This person does not understand reality, or even US `legal` reality.

This person bans without grounds.

This person does not explain when asked, does not communicate.

This person therefor is unfit.

Please discuss.

The mods in general but this very mod:

- censored the hell about the Extralovalble thread(s) at the time of the appearance of the track; this even when no http links in link- or text-format were present. just plain english was already too bad.

- banned person(s) for no reason, especially in the context of the whole thing

- has apparently no understanding of even basic US copyright law (and DMCA?!)

- makes reality even harsher than it is

- makes the org less fun than it was without reason

Even stuff like this was necessary to censor from the thread:

And again: why remove references to a failbook page of an official
member of his band who posts official sounding stuffs all the time?

This forum is just like the national geographic channel: every reference
to the real world (the words, the brands, etc) are bleeped and blurred
into oblivion.

They are TOO SCARED to confront the MFing idiots that thought that this
was a good idea.

This means that your version of democracy, of freedom has failed.


And of course: no communication; thread deletion; account disabled.
What in my post was so abhorrend and awful?
We will never know as the mods do _not_ communicate.
They say they implement a policy without clearing up discussions about
said policy.

That is sad.

Udo

In the message I describe a reality as pushed upon us by said moderator...

TypoQueen said:

In my opinion the moderator is abiding by website rules that was put in place by the website owner to protect prince.org.

It is fact that prince.org is not hosting the amterials discussed.

It is fact that http-etc links are censored.

It is fact that US people can use the DMCA to request takedowns of materials that they think they own copyrights of.

So there was no reason to censor the name of the person posting the materials not where they were in plain english terms.

If P would want the materials offline then mr P could talk to said person and/or use the DMCA if that person would not listen to normal language.

I understand why some confusion can happen when someone close to prince posts something that may seem as if they have permission from prince to do so. Yet I can fully understand why the org do not allow posting of links due to what has happened in the past.

This went beyond censoring links.

Why dont you contact Ben with your solutions as the moderators hands are tied.

Ben has never replied to emails I sent him.

Moderators when something is posted elsewhere you could try asking if prince.org could have permission to re-post it here. When something like this happens again write on first post, permission to post links etc has been requested until permission granted please do not post links etc. You never know opening friendly and respectful dialogue with prince's camp maybe something that could work and could stop people like udo getting their knickers in a twist over something that's out of you hands.

Links is one thing. I am about the free speech. Plain english that was censored.

I technically never mentioned facebook.com. Failbook instead.

I just mentioned the bandmember's name in connection to what could happen between the bandmember and mr P.

That text was still deleted from the site.

Now that makes an Orwellian type of reality that is far beyond what a reasonable person would want or would find necessary.

I asked explanation via PM after the ban on my account expired.

Message was read, no reply.

I asked again, so we're waiting.

Even in the perspective of back then langebleu went way too far.

And even now langebleu or whoever should explain about the `legality` of plain english text on this site.

Can I say that a video of concert X is on site Y without giving a specific directory or link?

Can I say that an mp3 of song X is on Y's failbook?

In the Extralovable case some people showed that they might have a different opinion from the average person here.

udo said:

This person does not understand reality, or even US `legal` reality.

This person bans without grounds.

This person does not explain when asked, does not communicate.

This person therefor is unfit.

Please discuss.

I don't believe attacking the Moderator like this is going to bridge any grounds at all Udo

Also you said you are waiting for a reply. So it probably should not have been made public this way in the form of an attack on the person. He maybe trying to communicate with other Mods/Ben about your reply before replies back.

But the way you presented it is going to be locked,

If You initial post was about policy and the issues you brought up in your last post, the dialogue could be open. But a straight out attack on the Moderator with no reason is a guaranteed lock

I mean if this was done to a (nonMod) Member it would be immediately locked

If you want to start a thread about certain issues you presented (leaving personal issues with langebleu out (you need to resolve that in private)) then do so

OldFriends4Sale said:

udo said:

This person does not understand reality, or even US `legal` reality.

This person bans without grounds.

This person does not explain when asked, does not communicate.

This person therefor is unfit.

Please discuss.

I don't believe attacking the Moderator like this is going to bridge any grounds at all Udo

I asked once before and they did not respond.

They might know I take matters like this seriously.

Also you said you are waiting for a reply.

Moderator has already posted since my first request for elaboration.

Thus my request was ignored.

So it probably should not have been made public this way in the form of an attack on the person.

It is not an attack. Those are facts.

He maybe trying to communicate with other Mods/Ben about your reply before replies back.

He might have had the time to let me know.

But the way you presented it is going to be locked,

Al stuff is and we never get any clarification, especially the questions I posed here.

