The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Billy's Little Trip wrote:I know it's your choice because it's your site, but { . . . } People can skip the song if it's too brutal to their ears the same way they can skip it if the song is just terrible sounding or lame.

this is certainly true, if the problem under discussion is people hearing something they do not wish to hear. i don't believe that is spud's issue, however. your ears can tolerate something, or you can choose to not listen, these are both true, but either way, the files are sitting on a website, and somebody (that'd be spud, and/or jb, not sure of the exact arrangements they have) is shelling out cash for the files (songs) to be on that website. censorship is one thing, and i think most people agree it is a bad thing except in truly truly extreme rare cases, but the main question here, as i see it, is whether the songs which are pounding away at the same apparent offensive point (no misguided pun intended here whatsoever; i haven't heard any of the songs or their content) are valid expressions of art (and therefore merit hosting by the songfight website) or if it's, in effect, just a load of spam being sent week after week.

i won't pretend to be able to answer my own question here, or rather my own synopsis of the question being asked, as the only perspective i have is the points spud has made in this thread.

erik wrote:What do people think this person is trying to throw in someone's face? It's not like there's a banner anywhere that says "All that we ask is that you don't write songs about rape 4 titles in a row" but he's doing it anyways.

I guess what I meant by that is that he is purposely saying the most horrible things that he can, while hiding under the skirt of free speech, strictly because that's his right.
Does he feel it's an art form to say these horrible things? Maybe he does or maybe he just wants to be a dick and he feels that pissing off uptight people is his right and he'd like to use that right on the Internet because he's too much of a pussy to use it in real life.
It really doesn't matter. We all live and die by the same rules.

Also, it's Spud and JB's site, so they have the right to shit can this guy "as their form of self expression".

I'm basically against any censorship. It's pretty easy to just skip this guys songs, which is what I have decided to do from now on.

As a counterpoint though. If you think of Songfight! as a community as many people do. If you don't set some kind of minimum standard of behavior we all just end up wallowing around in garbage.

Steve Durand wrote:I'm basically against any censorship. It's pretty easy to just skip this guys songs, which is what I have decided to do from now on.

As a counterpoint though. If you think of Songfight! as a community as many people do. If you don't set some kind of minimum standard of behavior we all just end up wallowing around in garbage.

See, now why couldn't I say this like Steve? *high five*

Steve Durand wrote:I'm basically against any censorship. It's pretty easy to just skip this guys songs, which is what I have decided to do from now on.

I am very much against censorship too. That is what makes this a difficult question.

Steve Durand wrote:As a counterpoint though. If you think of Songfight! as a community as many people do. If you don't set some kind of minimum standard of behavior we all just end up wallowing around in garbage.

Well, I don't usually go around asking people how we should run the site. But you have hit the nail on the head as to why I brought this up in public. It's an issue of community standards, and I thought that the community should be heard.

I am going to post the song and see where this goes from there. Thanks everyone for your input.

SPUD

How ashamed should I be that I actually like this week's FISHy song?

Adam! wrote:How ashamed should I be that I actually like this week's FISHy song?

Not at all. And I think that supports the most important point made in this discussion. (Hoblit's, I think) If this guy is following the rules laid out by the site organizers and he's not just using a template where he inserts the title each week, then who's to say what's offensive content and what isn't? One of the most popular songs ever written for this site is Yellow Lasers by MC Frontalot, which is essentially about a Star Wars geek hooking up with a Princess Leia at a convention and going to back to her/his hotel room where she pees on him. Artfully done? Yes. Offensive? To many, yes. Did MC Frontalot write several more golden showers-related songs in coming weeks? No.

The second most important post was the one where someone said he will probably disappear in a few weeks and that's probably true. I would be very surprised if he changes his m.o. or sticks around longer than 6-8 weeks.

Spud, I would say just let it alone. Casual listeners to the site will likely only hear one of these songs and dedicated listeners have already made the decision to skip his songs or they kind of like them or they are intrigued by them. If everyone here said "these songs are terribly offensive," I'd recommend removing them, but there are too many people who seem to think they have artistic merit and/or are skillfully done.

Thanks, Frankie, I had already come to the same conclusions, which is why I went ahead and posted the song. When I started this thread, I said that I had an urge to not post the song, not that I was going to act on that urge. As has been pointed out, this is somewhat of an issue of community standards, and I wanted to give the community a chance to be heard on the issue. Again, thanks to everyone who responded.

SPUD

I know SF isn't about the votes, however I bet if all of their FISHy songs got 0 votes enough times he/she/them would be tired of putting out FISHy songs. Same with reviews.

No votes + No reviews = no reaction. And that's why ppl do outrageious things anyway. To gain attention.

Rone Rivendale wrote:I know SF isn't about the votes, however I bet if all of their FISHy songs got 0 votes enough times he/she/them would be tired of putting out FISHy songs. Same with reviews.

No votes + No reviews = no reaction. And that's why ppl do outrageious things anyway. To gain attention.

Well, in this case, he friend flooded himself.
My thoughts:
1. He didn't get votes with his music in the past.
2. Decided to spam the site with childish offensive lyrics.
3. Floods himself with votes
4. Gets negative "attention"
5. Visits this thread like a pyro at the scene and masturbates with vigor.

.......Rone, are you Kid Cruiser?
....oh my GOD! What did I just lay my coat on? RONE! This shit does NOT come out of suede!

