Song Requests

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

As Jim had pointed out on the main page, we have had to take some fairly drastic action due to the abuse of the station request feature. I'd like to take a few moments to expand on the nature of the problem and the solutions we're developing.


The problem: Someone, or some set of people, are continuously requesting the same songs, day after day, week after week. This is causing distress amongst many listeners as well as a significant portion of the staff here at Aural Moon. We have well in excess of 12,000 different tracks, that, as Jim stated in his announcement on the main page, would take the better part of two months to complete, were we to start at one end and end at the other. The fact that there is a VERY small portion of songs taking far too much airtime is, as Jim indicated, ridiculous. My personal assessment is that it borders on insulting to the finances and efforts that the volunteers put into this station.

The solution: We will be keeping a VERY close eye on what is requested and by whom. Should we feel that a song is being overrequested because someone has bestowed upon themselves the title of Unofficial Station Manager and Arbiter of What Is To Be Played, it WILL be removed.


Now I'm sure there will be questions. I'm sure there ARE questions. I'll do my best to answer the ones that I can think of right off the top of my head right now:

What constitutes abuse?
We haven't decided on any raw numbers at this point. A lot of it will depend on the length of the song being overrequested, the REASON the song is being overrequested, whether the overrequester is a habitual overrequester or whether it's a momentary phase based on the 'newness' of the song on the station, the length and type of song being overrequested, and many, many other factors that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Are these suspensions temporary or permanent?
We haven't decided that either, but try and think of the last time you heard Rome by Blue Shift. I'm not saying, in any way, shape, or form, that once it's pulled, it's gone. We will likely be taking each instance on a case-by-case basis.

What if [insert artist name] receives a lot of complaints but isn't actually being requested to death?
We will investigate all complaints. Spurious ones will likely be ignored, so don't get any ideas of complaining about Don Cab or GY!BE being requested to death just so they'll get yanked. All that'll do is waste my time and make me give less credence to any other complaints coming from those parties.

What if my favorite song gets pulled due to over requesting, but I disagree in that I don't think it's being played too much?
We will entertain appeals to our decisions and, if there's validity to your argument, we might reconsider. But bear in mind, we're not going to be pulling songs for no good reason, and chances are fairly good that we've already gotten a count on the number of times a given song has been requested. In short, you can disagree, but don't be too surprised if we suggest you purchase the album if you want to hear it as you'll be able to listen to it as much as you please then.

In conclusion, I'd like to state that it pains me beyond my ability to express it that we've had to take such measures to ensure the continued viability of Aural Moon. However, Jim and I both agree that we will not let a select few turn Aural Moon into a "All Flower Kings/Transatlantic/Blue Shift/Grendel By Marillion All The Time" station. If the overrequesters wish to listen to just their favorites, as Jim said on the main page, they are welcome to start their own station. We'd be delighted to give them pointers as to who they can use for streaming as well as who they can use for their web site (if they wish to have one, of course).

In conclusion, I'd just like to say: Please don't abuse the request privs. It's one of the most popular features of Aural Moon, and I'm not at all interested in seeing it go away.

[VAXman]

Originally posted by Roger Lee

We will investigate all complaints. Spurious ones will likely be ignored, so don't get any ideas of complaining about Don Cab or GY!BE being requested to death just so they'll get yanked. All that'll do is waste my time and make me give less credence to any other complaints coming from those parties.

But there is, there is! :D

Seriously, The Appleseed Cast: Blind Man's Arrow is getting much repeat play. And, unlike GY!BE and Con Drab, I like the tune. This is what is bad because too much and it begins to sound like commercial ROT^HCK radio.

[roger]

how about a thread somewhere(maybe a sticky) that says,
"if you like ..., try ...".

my own cross-reference knowledge is so limited, that I wouldn't know where to begin, but, considering the copious wisdom of the Moonie collective...
:cool:

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by roger
how about a thread somewhere(maybe a sticky) that says,
"if you like ..., try ...".

my own cross-reference knowledge is so limited, that I wouldn't know where to begin, but, considering the copious wisdom of the Moonie collective...
:cool:

Good idea, oh namesake of mine! :D

If you want to, go ahead and get it started. Once I figure out how, I'll ensticky-ify it.

[roger]

done deal, Rog! :D

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

I'd like to extend a hearty thank you to the listener who has, during the last week, requested the 19:10 minute song "Grendel" by Marillion. I truly love that song. It's probably one of my favorite epics that they've ever put out. And it's blazingly obvious by the fact that you've requested it SEVEN TIMES since September 10th, 2004, that you love it too. I'd like to take this opportunity to suggest that you buy the album. Because, unless you happen to hear it elsewhere, you won't be hearing it any other way.

You see, since you have decided to request it on average ONCE DAILY over the last seven days, and an average of once every two days since the beginning of the month, it has followed the Flower Kings into the Bit Bucket of Oblivion on Aural Moon. Yes, the same person. Seven times since 9/10

Don't go looking to request it anymore. It's no longer on the playlist. I hope you didn't get called away to a meeting during this playing, at 5 pm your time, because that's it. No more.

If you need assistance in locating a store near you, drop me an email. I'll be delighted to steer you toward a Tower Records or some other facility nearby where you can purchase it.

I may restore it again at a later date.

Or I might not.

Thanks.

Roger -Dot- Lee, annoyed, bordering on irritated, and getting ready to shift focus from removing songs to blocking IPs.

[Rick and Roll]

by GG is playing now.....


GREAT TUNE.

Anyway, :D I see no reason now a song needs to be played more than once a day. In fact, I wouldn't spin a tune more than a few times a month.

Sorry Spaz, I now agree with you.;)

[kevishev]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
Roger -Dot- Lee, annoyed, bordering on irritated, and getting ready to shift focus from removing songs to blocking IPs.

I was wondering about that Roger. If you know who is over-requesting, then why not block them? Is it possible?

Why punish the song?

Kev

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by kevishev
I was wondering about that Roger. If you know who is over-requesting, then why not block them? Is it possible?

Why punish the song?

Kev

It's currently not an available function within the scope of the software as written.

That's why I have to go in and hack out a solution.

Now whether that solution simply eliminates their ability to request or removes them entirely from the station, I haven't decided. It's looking, however, like I can simply block their ability to request. They should be able to get to the rest of the site and still be able to connect to the station.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[gilbertopb]

Ok, I think you are sure about your actions, but I need to do some asks, as an Auralmoon listener, and I am one of the many who have asked flower Kings and other groups.

I have to think about the coincidence on 12000 titles some being more "popular" then others. Ok, this is progressive rock, but when people like a band, may be become more played then others.

Now, what I have to comment, is about an automation I always have found usefull in the Request page: If the artist was recent played, just is not allowed.
So, may be is possible to extend this capabilitie to control artist/music resquested for a greater period, like a week?

See, I don´t use to ask the same music, but can be I am requesting the same artist because I don´t know it´s works or I am trying to know something more.

Also, with 12000 title, I don´t know most of then. Auralmoon is my favorite radio, I live in a place where a progressive CD start a Us$ 30-50-100 (!!!)... (ok. excuses), but makes dificult to know what happened for the last decade.
Most of bands from the 90´s playing at Auralmoon are unknow to me.

