The Song Fight Bulletin Board

I am wondering what kind of logic is behind the policy of promoting privacy for administrators and transparency for members. When I search the forums, the administrators are snooping into what I search and then even reporting my searches to other members. Yet I cannot see what the administrators are searching.

I have been boycotting Songfight since it's inception because of faulty foundations. The correct way to form and promote community is by having policies that insure member privacy and administrative transparency.

When making rules, we would follow this logic:

No rules for the public
Few rules for members
Most rules for administrators

85% of of Internet users refuse to use public forums. I know that there are many very intelligent and worthy prospects in that 85% that do not consent to the current practices. The other 15% has either consented or been forced to consent. The technocrats have produced a fabricated consensus by the practice of banning.

There is sufficient transparency of what the administrators of this site are up to. It is patently obvious and free for anyone to see that we are the administrators and the rest of you are the users. There are no members. This site was set up by and runs on a server paid for by the administrators, and anyone else who participates in either the main fights or this boards does so at our discretion, and with our permission. We make no apologies for attempting to ward off spammers, hackers, and others who would seek to take advantage of our generosity, nor are we under any obligation to do so. On the other hand, we freely allow anyone with a legitimate purpose to enter the fights, to use these boards, to make suggestions and complaints, and to criticize our actions, within reason.

We offer this site as a free service. We are not interested in nor do we have any obligation to serve 100% of the internet, only those willing to follow our rules. Here is it how it works, in contrast to your preferred model.

Admins make the rules.
Users follow the rules.

We recognize that this arrangement does not suit everyone. They are free to go elsewhere.

Pudge

note to everyone else: yeah, I know.

Oust The Mods wrote: 85% of of Internet users refuse to use public forums. I know that there are many very intelligent and worthy prospects in that 85% that do not consent to the current practices. The other 15% has either consented or been forced to consent. The technocrats have produced a fabricated consensus by the practice of banning.

I would be interested in seeing the references you are citing here.

Kill Me Sarah wrote:I would be interested

Not for long, I promise you.

The Troll wrote:I have been boycotting Songfight since it's inception because of faulty foundations.

197 posts on this forum is not "boycotting". it's called "trying to stir up trouble where there is none".
no one else on this forum ever complains about the way the adminstrators are running this forum.
there are discussions on various issues (multiple titles fights, new message board look), but no one is actually upset enough about anything to leave the forum over.

in the simplest terms: the adminstrators are facilitating an experience that is extremely positive for 99.9% of the people on this board. you just happen to be the exception that proves the rule.

His point here, and I do understand it, is that we have limited participation to those who agree with the way we run the site (including following the rules), and have possibly excluded 85% of potential participants. While I do not know where these numbers come from, the point is taken, and we will have to live with that. In fact, we prefer it that way.

Hmmm. Where's that Foes thing again?

Boycotting, I don't think that means what you think it means. Now PLEASE go boycott Songfight! already.

Now be nice, boys. I'm trying to 'splain it to him.

You do realize Oust the Mods doesn't actually have a beef with SF at all right? He's just being a troll. That's what they do.

Arguing is pointless and just feds his ego.

Spud wrote: yeah, I know.

As I mentioned, I am not arguing. I am explaining how it is. That's what I do.