopped by that chat, too, but nobody ever tried to shut it down. That chat got a little too successful and began to frequently meet its free-hosting capacity. It was at this point that, at Boothead's suggestion and doing, the IRC chat in question was created. Things went fine with that chat for a while, until Boothead found himself getting banned from Inforoo. I'm not sure of the exact nature/reasoning of his banning. I know there was some friction between he and Inforoo moderators in the chat as a result of this. It wasn't until this happened that we all received that warning PM from Adam in our Inbox. When I wrote back for clarification, Adam assured me that chatters were fine as long as they did not link to the chat room - information I shared with other regulars in the room. Shortly after, a few users received suspensions for (if I correctly recall) creating a replacement for the deleted "IRC Quotes Thread" - which did not include links to the chat room as was requested of us. Users still got suspended over the incident, and it seems to me as if people were banned for breaking rules that were made up in the middle of the game. Those users refrained from which they were being asked to refrain, and still got punished for it. It was around this point that tensions between the Inforoo mods and the chat operators started coming to a head. The chat migrated to a few different locations; I believe Boothead was behind most of them, but it's possible there was another working with him.
I am fine with the owner(s) of Inforoo saying what can/can't happen with their name; it's within their rights. However, I also think that the official stance against the chat unnecessarily punishes a lot of people who are doing no harm whatsoever to the Inforoo name. There are at best two people who are actually infringing on the Inforoo trademark; the rest of us are just caught in the crossfire. The people who use the chat in question are at least as engaged and invested in Inforoo as the site's typical user. We attend the Inforoo brunch, we camp in Camp Inforoo, we write Band-A-Days, we design t-shirts for your contests, we create mock schedules, we are Board Members of the Month, we make the Create-A-Fest competition happen, we game in the Arcade, we occasionally include your moderators, we upload audio of Bonnaroo performances, and so on... we are not, and should not be considered, the enemies of Inforoo.
It's not as if we sit around plotting the downfall of Inforoo or terrorist attacks against the Inforoo brunch. We aren't sitting around conspiring against the site or anything - we're there to talk about music, Bonnaroo and such. It's a collegial chat for the most part, aside from occasional moments of mismanagement - moments which are often disagreed with, it should be worth mentioning. Most people who use that chat participate in Inforoo and seek to make it a better place just as many Inforoo moderators & users do... and I think it's excessive to punish people who want to chat as if they were the guilty parties committing this alleged trademark infringement.
The position I've outlined above pretty much explains how I feel about most everyone in that chat besides its actual operators. We all know bridges between Boothead and Inforoo are pretty much burned, so I won't address that. There are three people with operator status in that room: Booth, EMoney and occasionally nodepression (in that order). The former two names mentioned here have had the problems with Inforoo moderators entering the room, and have both ejected/banned them from the room in the past. I know Booth set up the original rooms, but as I understand it EMoney set up the more recent one. I know for a fact nodepression was unable to create that room - he tried, but was unable, to create a similar room as an alternative chat in order to avoid the mess that this has become. That leaves Boothead and possibly EMoney, as room creators, being the parties with which trademark owners should have a legitimate gripe. If you're going to cry "trademark," focus your claim on the people actually infringing upon your trademark. Punishment should be reserved for those who actually commit the crime. Going beyond that actually weakens rightful claims of misdoing by applying punishment to behaviors other than the ones which are causing the problem. I can assure you that a lawsuit against the customers of a trademark-infringing business would be thrown out of court with instructions to sue the actual trademark infringers; why similarly go after the people who did not create the chat but merely use it?
I've heard from both sides about this. I know Adam and other moderators are concerned with how the conduct of room operators reflects on their trademark. I understand their argument here, but I think that looking at these three as equal co-conspirators is taking too simplistic a view of the situation. As I stated earlier, both Inforoo moderators and users have periodically taken issue with decisions in that room; many of that chat's regulars would agree. They would also say that nodepression stands apart from that trio of moderators. When one of the other operators makes precisely the type of ban people find unfair - the stuff that illustrates the "bad vibes" argument I've heard in this discussion - they were usually only reversed because of the cooler-headed nodepression. If unlike-Inforoo bans or behavior took place in that room, nodepression was the only chance of reversing/preventing their permanence. Without his involvement, that place would be the unlike-Inforoo place that moderators - and users - do not appreciate. I know it might get me in some trouble to suggest he was working against moderators' grievances, but nodepression was the check and balance keeping that room in line and making it tolerable to others.
As long as we're talking about what is and is not acceptable, I'd like to tell the moderators in general a few things, and ask them some other things. I first would like to remind the mods that most of the people being affected by this are not working against Inforoo's interests by participating in that chat. We are for the most part upright citizens who contribute to this forum in a not-insignificant matter. We help make Inforoo happen, just as you do. We're passionate about the festival and live music in general, and the fact that these chats keep popping up shows that there is a demand. I said it to Adam in private and I'll say it publicly now: it would probably help the Inforoo brand to establish a viable alternative to the chat in question. I've asked what steps can be taken in that direction privately, and feel that answer was brushed off. It's not as if we insist that the only place we can chat occur at that particular URL under those particular operators. That being said, a question for all you moderators... What would it take for a different permanent chat (not using the TMed name, of course) to be acceptable enough for Inforoo to not go after its users? What would have to happen for it to be okay to promote such a room on the Inforoo site? Are there specific criteria you would like such a room to meet?
The thing that I don't think Inforoo leadership understands that there is a desire amongst its users to have a chat room which is currently unmet by the existing Inforoo chat room. In the absence of a viable and acceptable alternative - provided by Inforoo itself or its users acting independently - this kind of friction is going to continue.
I would rather it wouldn't, so I'm asking the Inforoo powers that be what this change will take. I think such a move is in the best interest of all involved, and it's not like we're asking you do to the work for us... we're just asking how we can go about it to make it acceptable to all parties.