Also, what I use more, is to request musics from bands I never knew before, and music I don´t know.
And as a progressive music fan, usually I choose music by lenght. Yes, I love to listen 15-20 minute music. This tell me if the band have gas to do the job, then I will listen more of that.

The software may control that: "Gilberto have asked for three 18 minute music this week, then only aloow lesser music". I am kidding but is ok to me.

As I expect you may have a log of requests, you can verify this, or better, at least the time length I use to choose.

So, what I can sugest, is not to removing that great bands. I have listened a lot of Renaissence more than a Pop radio and it still is playing. So why Flower Kings?

I know there are technical aspects on programing the system, but is an idea, I hope it be usefull.

[VAXman]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
If you need assistance in locating a store near you, drop me an email. I'll be delighted to steer you toward a Tower Records or some other facility nearby where you can purchase it.

Marillion are doing there own distribution these days from a recording label and distribution outlet they've created called Racket Records. It might be possible to find Script For A Jester's Tear in some music store despite this; however, the remastered 2 CD set is what this listener will want if they want to hear Grendel as it was never formally released on an album of the era.

http://www.marillion.com/discog/script/index.html

Price is £8.50 (about US$16.00)

[kevishev]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
.....It's looking, however, like I can simply block their ability to request. They should be able to get to the rest of the site and still be able to connect to the station.

Roger -Dot- Lee

Hey Roger. I'm all in favor of removing the requester rather than removing the music. Ban the requester! Not the song!

Here's a radical concept! Why not do away with requests all together? Or have an all request day once a week or better yet, once a month.

We might have a better chance to hear the rest of the 12,000 songs on the AM playlist too. I think it would be extremely cool to be able to hear the entire AM playlist, in random order of course, continuously until complete. Just think, you could tune in and not have to worry about hearing the same song for two months!

I could live with that.

[Rick and Roll]

If you read Gilberto's post between the lines, you will see why these things occur. I still think 90% of the issue is correctable w/o banning songs. Here are my suggestions:

I don't think these occurences are intentional. Call me naive, but I think we just have a communication/launguage issue.

Kev is right, do not punish the song. But putting a temporary hold on it is good also.

Maybe we should let Jim and Roger sift through it and let it calm down a bit.

Given the fact that the chat function isn't what it was, Avian has stepped back, Roger is working like a dog, and Jim is on vacation, we should try to let the powers that be decide on a resolution and stick to it. We have bigger fish to fry.

As kev says....we can live with whatever's decided.

[gilbertopb]

Originally posted by kevishev
We might have a better chance to hear the rest of the 12,000 songs on the AM playlist too. I think it would be extremely cool to be able to hear the entire AM playlist, in random order of course, continuously until complete.


This is great. Most of times I am only listening Auralmoon because I really don´t know too many bands.
May be the system can also keep a big part of time to the normal random play and a lesser time for requests. This, with a weeky/monthly time requests control can reduce a lot the problem.
Auralmoon is my favorite radio! Keep on rock!

[kirk]

Maybe we should let Jim and Roger sift through it and let it calm down a bit.


well said rick. we should all make the transition as smooth
as possible for jim and dot.

p e a c e kirk

[Wojtek]

In my opinion 2-month set without repetitions, or a month with only one request day is too radical answer for overrequesting. Aural Moon is not a barrel organ, it's comunity of many good friends, what means that:
- there are albums/songs - hits among many Moonies, songs which are not being overrequested but are liked to be heard more often than other
- requesting songs is a way of celebrating, very often we request a song for smb in the White Room, too improve her/his mood, to celebrate the anniversary, to wish luck, to create a daily theme.

Requesting is a very important aspect of AM as a community and saying 'no' to requests could be simply bad for this community.

If there is a group of Moonies who'd like to hear undiscovered areas of Aural Moon music library, there is no problem to request on spec.

I strongly support solution 'bans for requesters'. Deleted tracks are very often simply fantastic and the guilty people can overrequest with impunity, taking the next non deleted epics. I am afraid it will be vicious circle if the reaction stops on deleting songs. Malice has no limits, they can do it with all 12000 tracks.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Wojtek

I strongly support solution 'bans for requesters'. Deleted tracks are very often simply fantastic and the guilty people can overrequest with impunity, taking the next non deleted epics. I am afraid it will be vicious circle if the reaction stops on deleting songs. Malice has no limits, they can do it with all 12000 tracks.

Very good points, Woj, and I'm working on just that. I fully intend on having functionality in place that will eliminate the two or three people that are actually guilty of overrequesting single songs, be it from the ability to request or the ability to listen to the station at all, long before we get to this point. I suppose that I should apologize to the regular listeners of this station for not having this in place a LOT sooner. I fully intend to rectify this grave oversight with all due haste.

However, I'd like to take a moment to clarify what I see as a misunderstanding: exactly what Jim and I mean when we actually say "overrequesting".

We aren't going to complain if, say, Wojtek requests "Close to the Edge" at 8 am eastern, then Vaxman requests it again at 6pm eastern. That's not what we're having issues with. We're well aware of the fact that nobody has the station up on a 24 hour basis, and we don't keep a public record of what's been played over the course of the day. We don't EXPECT you to know what was played 10 hours before, while you were doing something else (be it sleeping, working, or engaging in your favorite non-computer-related activity). We are also not going to have very serious issues with the inevitable overplaying of new titles as they're added to the station for the first week or so. We understand full well that people are going to want to hear the latest tracks by their favorite artists when they come out. It happens. We'll deal.

What we have problems with, what we will continue to have problems with, and what we are actively addressing even now, is the two or three individuals (that we've found so far) that request the same song or same three songs by the same artist day after day after day, week after week after week. Those that view Aural Moon as their own personal music collection.

For instance:

Let's say that Vaxman, having lost his good senses and good taste in a gardening accident, sells his VMS equipment, ships me his Powerbook, and invests in $14,000 in PC equipment (loaded with the latest version of Windows XP). With this, he sets up a timed event that will, every 3 hours and two minutes, submits requests for the SAME THREE songs:

Providence by GY!BE
Please Tokio, Please This Is Tokio by Don Caballero
Domanique by the Singing Nun (that he smuggled on the station)

This goes on 24 hours/day, 7 days per week.

Not only would I be ACTIVELY working to remove even his access, but I would likely invest the money to fly up there and have him locked up, forcibly if necessary, into an insane asylum.

THIS is what we're fighting. THIS is what we're going after.

I picked this absurd example to illustrate a point, of course. Vaxman would no more do this than I would. Or Wojtek, or Rick, or Spaz, or any of the other responsible listeners of this wonderful resource.

But is this really an absurd example? The case of person and song titles, yes. The frequency, not really. For example:

Rome - Blue Shift:
6/1/04 11:13
6/2/04 14:22
6/4/04 11:19
6/6/04 13:43
6/7/04 14:13
6/9/04 13:36
6/10/04 12:24
6/15/04 16:55
6/16/04 15:34

When it was finally removed from the station. This is the request history FROM ONE PERSON. This ONE PERSON ALSO has requested:

I Am The Sun (part 1) - The Flower Kings
8/23/04 16:15
8/26/04 14:11
8/30/04 11:18
9/1/04 14:11

The Love Supreme - The Flower Kings
9/1/04 10:54
9/3/04 09:55
9/7/04 15:43
9/11/04 11:22
9/13/04 14:16 (after having tried THREE TIMES to request it but was blocked due to time constraints)

And this was ALL BY ONE PERSON!

