atu2.com has threatened to ban me...again!

[Muldfeld]

So, I get this e-mail from the atu2.com staff stating that I've crossed the line in joking about my penis being smaller than Felicity Huffman's in TransAmerica and for stating I hate Donald Trump so much I'd like to have sex with his wife in front of him to humiliate him. The context wasn't the problem, but apparently these comments were disruptive. What do you folks think of this, considering Bono shoves a camera up to his crotch to simulate oral sex during "Until the End of the World" in Zoo TV.

Don't you find they take themseves so seriously? Aren't they hypocritical in being so quick to attack a critical fan like me, but abiding attacks from pro-U2 people all the time!

What is with these guys on their high horse? They act like I'm just trying to be a jerk, when I'm just trying to make people laugh, state my political views or talk casually. All of a sudden, I'm a terrible person. What gives? Anyone had this happen to them?

I kinda like going there because the number of visitors and sections of the forum are small enough, that I can keep track of things and feel part of a discussion instead of lost in a sea. What do you think?

 

[fly so high!]

As you have mentioned, they have sort of warned you about your posts before......I can only assume it's in the terms,rules and conditions not to mention sex, if you like it there you will just have to lump it or risk getting chucked off s'pose

 

[indra]

If you like that forum and wish to continue to participate, you are going to have to follow their rules.


Sorry to hear about your bad luck in the endowment department through. Better head out to your local car dealer and buy the biggest SUV available.

 

[Muldfeld]

I checked their rules, though, and it says the want a PG atmosphere. There's nothing I said that 's not PG. Meredith Viera once said on The View how her son was happy about his size after seeing Michaelangelo's David statue. Not only that, but my comments about Trump weren't objected to until weeks after I'd made them. There was nothing specific about sex. It was all made in passing and they're treating it like I defouled their pristine site. Most importantly, none of my comments were directed against anyone on the forum; I'm always very polite, and allow people to differ from my opinions, while the site runner and other staff frequently pop in to decry how I'm just trying to cause trouble in protesting something U2 has done publicly or artistically, and they challenge my integrity.

What really pisses me off about the staff is they act like I haven't tried accomodating them after every remark. Each time they told me not to do something, I didn't do it again because I knew what not to do. The last time I got a negative post was over 6 months ago, and that was only because I was trying to get attention toward something of an emergency situation. So really they haven't warned me in over a year! And every time they warn me, they're so condescendingly mean-spirited about it. Have some freaking respect!

It's like you can't say anything, and my sense is they just hate me because I question U2 and have liberal politics. The staff has often allowed people to make personal attacks against me or ganging up against me, and I've never done that to anyone. I've always been cordial, helpfully answered questions when I could, and many of the members stand up for me or tell me how happy they are to read my comments. My main point is that my comments were made in jest and not to offend. Should they be interpreted as "vulgar"at that level? Even if they were interpreted as vulgar, they could just be deleted as some segments of posts are, and not react as though I was deliberately trying to foul things up, and then threaten me with immediate termination at the slightest (which is surely gonna be accidental) infraction!

 

[Muldfeld]

Sorry to hear about your bad luck in the endowment department through. Better head out to your local car dealer and buy the biggest SUV available.

Well, I was mostly joking, but, have you seen that film. Her fake penis was thick, man, and it wasn't even erect!

 

[Angela Harlem]

With moderation on message boards, you are going to get condescending mods. Not all mods, and not on all boards, but there is this "Listen to me or else" and "Respect My Authoritah" attitude which makes your hackles rise. I'm sure I did it to people because sometimes folks just love/need to argue their right to say whatever they want, and you might feel it is really unsuitable. So you just say bluntly and school marm'ishly that they follow the rules or bugger off.

Really, it cuts both ways. Peole need to just let it go and say ok, they won't say shit like that again if it's going to annoy others. And the mods need to dismount the high horse occasionally and walk among the citizens.



- this post is unrelated to any mod at atu2, as I don't frequent the site and don't know the mods in question.

 

[U2Man]

oh please dude, you're not bono.

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to complain in one U2 forum about another U2 forum. The mods are doing their job. If you have a problem with it, talk to them. Or, even better, if you don't like it, stop going there.

And I second U2Man's comment. Remember that it's Bono's world and we just live in it

 

[Muldfeld]

With moderation on message boards, you are going to get condescending mods. Not all mods, and not on all boards, but there is this "Listen to me or else" and "Respect My Authoritah" attitude which makes your hackles rise. I'm sure I did it to people because sometimes folks just love/need to argue their right to say whatever they want, and you might feel it is really unsuitable. So you just say bluntly and school marm'ishly that they follow the rules or bugger off.