If You initial post was about policy and the issues you brought up in your last post, the dialogue could be open. But a straight out attack on the Moderator with no reason is a guaranteed lock

It is not an attack. I bring the facts.

Why are facts an attack? Please explain.

The first time I asked for explanation it was one simple sentence asking to elaborate via PM.

No attack at all. No context. Nothing.

And now I simpy give facts here and thus I attack?!

I mean if this was done to a (nonMod) Member it would be immediately locked

Sure, that might be a cultural thing.

If you want to start a thread about certain issues you presented (leaving personal issues with langebleu out (you need to resolve that in private)) then do so

Can't you see it is both personal AND of general interest that these things get cleared up?

They just might happen a bit more.

It is too important too simply mention 'attack' and lock.

TypoQueen said:

so maybe now Udo you can see why prince.org err on the side of caution.

Even after me explaining how US copyright stuff should be properly handled at the early stages of 'infringement'?

Please note it is not about the links.

Please take care to read it is about teh plain english language.

Please make note of the DMCA and what stuff that law makes posisble w.r.t. takedown requests.

Takedowns that should be going to the site actually hosting stuff to avoid a Streisand effect.

Read about Richard O'Dwyer who is living with the threat of extradition to America for posting links and information about the link content http://www.guardian.co.uk...vshack-net

First of all it is ridiculous to extradite people over copyright law, especially to the USA - they have plenty of prisioners (a world record even).

Next nations should not extradite their own people.

Then there's the copyright law itself: how can a link infringe if the sites themselves cannot effectively control who hets to watch the content?

All the `modern` physical media is about control. triple or more layers of protection. (did you count?)

This case is very different from teh org situation we are discussing here.

I can fully understand why websites set rules for protecting the website owner and members.

It is not about setting rules, it is about implementing rules on plain english.

And even now langebleu or whoever should explain about the `legality` of plain english text on this site.

Can I say that a video of concert X is on site Y without giving a specific directory or link?

Can I say that an mp3 of song X is on Y's failbook?

Also, the recent thread about the song Dark being on the net in a newish recording shows a very different way of handling by the moderators.

So there is a perceived imbalance between the moderators about this type of stuff.

No links were censored.

No english was censored.

Later the song disapperead from the failbook site, showing that mr P knows how to handle stuff he does not approve of.

TypoQueen said:

udo If you can not understand why websites can have concerns after reading about Richards case then your blinded to your wants. When reading your two questions it could come across as if your directing people to the material. other ambiguous wordings could be used so as not to make it look so obvious. Many others have managed to do this over the years so I do not get it why you can not. I can understand your frustrations due to your temp ban yet to single out someone is very unfair when all that person is attempting to follow the website owners rules. Open polite dialogue with the moderators they are not ogre's and try see from the moderators side. Try and understand that they have rules they have to abide by just as you and I have.

So I can say:

`I found song X at the usual spot`

in hopes that everyone knows that spot.

Is that what you say?

It is not about a ban, it is not about links. It is about no communication, no clarifiaction about cerain details like these from the moderator team.

I am not directing, I am telling people what exactly I am discussing.

But if directing as such is verboten then why the absence of censorship at the Dark thread?

I am not jealous, just confused.

Can I say failbook instead of whatever and be safe, like:

' I found song X on Y's failbook page`.

Technically I am not telling a litteral location this way.

I know this is very American cornering around non-issues, like wrapping a brown paper bag around a bottle of whatever beverage and then it is OK.

Or:

'At a certain website whos's stock was IPOed at $38, I found a bandmember's page containign song X.`

Would that be OK?

Udo, look at from the standpoint of someone not knowing what happened and the background. You post:

udo said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Sure, that might be a cultural thing.

If you want to start a thread about certain issues you presented (leaving personal issues with langebleu out (you need to resolve that in private)) then do so

Can't you see it is both personal AND of general interest that these things get cleared up?

They just might happen a bit more.

It is too important too simply mention 'attack' and lock.

See an attack if you wanto to.

I posted facts. Not the fiction you see in the news.

Do I need to explain my opening statement?

The news is about attacks. This is about facts of reality.

Discussion was what I asked about, none is what I get.

My questions are not answered, so sonfusion continues.

Nobody says anything aboiut the imbalance bweteen moderators and certain threads.

So sonfusion continues.

I'd like to clear that up.

lange is the best moderator there is/ever was...siddown and shut up udo

Udo, I have orgnoted you today.

I have been travelling this week and therefore my internet access has been limited, but I am not wilfully ignoring your request for a response to an enquiry you have made. Thanks for your patience.

I hope the explanation is helpful but obviously you are free to pursue the matter in accordance with the org rules with the site owner.