And this isn't the entire list, either. The list spans back months, and has OVER 300 ENTRIES!

Containing less than 20 different songs, as I recall.

I hasten to assure one and all that as soon as I am able, as soon as I have the code in place to restrict this type of abuse, this person will be the VERY FIRST person to be blocked. Now whether this is a block from the web site request functionality, or whether it's from access to the station itself has yet to be determined (and that will be decided largely on how easy it is to code, how easy it is to expand, and how quickly I can get it into place).

Another person simply has a thing for Grendel (which I personally can't blame him or her for, as I like the tune myself -- in fact I like it enough that I (HINT HINT) BOUGHT THE ALBUM), and as I said in an earlier post, it was requested on average of once a day for the last week and once every other day over the past month.

THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is over requesting. Requesting a song because someone's having a bad day and needs a shot of good feelings that music brings to us all does not qualify for overrequesting. Requesting Dance on a Volcano on a weekly basis because Wisla Krakow seems to win whenever it's played does not qualify for overrequesting.

The above example DOES, in fact, qualify for overrequesting.

Had this person mixed up their requests, asking for Flower Kings one day, Transatlantic the next, something by Yes on Wednesday, ELP on Thursday, etc. etc., we wouldn't be in this position, and I wouldn't be having to code up a fix that they likely will NOT like.

And to borrow my favorite phrase from Hewlett Packard: Not My Problem.

Roger -Dot- Lee, working to fix the problem as we speak.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by gilbertopb
Ok, I think you are sure about your actions, but I need to do some asks, as an Auralmoon listener, and I am one of the many who have asked flower Kings and other groups.


Gilberto: I'd like to assure you that you are NOT one of the overrequesters. I know for a fact that all of the guilty parties are located either in the US or (in one instance and only for a very brief period) in the UK. I've looked over your request history. You're well within the boundaries of what we consider acceptable (a very loose policy in my opinion).

Again, I'd like to state:

Just because you request The Flower Kings does NOT put you under suspicion. If you request the same song repeatedly, over the course of weeks, we might have problems. But if you request different songs every time you request (or even the same one twice in a row), you won't have problems. Hell, we allow people to request once every three hours. If you request a different song every three hours, good for you! That's what the requests are there for.

Just don't request the same song all the time. Once, twice is OK. 14 times in a 30 day period will cause problems.


I have to think about the coincidence on 12000 titles some being more "popular" then others. Ok, this is progressive rock, but when people like a band, may be become more played then others.


Again, we understand this. We understand that Yes will get more airtime than some of the more obscure bands out there. But Yes has almost 200 tracks represented here on Aural Moon. Having the same two tracks being requested on a daily basis would be unthinkable. This is the problem we've been running into, and is the same problem we're working on eradicating. True, some of them will be more popular than others. We don't expect an even play over the entire playlist. However, having the same 20 songs out of 12500 playing is VERY wrong and it will stop, one way or the other.


Now, what I have to comment, is about an automation I always have found usefull in the Request page: If the artist was recent played, just is not allowed. So, may be is possible to extend this capabilitie to control artist/music resquested for a greater period, like a week?


Perhaps yes, but we'd like to avoid that if possible. It wouldn't be practical to have a week delay between playings of, say, Yes.

Personally, I'd like to put it back to the way it was. And I likely will, once I remove the problem users.


See, I don´t use to ask the same music, but can be I am requesting the same artist because I don´t know it´s works or I am trying to know something more.


Again, not a problem, if you keep it to reasonable levels. If you wish to hear more Flower Kings, by all means, feel free to request different tracks from the albums. This is not the problem. The problem occurs when someone requests the same one or two songs every day. See my previous post on times and frequencies of requests.


Also, with 12000 title, I don´t know most of then. Auralmoon is my favorite radio, I live in a place where a progressive CD start a Us$ 30-50-100 (!!!)... (ok. excuses), but makes dificult to know what happened for the last decade.


I understand completely. I don't exactly live in the center of Prog Rock Heaven either, so Aural Moon was a welcome change from the 100,000th playing of Sweet Home Alabama that the local "Classic Rock" station played.

This is what we are trying to avoid here.


Most of bands from the 90´s playing at Auralmoon are unknow to me.


They're unknown to me too, for the most part. A very significant portion of the music that's on the moon is new to me. That's what kept me here after I found The Moon.


Also, what I use more, is to request musics from bands I never knew before, and music I don´t know.


Gilberto, if you keep doing that, you can be assured of a few things:

a steady stream of interesting, mostly cool music
a wide variety of interesting, mostly cool music
an education on Progressive Rock
unimpeded access to the request functionality.


This is what the request function is for, in my opinion. Yeah, we don't mind the occasional request of some of the old standbys. We know they're going to happen. But we definitely like to encourage exploration of the musical sidestreets, so to speak.

That's one of the reasons we're implementing the request free day. It'll expose a lot of people to music they've never heard before.


And as a progressive music fan, usually I choose music by lenght. Yes, I love to listen 15-20 minute music. This tell me if the band have gas to do the job, then I will listen more of that.


You're in good company on that one, my friend. Given the opportunity, I'd never listen to short songs. Only longs. In fact, my iTunes playlist is composed of songs that are 7 mins or longer. But fact of the matter is, again, that it's not the length of the song, but the frequency of repetition by a small number of people.

You have nothing to worry about at this time. I can assure you of that. In fact, since you ARE a productive member of this community, and you are attempting to help work out a solution, I'd likely drop you a note well in advance of any problems -- something like "Hey Gilberto, it looks like you've been requesting [insert song name]. You might want to cool it down on that one and listen to [different but similar group]" or something like that.

In fact, that goes for just about everybody that contributes to the betterment of the system. If you pop up on the radar, we'll send an email long before it becomes a problem. And if you THINK it might be a problem, you can drop me a private message and I'll check it out and let you know if there's potential for problem. Unfortunately I don't have a good way of comparing usernames and IP addresses unless they post to the forums (and the worst abusers don't).

I'd rather keep the good ones, and if that's what I have to do, it's what I'll do.


The software may control that: "Gilberto have asked for three 18 minute music this week, then only aloow lesser music". I am kidding but is ok to me.


It'd be nice if we could, although I likely wouldn't configure it to do that. I don't believe that stopping people from playing epics would be productive. Quite the opposite, actually. There's a LOT of stuff on Aural Moon that's over 15 minutes, and if you want to chose some of the longer stuff from the more obscure bands, then by all means feel free.

Again, to reiterate: just don't request the same songs day after day. That is what we object to.


As I expect you may have a log of requests, you can verify this, or better, at least the time length I use to choose.


Indeed we do. We also keep track of the IP addresses of those people that are requesting. That's how I know you're not one of the abusers. Unfortunately, as I said above, I don't have a name to attach to an IP address, so unless they post on the forums, I can't really contact them and tell them to chill out.

Of course, I COULD force them register to request.

That's something I might want to investigate.


So, what I can sugest, is not to removing that great bands. I have listened a lot of Renaissence more than a Pop radio and it still is playing. So why Flower Kings?