Really, it cuts both ways. Peole need to just let it go and say ok, they won't say shit like that again if it's going to annoy others. And the mods need to dismount the high horse occasionally and walk among the citizens.

- this post is unrelated to any mod at atu2, as I don't frequent the site and don't know the mods in question.

I like the Eric Cartman reference.
I only heard about this site from atu2.com members who said they weren't too happy. There are lots of nice members, which is why I stick around, but the admin team basically never answers my issues. Also, I wouldn't have made the comments if I knew they considered them vulgar, but they act so rudely. They're just looking for an excuse because I criticized U2, and that's nonsense. There's nothing I said that wasn't PG acceptable. If I knew they were going to get upset weeks after I'd made the comments, I wouldn't have made them.

Any other cool u2 fan sites besides this one?

 

[flybabe]

I have talked with you before,if you remember correctly...you thought I was a guy

 

[corianderstem]

So, I get this e-mail from the atu2.com staff stating that I've crossed the line in joking about my penis being smaller than Felicity Huffman's in TransAmerica and for stating I hate Donald Trump so much I'd like to have sex with his wife in front of him to humiliate him. The context wasn't the problem, but apparently these comments were disruptive. What do you folks think of this,

Well, I think it's obvious that they don't consider those kinds of comments "PG." Obviously, it's a subjective call, but I think they've made it perfectly clear they'd rather not have those kinds of vulgar comments, even if it is obviously just a joke.

Maybe they just prefer to ignore the more vulgar aspects of U2, and that's their call. You have to consider your audience. If you want to be able to make those offhand, possibly vulgar comments in a joking way, great. But be aware that not every message board will find that acceptable.

You'd probably fit in well here.

As for mods being rude, unfair or unreasonable, I think the response earlier in this thread summed it up well.

 

[Utoo]

While I don't necessarily much of a problem with making each of those comments you posted singly and indiviudually, putting each of them in succession in one paragraph does indeed make them look pretty scumbaggish. And they may be PG-13, but certainly not PG. Can't quite see Mickey Mouse saying he'd like to have sex with Donald Trump's wife just to humiliate him...

Anyway, welcome to Interference, where you can say fuckdamnshitbitches all you want!

 

[Chizip]

So, I get this e-mail from the atu2.com staff stating that I've crossed the line in joking about my penis being smaller than Felicity Huffman's in TransAmerica

i hear there's a cream for that

 

[Muldfeld]

I have talked with you before,if you remember correctly...you thought I was a guy

Yeah, Flybabe, but I apologized soon afterwards in the Battlestar Galactica forum. So, then, may I assume you're a non-guy, perhaps a girl or woman, even?

 

[Muldfeld]

Re: Re: atu2.com has threatened to ban me...again!

Well, I think it's obvious that they don't consider those kinds of comments "PG." Obviously, it's a subjective call, but I think they've made it perfectly clear they'd rather not have those kinds of vulgar comments, even if it is obviously just a joke.

Maybe they just prefer to ignore the more vulgar aspects of U2, and that's their call. You have to consider your audience. If you want to be able to make those offhand, possibly vulgar comments in a joking way, great. But be aware that not every message board will find that acceptable.

You'd probably fit in well here.

As for mods being rude, unfair or unreasonable, I think the response earlier in this thread summed it up well.

Yeah. I don't have a problem with amending my behavior, but I just resented the attitude that I was just trying to cause trouble, when my conduct toward other members has been helpful and I usually make people laugh. I've joked about finding U2 members attractive or having crushes or feeling neglected by them as a secret lover, and I'm a hetero male. It was just another joke. Other members have been free to discuss the oral sex imagery of Achtung Baby, which is definitely a PG subject. What annoyed me is that they didn't say anything when I vented about Trump being a jerk and waited weeks until I made the harmless penis remark, and acted like I was some flagrant violator, when the vast majority of members enjoy my participation, as I enjoy theirs. I just don't want to lose them; I couldn't care less about the admin, whom several other members have complained about over the past year and a half I've been a participant for being biased and allowing personal attacks against members critical of U2. Also, I didn't think the rules applied to non-participants. The rules are very unclear and arbitrary, is what I'm saying. Matt McGee and others in charge have hated me for a long time and they're using this weak reasoning to push me out or get me to leave.