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said, but yeah, I don't think you should censor him. He'll burn out eventually. If he's really a sicko, or even a.. fisherman.. in real life, no one should feel guilty.

I'm not so sure about the friend-flooding thing.. I voted for that first song, and seems like a lot of other "real" people liked it too. Community, or whatever. Do I count as community yet? Anyway..

As far as singing about the same offensive thing over and over again, well, yeah - but lots of other music is guilty of that. And technically he's also sung about "rub(bing) our cocks together" and how his victim is uh, beautiful.. prolly a couple other lines in there too... Sure, they're all essentially "fish" songs, but what about an album of nothing but love songs? There's lots of those. What about gangsta rap? Plenty of people think it's just glorifying violence and misogyny over and over... I dunno, I think censorship is a slippery slope and it'd be better to just sit back and let the (imperfect) system do its thing. He's not breaking any rules. But of course, it's your site, so it's your call.

Here's what I think should really "be done", tho: Kid Cruiser should fucking "grow a pair" and defend himself. The guy's never posted anything on the boards, right? Sure, he's not required to, but he fucking should. And he probably won't.

Billy's Little Trip wrote: My thoughts:
1. He didn't get votes with his music in the past.
2. Decided to spam the site with childish offensive lyrics.
3. Floods himself with votes
4. Gets negative "attention"
5. Visits this thread like a pyro at the scene and masturbates with vigor.

My thoughts:
1. This guy can write and record catchy tunes. If he wanted to write about mainstream topics, people would vote for it because it is catchy and well-produced.
2. He's not spamming anything, he's just making music that you don't like.
3. If 9 votes is a friend-flood, that speaks more to how dried-up the votes have gotten here than to a newb's lack of ethics.
4. Stop giving him attention if you think that's all he's after.

erik wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote: My thoughts:
1. He didn't get votes with his music in the past.
2. Decided to spam the site with childish offensive lyrics.
3. Floods himself with votes
4. Gets negative "attention"
5. Visits this thread like a pyro at the scene and masturbates with vigor.

My thoughts:
1. This guy can write and record catchy tunes. If he wanted to write about mainstream topics, people would vote for it because it is catchy and well-produced.
2. He's not spamming anything, he's just making music that you don't like.
3. If 9 votes is a friend-flood, that speaks more to how dried-up the votes have gotten here than to a newb's lack of ethics.
4. Stop giving him attention if you think that's all he's after.

Are you him, Air Air? << cute for Erik, lol.

So did dude tire of writing FISH songs, or did you put the hammer down, Spud? Either way, nice.

RAPE.

I didn't even know about this whole thing until I read this thread and I have to say that the songs are kind of funny in how well-produced they are and how their subject matter completely doesn't match the musical style. But I can also see how it would get old. And maybe it got old for the artist?

If I had any clue about what was going on at the time I would have probably said not to ban him. But I'm a lot more tolerant towards trollish music anyway. Most of you know I've partaken in plenty of it myself, and the shit I've pulled here is arguably at least as bad yet nobody's called for me to get banned.

Basically I agree with what Erik said. (specifically his "My thoughts" post but I guess his most recent one works too?)

fluffy wrote:Basically I agree with what Erik said. (specifically his "My thoughts" post but I guess his most recent one works too?)

He's still not going to have rape with you.

Honestly, it's some idiot on the internet, it's stupid but I can choose not to listen, it's not going to affect most of us, etc... but if you (Spud and/or JB) feel it's inappropriate and should be removed, I support you. You're very selective about flexing your admin muscle, and that's admirable, but I don't think anyone would mind if you showed who was in charge a bit more often. You've been running SF long enough that it's perfectly justifiable to tailor the site a little bit more to your ideals.

I know it's long dead as an issue... but whatever. I'm always impressed by Spud's moral dilemmas. Did I spell that right??


That said... "trollish songs". This is a new term to me. In fact, out of the entire discussion I found that to be the most disturbing label.

I don't know how long that concept has been around, but if anything seems like it's leaning towards censorship, it's using a label to justify the exclusion of material. Where does the definition of "trollish" song start and end? Scary.


That said, if it was my site, I'd change the FAQ's slightly to reflect that as this site is hosted on an American Server (assumption on my part) the admin may be forced to omit material that could present a legal issue for the webmasters, or some such thing. You'd have to look into if that was required or not for your protection, but it would certainly indicate a level of due diligence. Of course it could ALSO open you up to higher scrutiny (never make a policy you won't consistently enforce...best way to invite a legal issue).


Cause the point raised about some zealot group jumping on you for "promoting" child abuse is scarily possible. It always seems like legal hassles happen to others until you embroiled in them, wondering why you didn't do the sensible thing...

Although, again, threads like this ALSO reflect a level of due diligence, so really, you're probably covered. I'm no lawyer, but I sure seem to spend lots of time talking to them or fending them off... take my points with a grain of salt though... just thoughts a few months out of the loop.



Neil Thrun. I will never forget that guy's material, that's for sure. He made such an impact, that I kid you not, people I work with remember his "I want to get better" 4 years or so later, and nothing else from songfight. Mind you, I work in a fish plant... so yeah.

Leaf wrote: Mind you, I work in a fish plant... so yeah.

Are you substituting the word FISH for the offensive content for illustrative purposes?

HEH. You know I'm not. But, now that you've pointed it out... DUH. LOL. Missed that completely. No, I REALLY work with fish.

Are we allowed to sing about FISH this week?