I posted a post before this one (and after yours) that should explain why we're taking steps. In short, The Flower Kings, through no fault of their own, have been overrequested. The stats don't lie. I'll likely put them back after I've fixed the other problems.


I know there are technical aspects on programing the system, but is an idea, I hope it be usefull.

Absolutely. If nothing else, it gave me another opportunity to:

explain what the problem is
let you know that you're not part of it.

Roger -Dot- Lee, getting closer by the day.

[gilbertopb]

Wow Roger, thank all that comments, sometimes I think I am writing a lot, but as a writerr (too) sometimes this happens. :rolleyes:

Hope success and joy to you all Auralmoon people :D

[VAXman]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
For instance:

Let's say that Vaxman, having lost his good senses and good taste in a gardening accident, sells his VMS equipment, ships me his Powerbook, and invests in $14,000 in PC equipment (loaded with the latest version of Windows XP). With this, he sets up a timed event that will, every 3 hours and two minutes, submits requests for the SAME THREE songs:

Providence by GY!BE
Please Tokio, Please This Is Tokio by Don Caballero
Domanique by the Singing Nun (that he smuggled on the station)

This goes on 24 hours/day, 7 days per week.

Not only would I be ACTIVELY working to remove even his access, but I would likely invest the money to fly up there and have him locked up, forcibly if necessary, into an insane asylum.
If I was to do this, please forget the asylum! Euthanize me please.


Another person simply has a thing for Grendel (which I personally can't blame him or her for, as I like the tune myself -- in fact I like it enough that I (HINT HINT) BOUGHT THE ALBUM), and as I said in an earlier post, it was requested on average of once a day for the last week and once every other day over the past month.
Too bad, I have a second copy here you could have had.

[kevishev]

Originally posted by Wojtek
In my opinion 2-month set without repetitions, or a month with only one request day is too radical answer for overrequesting.

Yes, I prefaced those remarks with "Here's a radical concept." I knew that my opinion would not be popular. But I'm old and I don't care.

Originally posted by Wojtek
I strongly support solution 'bans for requesters'. Deleted tracks are very often simply fantastic and the guilty people can overrequest with impunity, taking the next non deleted epics. I am afraid it will be vicious circle if the reaction stops on deleting songs. Malice has no limits, they can do it with all 12000 tracks.

My sentiments exactly. It would seem that if banning songs from the playlist is the chosen path for dealing with over-requesting, then it is on a slippery slope indeed.

[mossy]

'Aural Moon is not a barrel organ'

Woj, maybe it's the fact that I'm still half asleep but this had me laughing VERY hard for quite a long time.

Thank you.

Better than coffee.

Oh, and a day without requests on the moon is like a day without sunshine. Except for the possible 'no requests day', which could be quite enjoyable.

[Rick and Roll]

a day w/o Mossy is a day w/o sunshine.:)

[mossy]

Rick, you know how to make a persons day don't you. :)

I came back to post a bit more because I was thinking about Roger dot's apology regarding not having something in place already, to deal with over requesters.

When I came to the moon it wasn't only the fantastic music which drew me in, it was the community of really wonderful people and the care said people took in quietly nurturing and honouring the station, including being careful about things which could set the station back, including over requesting of songs. We had few rules in place regarding this, because it wasn't an issue. Loved that.

Of course, the moon isn't just made up of the regulars and others who have this sensible, more invested approach to things. Some listeners won't ever have ventured on to the moon other than to request songs, and so won't have the same personal investment in making sure things run in the democratic way they do and have done amongst the site regulars. Call me idealistic, but I always like to believe people can do things better without rules. Of course, with that ideology I'm sometimes disappointed.

So, perhaps this is just one of those disappointments. I don't think you need to apologize, Roger. It's worked fine up till recently when the over requesting came to light. And perhaps those who are zealously pursuing certain songs have no idea they are causing a problem.

Too bad one can't identify ppl through IP except if they post on the forums. An invitation to read this thread might put to bed any over requesting, thus doing away with the need to ban IP's. Then, if they continued to over request after reading these annals, they're just selfish idiots who deserve what they get.



:rolleyes:

[RogorMortis]

And this was ALL BY ONE PERSON!

Am I not correct in thinking it was the same IP adresse the over requesting came from? That could in legal terms also mean more than one person.

I'd like to make the point by removing songs from the list that is CENSORSHIP - a dangerous course to run because some regular listeners might be hurt in that way. This is a temporary measure I hope.

By blocking certain IP adresses - that is also DISCRIMINATION as the parties invovled haven't done anything illegal as such. This can have legal repercussions.

SO I recommend to Dot, change the request system instead - either by increasing the time ban for a band or by request free days - That is more FAIR.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by RogorMortis
Am I not correct in thinking it was the same IP adresse the over requesting came from? That could in legal terms also mean more than one person.


Indeed you're correct, it could in fact be more than one person. But it's highly unlikely that it is. In my experience IP addresses are usually assigned to single workstations these days (especially considering the OS and browser that the person in question is using (yes, I can see that too)). However, if more than one person is requesting the same song over and over, it still constitutes overrequesting. I suppose you can say that, for the purposes of this policy, "one person" could be construed as "a person or set of people coming from the same location". I'm still going to say "one person" because I want to keep this at a human readable level and not have to drag in a lawyer.


I'd like to make the point by removing songs from the list that is CENSORSHIP - a dangerous course to run because some regular listeners might be hurt in that way. This is a temporary measure I hope.


Incorrect. It would be censorship if I were to refuse to play an album or parts thereof for reasons of that could be deemed censorship (a legally defined term). I personally have no problem with the content of any of the songs that I have removed. Quite the contrary: there are several songs on the Moon that I do not like because of their content. They still play, however. Also, I have removed one of my personal favorite songs (Marillion's Grendel) not because of censorship, but because of overplaying.

Also, people could complain all they wish that we are practicing censorship. However, as this is legally considered private property (see below), and as a private entity (non-government funded), we are allowed to 'exhibit' whatever material we chose for whatever reasons we chose. This includes the right to NOT display whatever we chose for whatever reasons we chose. Is it censorship that we don't play any Eminem? Is it censorship that we don't play any Dökken? Is it censorship that the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art doesn't have a display of Hustler's Top 100? Of course not.


By blocking certain IP adresses - that is also DISCRIMINATION as the parties invovled haven't done anything illegal as such. This can have legal repercussions.


Wrong again, my Danish friend. The same regulations that allow organizations such as CNN to ban smoking, loitering, or other such activities in the public areas of their premisis apply here. This is legally considered the public areas of a private property, and as such, we can ban certain activities as long as we ban them for all parties regarless of race, creed, religion, disability, marital status, etc. etc. and I can assure you that were the regulars to abuse the priviledge the way they've been by these others, I would handle it in a similar fashion (a fact to which I've already given a de-facto demonstration). I might let the regulars know ahead of time, but only because I know how to get ahold of them, whereas the current crop of abusers have left no way of being contacted. But then, as I've also given a de-facto demonstration, I might not. We at Aural Moon reserve the right to add and remove material at any time with or without advance notice, for whatever reason or reasons we choose.

We won't like it, but we'll do it.

