Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion.

You know, I'm having the feeling that this "search for arguments" was caused by the latest Metallica and Stranglers discussions. The first thread was built on several members' strong & complete pro-arguments, while "simple no" were panned. Meanwhile, in the Stranglers's case, one Collaborator was not happy about a Team's decision (vote) not having been sustained with arguments.

Meanwhile, I would even be a spokeman in saying that the evaluation, while taking place behind the scene for many senior members, is in fact rigurous. I can guarantee to you, Zafret, that most of us avoid blank voting, but in fact support the vote with a proper impression (which can be taken as an argument). Sure, at the end of the day, votes equal a rejection or approval, but each member who voted tried, at one point, to explain best why did he vote the way he did. From "Iván the meticulous", who takes often time to search & buy CDs, not to mention he'll disect well into the music, to other member who just make their speech short, statements of a band's evaluation are constantly made.

That being said, there's, on one hand, nothing to fear, if you are a senior member and have the impression that the promoted Teams are giving thumbs up or down like Roman Emperors, but, on the other hand, the whole "official note about the evalution's final evaluation" could be a tad too much. Collaborators have already stated here that it would be extra time they, normally, can't truly afford (prog work =/= life, and more importantly life beats prog work). I myself would say I enjoy more listening to the music and discuss it, then working with papers - though I'm crazy about making tables, on the other hand. To add, the process of adding bands would slow down considerably - and weren't we Collabs sometimes accused of intense slacking...?

If (I'm trying to exhaust all the viewpoints) this is about Collabs communicating with Senior Members about a certain band being added or rejected, there's pros and cons, I believe anyone could say that. For one thing, if band X is rejected, those who agree with the decision will ... do just that, agree, while those who don't agree will not be happy - in extreme cases, they might even say to the Collab that he didn't listened properly.


Edit P.S.: didn't saw Zafreth's above post before proceeding to write this stuff.



Edited by Ricochet - October 30 2008 at 11:59

Raff wrote: OK, hope not to sound confrontational in any way, but what I saw so far really rubbed me the wrong way (and heaven knows if I need that now). While I understand people who suggest bands like to see some follow up to their suggestions, I would like to remind ALL of you that we have lives outside this board, and that all the work we do on behalf of the site is something we do for FREE. As things are, I think the genre teams do much more than could be expected from them. Bands are added to the database almost every day, and that in itself is quite a lot of work, especially if the act in question has been around for some time (which means more albums to be added, and more detailed bios to be written). If the workload of the genre teams increases any further, they are very likely to find themselves short-handed sooner rather than later, and it is not always easy to find replacements for absentee members. As for providing an explanation for the rejection, in principle I agree, being a supporter of transparency in all things. However, seen as some members of this board seem unable to behave civilly to others, I am afraid things would get unmanageable very soon, with disappointed members attacking the SCs responsible for the rejection (I've already seen this, so I know what I'm talking about). The Admins' workload would also increase exponentially, and the atmosphere of the forums would be seriously damaged. As regards that mock-legal verdict, well.. I'd rather not say anything unpleasant, but I'd also rather NOT see anything that reminds me of work in a place which I visit in order to relax and socialise. I do take my job as a SC seriously, but there are limits.

Easy Livin wrote: In an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters here, I think both sides of the debate have substance.     On the one hand, our collaborators work long and hard for the site, and are understandably resistant to proposals which they feel would imply more red tape and unnecessary work for them. They can also be touchy about any questioning of their actions or decisions.     I understand that of course,  but the Collabs that have make clear  their opinion are very  touchy       On the other hand, people who propose bands in the genuine belief that the suggestion has merit do not see all the work which goes on in assessing their proposal, they just see the decision at the end.   Exactly !! that's the main point we the senior members only see part of the movie and sadly is the final one, addition or rejection.   My ex suggestion was in a way to add more transparency to the desicions of the SC and teams when they add and reject bands, they claim that is a hard work, and that's fair enough for me, but all the process of the discussion, only sees by those teams and SC, and often i see threads about : "yeah that band was rejected for the x team", but never sees why they were rejected, so i wonder Why???   There's no easy answer to all this, but I think there needs to be a little more sympathy and understanding from both sides towards the position of the other.   For me no problem! ,if i never interest in the site and forum i never would have be a member at all.   But i'm interest!!!