 

[Muldfeld]

While I don't necessarily much of a problem with making each of those comments you posted singly and indiviudually, putting each of them in succession in one paragraph does indeed make them look pretty scumbaggish. And they may be PG-13, but certainly not PG. Can't quite see Mickey Mouse saying he'd like to have sex with Donald Trump's wife just to humiliate him...

Well, the comment was made in reference to Rosie O'Donnell and her being right to stand up to his everpresent personality.

Anyway, Mickey Mouse isn't PG. PG implies it's not suitable for young people. Anyway lots of the staff, including Kelly Eddington and her hilarious cartoons (http://www.atu2.com/achtoon/ , check out the latest one!), are very nice; it's mostly the admin and site runner, Matt McGee.

 

[Sicy]

As an admin and someone who's been doing this for 6 years, I think its safe to say that not many people realize how difficult these jobs are. Trying to be diplomatic, fair and equal with everyone is definately a challenge. I dont know Matt, nor do I visit atu2 but I am sure he must have had reason for whatever warnings he gave you. We may be more lenient here as far as swearing and such but just because some members may think you are 'funny' doesnt mean you arent breaking rules. We have our share of those types of members here.

As for other cool U2 sites, we're the only one

Or.. you could always check out the forums at www.u2.com.

 

[LemonMelon]

but just because some members may think you are 'funny' doesnt mean you arent breaking rules. We have our share of those types of members here.

Seriously, I'm not surprised you were reprimanded. I may just be a bit of a shielded young man, but what you were talking about doesn't seem particularly PG to me. IMO, PG is content suitable for an 8 to 10 year old. If you want to stay there, I suggest you follow the rules (either that, or irritatingly straddle the line ) Just my two cents.

 

[Canadiens1131]

@U2 should threaten to ban their podcast



EDIT: And then go through with it

 

[Muldfeld]

As an admin and someone who's been doing this for 6 years, I think its safe to say that not many people realize how difficult these jobs are. Trying to be diplomatic, fair and equal with everyone is definately a challenge. I dont know Matt, nor do I visit atu2 but I am sure he must have had reason for whatever warnings he gave you. We may be more lenient here as far as swearing and such but just because some members may think you are 'funny' doesnt mean you arent breaking rules. We have our share of those types of members here.

As for other cool U2 sites, we're the only one

Or.. you could always check out the forums at www.u2.com.

Actually, I've noticed a definite bias. In the past I was reprimanded for going off-topic or talking politics in the non-Real World area. On at least one occasion I was discussing politics in the Real World forum and an admin member wrote that they hoped an admin would shut the thread down, I responded in anger to "screw off", and then was threatened. When a political thread opened up about Dick Cheney shooting someone, and people were eagerly discussing their opinions, Matt and company decided to erase it without explanation. I opened a thread about censorship and arbitrariness and was threatened with expulsion. I was relatively new to message board participation and was told that if I had just asked, someone would have told me what happened. That was over a year ago. Since then, the site runner and admin staff have waged numerous personal attacks against me and have abetted extremely pro-U2 members to do the same, and members have pointed out the hypocrisy. They let things escalate and when I respond angrily, they threaten me. When I have inquired about posts being deleted for being supposedly off-topic (like praising Jon Stewart or naturally making relevant political connections to non-Real World topics) or otherwise, I have never been answered.

Even in this latest incident, I have received no response. Again, I wasn't aware attacking powerful celebrities in passing or making fun of myself was construed as a violation. They weren't focussed subjects, but statements made in passing. The vast, vast majority of my posts have been relevant discussions that most members have enjoyed. When I criticize U2, they have always been detailed and relevant. Since the one "screw you" comment, I have ignored attacks at worst and been kind to most as many have been kind to me. My cardinal rule, which the admin and some staunchly pro-U2 members have rarely observed with me, is to discuss the ideas and people in question, but to never attack the participant.
For example, http://forum.atu2.com/forum.src?Action=Posts&Subject=9796&Topic=18&SubjStart=125
So, I attacked Donald Trump in passing and joked I had a small penis (which I don't!) weeks later; I didn't know it was against rules, especially when the first offense was committed weeks before. My point is these rules are highly arbitrarily enforced; Matt never adheres to his "no flaming" policy or apologizes. This just seems an excuse to get rid of a member who questions U2 and has liberal politics. I've never had trouble on any other message board, but I really like many of the members there, and it's small enough that things are manageable and people respond to me.