But back to discrimination. It would be discrimination were I to remove all access for a given group if all of the members of that group were members of that group due to factors beyond their control and not easily correctible by current acceptable legal, medical, or other practices or procedures (US Supreme Court decision providing a legal definition of discrimination. Heavily abridged. The wording is different, but the spirit is the same. If you wish to see the exact wording of the ruling, it's available online).

Note: I mention CNN simply because I'm very familiar with their policies. Having worked there as long as I did, I've seen their policies in action several times. I'll provide the legalese if you're interested.


SO I recommend to Dot, change the request system instead - either by increasing the time ban for a band or by request free days - That is more FAIR.

Valid recommendations. However, we've already tried them, with only very limited success. In other words, it doesn't seem to be working. Thus, we're taking more drastic, albeit temporary measures. Yes, the removal of the songs from the request pool is temporary, until such time as I can put a more robust system in place to prevent this abuse.

Again, the removals are temporary. The songs in question are still on the system, awaiting only a single change to the database (that can be accomplished in a matter of seconds). And once I've put the changes in place, the songs in question will likely be returned.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[progdirjim]

Originally posted by RogorMortis
Am I not correct in thinking it was the same IP adresse the over requesting came from? That could in legal terms also mean more than one person.

I'd like to make the point by removing songs from the list that is CENSORSHIP - a dangerous course to run because some regular listeners might be hurt in that way. This is a temporary measure I hope.

By blocking certain IP adresses - that is also DISCRIMINATION as the parties invovled haven't done anything illegal as such. This can have legal repercussions.

SO I recommend to Dot, change the request system instead - either by increasing the time ban for a band or by request free days - That is more FAIR.

I take exception to the idea that this is CENSORSHIP. I'd say the person who is trying to control such a large percentage of Aural Moon's broadcast time with the same songs over and over is censoring far more of the library than we ever will. All we are trying to do is limit how often certain songs play. Discrimination? Hah? No one has any inherent right to demand my money and time, a lot of which is what makes Aural Moon run. Many more posts like this and I'll just stop paying the bills, and no one will be discriminated against - Aural Moon will just cease to be.

[RogorMortis]

Fine - you've got your arguments in place. I will retreat.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

On a more personal, less legalistic note:

Originally posted by RogorMortis
This is a temporary measure I hope.


Had you actually taken the time to READ my initial post in this forum, you'd already have the answer to this, and I wouldn't have had to repeat myself. For the third time (at least) for this question.


SO I recommend to Dot, change the request system instead - either by increasing the time ban for a band or by request free days - That is more FAIR.

And just how FAIR is it that three people take up over 30%, on average, of the prime time airtime on this station?

I think that from now on, when these questions that we've already answered come up, I'll just direct the querant to the forums.

Jim: if you decide to yank the plug, give me a high sign. I'll run down to Fry's Electronics and grab one of their 160 GB external drives and start slurping some material.


Fine - you've got your arguments in place. I will retreat.


Probably a very wise move. Jumping in, flailing your arms, stomping your feet, and spewing legalistic buzzwords without having the legal facts to back them up will likely be met with either cold distain (as was my post) or more.

Roger -Dot- Lee, getting REALLY fed up with this.

[kirk]

whoa! step back, take a deep breath...

jim, dot-
i believe it's the anonymous nature of the request
line that's the root of the problem.
why not institute a public request forum,
require that requests be from registered forum members?
wipe it clean every few days to save server space.
that way, it's in view for all to see, which IMO would
make it more self-regulating.

on banning IPs-
anyone that's been around the OMDs knows they can easily
re-register under a different name, use proxy servers,
ect. to get around bans.
i know we'd like to think a person would have the honor
to comply, take the punishment, but sadly, that's not
usually the case. it usually only makes for a more
determined then "enemy".

p e a c e kirk

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by kirk
whoa! step back, take a deep breath...

jim, dot-
i believe it's the anonymous nature of the request
line that's the root of the problem.
why not institute a public request forum,
require that requests be from registered forum members?
wipe it clean every few days to save server space.
that way, it's in view for all to see, which IMO would
make it more self-regulating.


more self regulating, and a whole lot harder to police. Not only that, it would be an issue of us having to see the post, put the RQ in, etc.

And that would require 24x7 monitoring. Just not practical. A decent idea, and one we might want to take a long view on, but not practical at first glance.


on banning IPs-
anyone that's been around the OMDs knows they can easily
re-register under a different name, use proxy servers,
ect. to get around bans.
i know we'd like to think a person would have the honor
to comply, take the punishment, but sadly, that's not
usually the case. it usually only makes for a more
determined then "enemy".

p e a c e kirk

Under most circumstances, true. However, the current crop of abusers are, to a person, coming in from common network spaces. IE, for example, one abuser comes in from:

24.118.24.103
24.118.24.104
24.118.24.109
24.118.24.112
etc.

(note: not actual IPs. Just given as an example of the range we're seeing).

And nslookup and dig -x both report that the abusers are coming in from work accounts. Actual business addresses, not home providers (ie Comcast, AOL, etc). Spoofing and IP changes are going to be MUCH tougher than some spotty-bottomed geek in mommy's basement.

Drop me an email with your idea, if you would please, Kirk. I'd like to hear it in better detail. I have the feeling that we might have a misunderstanding as to what your idea is (and I also suspect it's something we might be able to use).

Roger -Dot- Lee

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
It's looking, however, like I can simply block their ability to request. They should be able to get to the rest of the site and still be able to connect to the station.

Roger -Dot- Lee If you can manage to do this, can you make a pop-up come up when they get blocked telling them why they're blocked? Maybe they'll be convicted and change their ways.

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
Unfortunately I don't have a good way of comparing usernames and IP addresses unless they post to the forums (and the worst abusers don't). What if there were "stricter requirements" for joining AM? What if you HAD to join to request? And to join you HAD to give an email address? And you HAD to log in to request?

Wouldn't you then have every requesters email address and IP?

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
Of course, I COULD force them register to request.
I should have read all of the post, huh?

[gilbertopb]

A simple idea;
Supose you can make a automatic control of what music are being requested more than allowe for a reasonable period.
Plus, this control detects if is the same people, or at least, same IP, same computer, etc

Then, instead of blocking the request, the system just returns a "Normal" request accepted, but, what will happens, is this is turned into a random request for lesser played music. :p

This way, over request will help us to know more music :D

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Consolidated into one post for the sake of brevity.

Yes, I know that's a first. Bite me. :D

Originally posted by Yesspaz
If you can manage to do this, can you make a pop-up come up when they get blocked telling them why they're blocked? Maybe they'll be convicted and change their ways.

Much more hassle than it's likely to be worth. I'll be more likely to follow another suggestion in here to have them randomly select another tune. It would likely be easier to implement, but also more amusing for the programmer.


What if there were "stricter requirements" for joining AM? What if you HAD to join to request? And to join you HAD to give an email address? And you HAD to log in to request?

Wouldn't you then have every requesters email address and IP?


I've been pondering this as well. If I could implement it without too much hassle on my part, then I likely will.


I should have read all of the post, huh?


Yes, you should. I know I'm verbose, and I tend to spew voluminous quantities of characters, but (just to keep you lot on your toes) I tend to sprinkle the effluvia with nuggets of Real! Information! Reading the entire post, while occasionally painful, might do at least one of a few things:


educate you
allow you to find the rare spelling or grammar error that I didn't put in there on purpose
help keep you from appearing to be an unlettered country dolt by asking questions that I've answered before :D
be the blessed recipient of my professional quality prose (for three easy payments of $24.99 each!)
actually see where we're coming from


that last one is the important one.