Clearly there's a balance Ivan and I was not proposing any change, just a recognition of the reasons behind the various perspectives here.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Easy Livin wrote: Clearly there's a balance Ivan and I was not proposing any change, just a recognition of the reasons behind the various perspectives here.   I know Bob, I see your point, but my point is that if we start a thread explaining why a band is rejected in an oipen forum, God knows how it will end.   Iván

agreed.. just made a post, thread, in the SC zone regarding this.. and deleted it.  Mainly because you said what I said... only much less inflammatory and much more succinctly. (imagine that sh*t huh)


open forum is NOT the place to discuss what goes on behind closed doors regarding team decisions. 

we call them as we see them... agree or disagree.. don't care.. just respect it as the decision we come to honestly

micky wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Easy Livin wrote: Clearly there's a balance Ivan and I was not proposing any change, just a recognition of the reasons behind the various perspectives here.   I know Bob, I see your point, but my point is that if we start a thread explaining why a band is rejected in an oipen forum, God knows how it will end.   Iván agreed.. just made a post, thread, in the SC zone regarding this.. and deleted it.  Mainly because you said what I said... only much less inflammatory and much more succinctly. (imagine that sh*t huh) open forum is NOT the place to discuss what goes on behind closed doors regarding team decisions.  we call them as we see them... agree or disagree.. don't care.. just respect it as the decision we come to honestly

it would be nice... but in my mind it simply isn't practical to do....  as I've said.. if someone wants an explanation about a decision... I have a PM box.... but prog is extremely subjective.. no matter how people recently have tried to make mathematics out of it and prove something is prog... in the end... it comes down to the taste test...  does it taste like prog to you... does it feel like prog.. do you feel it has a place here.  That sh*t can not be explained.  Prog is not a science.. and trying to discuss it as such is stupid.. and  a waste of time. 

my two cents on it.

Henry Plainview wrote: Well of course all this could be avoided if all members could view but not post in the Collab Zone. But of course you guys need your elitist club. ;-)

1. Like problems among Collaborators
2. Discussions among teams
3. Issues that the owners or Adms need to keep in a reduced group 
4. Personal issues
5. Debates about bands we want to keep short. (In the open forums last longer) 
6. Discussions about behaviour in the open forums
7. Many more

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 30 2008 at 22:00

I'll try again, and once again I'm not proposing any changes. There does seem to be a relcutance though to understand the genuine reasons behind the proposal. Simply putting up the shutters and saying that any questioning of a decision is wrong and insulting misses the point.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem sharing my band evaluation in Suggest New Bands, and discussing it there rather than in a team thread.  It can get cumbersome and very time consuming thought when one is discussing merits with many people, and therefore having to spend much more time responding to points.  An advantage is that now sometimes band discussions take place in many team threads (deciding which category it would fit best), and things sometimes slip through the cracks.  Discussing it between teams in a central topic, as well as getting other opinions, can be very helpful.  Also, I do think it important that people know where their suggestions stand.  There has to be give and take, though.  It should be understood by suggesters that when a decision has been reached that it's improper to moan and groan, or argue about it.  Respect the decision even if one doesn't agree with it.  We can't spend forever arguing and counter-arguing positions.  Also, it should be understood that the suggester is willing to prepare the materials for addition after a decision is reached (I have quite a few bands I suggested that were accepted that I still haven't prepared the bios for -- they take me a long time to write and it can only be when there are limited distractions, and I have enough free time -- usually late at night, but I'm very tired these days, work at night, and take care of my kids during the day).

That said, different teams work in different ways.