I just think it's mean that the admin is always so rude to me and quite kind to others who don't question U2. My main problem is in threatening me with expulsion as though I am only there to cause trouble. Matt recently stated that the admins were sick of my threads questioning U2, and several members quickly butted in to say they valued my presence and my contributions, even if they disagreed with my opinions; not a single one said agreed with Matt.
http://forum.atu2.com/forum.src?Action=Posts&Subject=12355&Topic=14&SubjStart=
I have never repeated an offense once told not to do something, but I'm being treated like I intentionally violate the rules. I was told that at even the slightest offense, I would received no warning and would not be able to access my account. This sounds like petty revenge toward an unwanted participant and not fair treatment.

By the way I like U2; I just think they've opted for commercialism in their recent artistic direction and in their marketing. I'm a fan of U2 the way Bono is a fan of America; there are things that can be improved. I just want U2 to return to its roots.

 

[Muldfeld]

Seriously, I'm not surprised you were reprimanded. I may just be a bit of a shielded young man, but what you were talking about doesn't seem particularly PG to me. IMO, PG is content suitable for an 8 to 10 year old. If you want to stay there, I suggest you follow the rules (either that, or irritatingly straddle the line ) Just my two cents.

PG is for 8 year olds? In Canada, it's either General or PG-14; there's no in-between. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that were true. Then why do topics of discussion include the oral sex imagery in the lyrics to Achtung Baby? Why is that okay?

I don't mind being asked to not do something, but thretening banishment as though I intended to harm people is ridiculously harsh, especially when I have always directed myself toward others with friendliness and acceptance of their disagreement with my opinions. I've always intended to follow the rules, but they act like I'm not even tryingl

 

[Blue Room]

We may be more lenient here as far as swearing and such but just because some members may think you are 'funny' doesnt mean you arent breaking rules. We have our share of those types of members here.

I bet I could name a few.............



Thread topic: I understand that you probably wanted to come here to vent. Maybe you have a point but a message board is not a right or a democracy. You are at the mercy of the board owner and/or moderator(s). They can do what they please. My suggestion is that if you dont like it, go elsewhere as others have said. I havent always agreed with everything that has been done here either. But its not up for a vote. I think overall things are pretty fair here though. Some get a much longer rope to hang themselves with here. Most of the time anyway.

 

[LemonMelon]

PG is for 8 year olds? In Canada, it's either General or PG-14; there's no in-between.

PG ratings are definitely different here. Most parents I've known let their children 6 and up see PG movies, but I don't really agree with that.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that were true. Then why do topics of discussion include the oral sex imagery in the lyrics to Achtung Baby? Why is that okay?

It would not be. Again though, were things of that nature actually discussed using the words "oral sex"? (I wouldn't know, I don't usually go there)

I don't mind being asked to not do something, but thretening banishment as though I intended to harm people is ridiculously harsh, especially when I have always directed myself toward others with friendliness and acceptance of their disagreement with my opinions. I've always intended to follow the rules, but they act like I'm not even tryingl

I do not agree with bringing up banishment in this case at all. If I were in their shoes, I'd just kindly tell you to knock it off. Anything more would be overmoderation, IMO.

 

[Muldfeld]

PG ratings are definitely different here. Most parents I've known let their children 6 and up see PG movies, but I don't really agree with that.



It would not be. Again though, were things of that nature actually discussed using the words "oral sex"? (I wouldn't know, I don't usually go there)



I do not agree with bringing up banishment in this case at all. If I were in their shoes, I'd just kindly tell you to knock it off. Anything more would be overmoderation, IMO.

Thanks, and the sad thing is that I agree very often with the work put out by the staff writers who criticize U2 quite a bit and echo my opinions. Answer Guy did a great column criticizing HTDAAB for ripping off aspects of "Electrical Storm" and for Bono's repeated use of words like "kneel" and "soul." Kelly Eddington's cartoons are often hilarious and she mocked the 2004 HTDAAB collector's edition album as "so avant-garde as to not include lyrics". I was so pissed when I spent $40 on it and it didn't have the lyrics and it was great reading her reaction to that. She also often makes fun of Bono being single-minded in gaining public attention. Hilarious stuff.

Regarding the PG ratings, I remember reading that the 1986 annimated cartoon was rated PG 13 in the US when it was G in Canada and I saw it at age 6. I also was able to see Terminator 2 at age 11 in the cinema, which was rated PG 14 or something but they were lenient. My older brother even let me watch The Terminator on pay per view when he was 11 and I was only 5; he made me leave for the sex scenes, though.