Roger -Dot- lee, trying to keep it under 1000 words.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by gilbertopb
A simple idea;


A simple idea. Almost impossible to implement reliably, unfortunately.

But then he posts THIS GEM!

Then, instead of blocking the request, the system just returns a "Normal" request accepted, but, what will happens, is this is turned into a random request for lesser played music. :p

This way, over request will help us to know more music :D

Ya know, of all the ideas, I think I like this one the best.

And we can expand on it as well. If I could ever get ahold of Unter1337, since this bit of coding would be well beyond my meager programming capabilities, I'd see if he could code up a button that reads "feeling adventurous? This would be a random request. We could give it higher priority, let the listener know what they've recorded, and either make it a freebie, give them an extra of what they want during a given time period, etc. etc. Some sort of carrot on a stick to get people to try it. Maybe give a certain number of points, and enough random picks over a certain period of time would give them access to the 128k stream for a while or something.

Embryonic ideas, but ideas nonetheless. Good only until the end of October sort of thing. One random request per hour, etc. etc.

The more I think of it, the more I like it.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[Michael Rawdon]

I've occasionally requested a song several times in one week. The main reason I've done this is because sometimes the song doesn't get played until after I've left my desk. Due to the delay in processing requests (which I understand is partly programmatic, but probably also due to other requests in the queue), I can sometimes request a song at 10 am my time, and it doesn't get played until after I go to lunch at noon. I've come back from lunch on occasion to find that I missed my song by 5 minutes.

I'll also sometimes request several songs by an artist over the course of a week, because I'm trying to get enoguh of a handle on them to decide whether to buy their stuff. For artists who only have one or two albums up on AM, this means requesting tracks from the same album, of course.

In this latter case, I tend to make requests partly by song length (figuring a 9-minute track is more likely to give me a feel for the band than a 3-minute track), and partly by song title (if the title "sounds interesting"). Not an exact science, I know! :)

(FWIW, I almost always requests songs I'm interested in hearing but don't actually know; most songs I know I like I tend to buy the CDs of.)

I bring all this up not as a matter of objection - I'm happy to have AM around in practically any form, and understand why the moderators have taken the actions described earlier in this thread - but as another data point for how someone uses the request system. (In fact, there's a song on the playlist which was getting played seemingly every morning for a while which I simply could not stand, and I'm happy if it means we'll be hearing less of it!)

I actually rarely make requests, primarily because of the long delay before they get played. I don't often have a 3-hour block of time when I know I'll be around and listening to AM, either at work or at home (though once baseball season ends, I may have more such blocks of time at home!).

[Yesspaz]

I have to say I don't like the idea of altering the request to random. What's the difference between that and letting SAM dj?

Also, I may be misunderstanding, but I think it's been suggested that if a song is being abused and someone requests it, they get a random song instead of the one they requested. I don't like this idea. I think it's dishonest. The requester is expecting to hear his song, but keeps waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and his randomized song plays but he doesn't know that's his song, so he keeps waiting and waiting for his request. It's trickery. I like much better the more extreme yet more honest blocking of IPs or removing of songs. My opinion anyway.

BTW, if I misunderstood the suggestion, let me know.

[Rick and Roll]

I agree with spaz...trickery is not the way.

Michael, you could just ask me and I'll tell you what to get!:D

[podakayne]

but my head is too stuffy to give a really coherent post...lot's of great ideas (roger you've picked up the best of them) and i agree with rick&Yspaz on the trickery idea (Yes they are in agreement!).

just do what cha gotta do jim, roger, unter...etc.

some listerns will just have to learn the hard way. it's obvious to me the guilty parties should now know the reason the songs are no longer on the list. they must come to the homepage to request...perhaps they will actually read the homepage and discontinue the abuse....i was shocked at the statistics roger 300 request and only a listing of about 20 songs! O...M...G! what a misuse the vast catalogue of music here.

anywho, i'm taking my stuffy head and retreating back under the covers
great thread!

poda

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by podakayne
it's obvious to me the guilty parties should now know the reason the songs are no longer on the list. they must come to the homepage to request...perhaps they will actually read the homepage and discontinue the abuse.... Not necessarily. I have the frame-less request page on my favorites list. I frequently am somewhere else on the web, pull it down, make a request, and go back. Never see the homepage. If you make a desk-top short-cut, even easier to miss the page.

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by podakayne
it's obvious to me the guilty parties should now know the reason the songs are no longer on the list. they must come to the homepage to request...perhaps they will actually read the homepage and discontinue the abuse.... Not necessarily. I have the frame-less request page on my favorites list. I frequently am somewhere else on the web, pull it down, make a request, and go back. Never see the homepage. If you make a desk-top short-cut, even easier to miss the page.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Yesspaz
I have to say I don't like the idea of altering the request to random. What's the difference between that and letting SAM dj?


None. Except we're not subjected to the 5th playing of a given song that week.

Also, I may be misunderstanding, but I think it's been suggested that if a song is being abused and someone requests it, they get a random song instead of the one they requested.


Only the person who's been overrequesting gets this treatment. The rest of the folk get what they've bargained for.

Then Rick 'n' Roll makes me spew my dinner all over my computer by saying:
I agree with spaz...


You owe me a new keyboard. You'll be getting the bill. :D

In all honesty, I was never seriously considering making those types of modifications to the station (well, not VERY seriously, anyway). They'd be far too difficult to implement correctly and without bugs, and it would be a real bear to police. I have the feeling that I'd trap far more of the good guys with this than the bad guys.

It just wouldn't be worth the hassle and problems that it would create.

I am, however, still actively pursuing the option of request blocking. I've narrowed it down to about three different options, one of which will block access to the station entirely and the other two just blocking request functionality.

Roger -Dot- Lee, you realize, Rick, that this is like the third time this week. You trying to set a precedent or something? or maybe some kind of record?

[Yesspaz]

Yeah. Blocking is better than bait-and-switch. Go Dotty Go.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Michael Rawdon
I've occasionally requested a song several times in one week. The main reason I've done this is because sometimes the song doesn't get played until after I've left my desk. Due to the delay in processing requests (which I understand is partly programmatic, but probably also due to other requests in the queue), I can sometimes request a song at 10 am my time, and it doesn't get played until after I go to lunch at noon. I've come back from lunch on occasion to find that I missed my song by 5 minutes.


Actually, it's much more than partially programmatic. In our licensing agreement terms thing, as I understand, we have to put in a minimum delay of a certain amount for requests due to copyright/piracy issues. That is my understanding of why we do it. The configuration and decisions predate me, and, while I like to rock the boat on occasion, this isn't one of those times. :)

And, for the record, our delay is minimum of 1 hour. I say minimum, because after that delay, the request gets placed at the bottom of the queue. Any remaining delay depends on what's in the queue. If there's only two songs, then yours will be on deck shortly. If there's a whole bunch, then your wait will be longer. Also note that only the two songs that are waiting to play are listed. There may be others -- many others -- waiting to play.

Something else you'll want to consider is if there's a show running at the time. I see by your information that you're from Good Olde Silly Con Valley (I made my escape from Sunnyvale in 1996 -- used to live right off Central Expressway and Lawrence Expwy). Anyway, our shows tend to co-incide to your morning/afternoon hours. When a show is running, everything gets pushed back. Tuesdays, from 8am to noon your time are when we do the Gagliarchives replay. Four hours right there. And the requests back up fairly heavily during those times.

So you'll want to keep that in mind when you're making requests.


I'll also sometimes request several songs by an artist over the course of a week, because I'm trying to get enoguh of a handle on them to decide whether to buy their stuff. For artists who only have one or two albums up on AM, this means requesting tracks from the same album, of course.


Not a problem. We have no problem at all with this nature of requesting.

See, the difference from the way YOU request and those that we have problems with are:


while you may request one or two songs repeatedly, once you get a handle on things, you MOVE ON. This, in our opinion, is a valid use of the resources.
when you have requested (at least from the IP address from which you posted this note), you may hit a duplicate, or you may do two or three songs off of a given album. But that's it. You move on. Again, we have no problem with this. You don't continue to request the same song week after week. THAT is where we have the problems.
You've come in here to help try to solve the problem instead of just opening Winamp/iTunes/whatever they happen to be listening to.


I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point.


In this latter case, I tend to make requests partly by song length (figuring a 9-minute track is more likely to give me a feel for the band than a 3-minute track), and partly by song title (if the title "sounds interesting"). Not an exact science, I know! :)


I'm hip. Although attempting to judge a song by it's title is identical to judging a book by it's cover. I can't count the number of gems I've discovered because I had a jumpy mouse at HP.


(FWIW, I almost always requests songs I'm interested in hearing but don't actually know; most songs I know I like I tend to buy the CDs of.)


oy, if we only had a bunch more like you instead of the two or three that request the same blasted songs daily.


I bring all this up not as a matter of objection - I'm happy to have AM around in practically any form, and understand why the moderators have taken the actions described earlier in this thread - but as another data point for how someone uses the request system.


Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's this type of use that we encourage. If everyone used the system this way, we wouldn't have these problems.


(In fact, there's a song on the playlist which was getting played seemingly every morning for a while which I simply could not stand, and I'm happy if it means we'll be hearing less of it!)


Which one? If you could give me a name, I'll see if it's being overrequested and yank it if necessary. Who knows, you might even get a round of applause from the regulars! :D


I actually rarely make requests, primarily because of the long delay before they get played. I don't often have a 3-hour block of time when I know I'll be around and listening to AM, either at work or at home (though once baseball season ends, I may have more such blocks of time at home!).

Yeah, unfortunately we can't do much about that and still be within the good graces of the recording industry. Although you might have better luck with the additional information in the above post...

Roger -Dot- Lee
Second in Command
Professional Spewster

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
And, for the record, our delay is minimum of 1 hour. I say minimum, because after that delay, the request gets placed at the bottom of the queue. Any remaining delay depends on what's in the queue. If there's only two songs, then yours will be on deck shortly. If there's a whole bunch, then your wait will be longer. Also note that only the two songs that are waiting to play are listed. There may be others -- many others -- waiting to play.
Also, there is a 3 hour delay between plays of the same artist. So, if you request a newly added Mogwai track, and at the time the third song in the queue is a different Mogwai song, you'll have the same delays Roger.Lee mentioned + 3 hours. Keeps it from being a Mogwai marathon.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Yesspaz
Also, there is a 3 hour delay between plays of the same artist. So, if you request a newly added Mogwai track, and at the time the third song in the queue is a different Mogwai song, you'll have the same delays Roger.Lee mentioned + 3 hours. Keeps it from being a Mogwai marathon.

That's a VERY good point.

There's also an additional limitation -- that the same song, once played, can not be played again for another 8 hours.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[Unregistered]

.
.
I am not a programmer and know next to nothing about programming so if this sounds stupid, I'm sorry.

Is there a way that you can force people to logon to AM in order to request any songs and then once requested, the requested song will be grayed out to that user ID for say 14 days rendering it un-selectable for the 14 days by that user ID? On day 15 it will become active again. Kind of like spam guard that a lot of forums have but for a longer period of time.
.
.

[straymoose]

.
.
Sorry, I posted that before I logged on. I am registered.
.
.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Unregistered
.
.
I am not a programmer and know next to nothing about programming so if this sounds stupid, I'm sorry.

Is there a way that you can force people to logon to AM in order to request any songs and then once requested, the requested song will be grayed out to that user ID for say 14 days rendering it un-selectable for the 14 days by that user ID? On day 15 it will become active again. Kind of like spam guard that a lot of forums have but for a longer period of time.
.
.

It doesn't sound stupid. Unfortunately, I'm not a programmer either (in spite of what my boss thinks). So what you're suggesting, while possible (and in fact likely feasable), I'm not quite sure where I'd start in implementing it.

It's not a half bad idea, though it'd likely be a tad rough on the database.

Let me mull it about and see what I might be able to come up with.

Roger -Dot- Lee, another good idea...

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Unregistered

Is there a way that you can force people to logon to AM in order to request any songs and then once requested, the requested song will be grayed out to that user ID for say 14 days rendering it un-selectable for the 14 days by that user ID? Holy crap that's the best idea ever.

[Avian]

Originally posted by Yesspaz
Holy crap that's the best idea ever.

I've seen some stations where the song is blacked out for 10 days even after one person has requested it. This is one of my favorite readio station websites (http://www.scenemusic.net/) They have very sophisticated database management - I've used them as much as possible for great ideas. We're still talking a lot of programming and testing, though.

Avian

[VAXman]

I suggest that one would need to be registered and logged in to request quite some time ago.

... and nothing is impossible when programming code!

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by VAXman
I suggest that one would need to be registered and logged in to request quite some time ago.

... and nothing is impossible when programming code!

Did I hear a ... VOLUNTEER?!?!?

Roger -Dot- Lee, you can stop laughing now, VM. :p :D

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Avian
I've seen some stations where the song is blacked out for 10 days even after one person has requested it. While I like Straymoose's idea, I don't like this one. I don't think my requesting of Awaken at 10pm should inhibit KW's hearing of Awaken. He'd be asleep when it played. But Straymoose's idea stops abuse by one person.

[kirk]

yeah, penalize the over requester,
not the song.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Notice: this message is directed at one person, and one person only. If you did not send an email to Avian at or around 2:45 pm (14:45 hrs) Mountain Daylight Time on September 22, 2004, with the subject heading of "What's Up?", requesting why your requests were removed and demanding to know why we were editing requests (even going so far as to ask why you were "being singled out here"), this message is not directed at you.

If you DID, in fact, send such a message to Avian (avian@auralmoon.com), then I'd suggest you pay very close attention to what I'm saying. It will likely have a significant impact on whether or not you can continue to tune in to our station.


Originally posted by kirk
yeah, penalize the over requester,
not the song.

Well, that came one step closer to reality this morning.

We finally received a whiney quit-pickin'-on-me email from our favorite overrequester this morning. I saw it first thing in the morning, and my initial response was to send it off to Jim. Had I actually sent off the response that I would likely have, it would have likely scorched the wires between here and there, leaving a sizable crater where it landed.

But let's make it official, shall we (in the odd event that our favorite overrequester actually visits the forums (as Jim suggested in his response)):

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Any further overrequesting from you will lead to one of four results:


You will be removed from making requests on a permanent basis.
You will be removed from access to the web site, partially or totally, on a permanent basis.
You will be permanently blocked from access to the streams that provide the substance that is Aural Moon.
any combination of the above three, including and not limited to, all three.


Now since I can already imagine you opening your mail client or hitting the reply button, let me save you the effort.

The official definition, subject to change with or without notice and at the sole discression of the management of Aural Moon, of the practice we call "overrequesting" contains, but is not limited to:

requesting the same song more than three times by the same person or location within 1 week
requesting the same song more than six times by the same person or location within 2 weeks
any series of requests by the same person that the management deems to be overrequesting.


The management reserves the right to remove any content at any time for any reason.

The management reserves the right to refuse access to the station as a whole or any parts of the station to anyone at any time for any reason with or without consent or warning.

In his response to you, dear overrequester, Jim indicated that it was not his intention to drive you off or alienate you. I do not feel such constraint. Whether you listen to Aural Moon or not is a matter of monumental indifference to me. Listen or don't, I don't care. But the amount of effort I and the rest of the staff at Aural Moon is expending because of your action far exceeds any benefit being derived by your presence, and I, for one, am growing VERY weary of having to monitor your activity. I have many other things I can be doing that are much more pleasant. Thus, if I have to block you, I will, without hesitation or remorse.

And if I have to do this, I can assure you that it will be permanent.

I'd be lying if I said that I was sorry if you felt that this missive was threatening. I've invested a great deal of time in this station, the bulk of it over the last few months being as a direct result of your activities. And I am getting well and truly SICK of it. Consider it a warning -- far more than I personally believe you deserve.

You have been warned.

Roger -Dot- Lee, becoming VERY fed up with this nonsense.

[Bob Lentil]

Originally posted by Roger Lee

requesting the same song more than three times by the same person or location within 1 week
requesting the same song more than six times by the same person or location within 2 weeks


You might as well add these for good measure.

requesting the same song more than nine times by the same person or location within 3 weeks
requesting the same song more than twelve times by the same person or location within 4 weeks

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Bob Lentil
You might as well add these for good measure.

requesting the same song more than nine times by the same person or location within 3 weeks
requesting the same song more than twelve times by the same person or location within 4 weeks


Probably a good idea.

However, it is now no longer necessary.

Instead of admitting they were wrong and agreeing to play nice in the future, they took the defensive, attempted to guilt us into believing it was all in our heads (in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary), and said, and I quote: "don't worry about blocking me, because I'll be blocking you".

The laughability of this particular statement not withstanding, this person is being removed, permanently, from the station. Their access (and the access of their entire organization) is being removed.

Once I have reasonable assurances that this has occured, I will be replacing all of the removed songs, since the problem has been permanently rectified.

I'll also be posting their whiney temper tantrums for the amusement of whoever cares to read them.

Roger -Dot- Lee, finishing up and getting on with life.

[KeithieW]

Originally posted by Bob Lentil
You might as well add these for good measure.

requesting the same song more than nine times by the same person or location within 3 weeks
requesting the same song more than twelve times by the same person or location within 4 weeks


Do I detect a little irony there Bob?

I wish this whole episode would go away very soon. It's leaving a very nasty taste. :(

[Rick and Roll]

Originally posted by Keith Waye

I wish this whole episode would go away very soon. It's leaving a very nasty taste. :(

From someone who is indirectly affected by all of this

(this M!O!R!O!N! is spreading Mr. Lee too thin and I need him to get me up on the Moon correctly)

I could not agree with your statement more!

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Keith Waye
Do I detect a little irony there Bob?

I wish this whole episode would go away very soon. It's leaving a very nasty taste. :(

How do you think I feel about this?

Roger -Dot- Lee, wishing for a permanent and irreversable failure of the internet to certain parts of the country.

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
The laughability of this particular statement not withstanding, this person is being removed, permanently, from the station. Their access (and the access of their entire organization) is being removed.

Excellent.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, and anyone that I happened to leave out unintentionally: it's finally over.

After struggling with web servers and other such nonsense in an attempt to put a halt to this while giving our favorite overrequester the opportunity to visit the rest of the site, I finally called out the Cavalry. With the help of our very own VAXMan, Our Favorite Overrequester has been permanently banned from the site. They can still tune into the station all they wish, but attempting to connect to the station (or, for that matter, send email to the station) will be met with an eerie silence.

(Email blocking is a regrettable side effect of the effort to put a stop to the overrequesting).

WARNING: HEAVY GEEK FACTOR BELOW. For the feint of heart, those with supressed constitutions or weak bladders, or anyone else who doesn't want to read it, move on. Nothing to see here.

You've been warned.

BEGIN HEAVY GEEK FACTOR

The suggestion given by VM was that we block them at the routing level. This has the effect of taking the packets that arrive from their network to be routed to a non-existent location. Thus, they can't connect. At all. Nada. None. This goes for port 80 (HTTP), port 25 (SMTP) and whatever else they may wish to try (that's not already handled by our firewall). Unbeknownst to me, they slipped in a 'reject' parameter into the routing tables. I was not aware that this existed in Linux (our host OS for the web site). I thought this was limited to SGI, Sun Solaris, and anything else that descended from the SVr4 code base. Score another one for Linux. You can't do that on Windows.

END HEAVY GEEK FACTOR. Thank you for your patience.

Anyway, one simple command to the routing interface by Yr. 'umble Narrator has left Our Favorite Overrequester unable to request. I have taken steps to assure that the new routing tables will survive a reboot.

I will, over the next few days, take the opportunity to return all of the songs I was forced to remove due to said overrequester to the station request rotation.

Thank you for your patience in this matter. Hopefully we will never have to endure another situation like this again.

Roger -Dot- Lee

PS: I was going to post the email thread between Our Favorite Overrequester and Jim, but the idea no longer amuses me. In fact, this entire episode sickens me. If someone is interested, they can either shoot me an email or post a request here. If I get a request or two, then I might post 'em. Otherwise, I think I'm going to let this die like the pox ridden cow it's become.

[progdirjim]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
PS: I was going to post the email thread between Our Favorite Overrequester and Jim, but the idea no longer amuses me. In fact, this entire episode sickens me. If someone is interested, they can either shoot me an email or post a request here. If I get a request or two, then I might post 'em. Otherwise, I think I'm going to let this die like the pox ridden cow it's become.

Let's move on. It's over. And I am profoundly sorry that this was one of the first things to happen after Davin handed Aural Moon over to me. I promise that Aural Moon will continue to be a POSITIVE place in the future - that's what brought me here in the first place, and what inspired loyalty in me.

Jim

[Artemis]

After reading this entire thread I was exhaused....I just wanted to express my appreciation for all that jim and roger do to make this the best radio station on the net.

What is dedication but a sense of urgency....

[KeithieW]

Originally posted by progdirjim
Let's move on. It's over. And I am profoundly sorry that this was one of the first things to happen after Davin handed Aural Moon over to me. I promise that Aural Moon will continue to be a POSITIVE place in the future - that's what brought me here in the first place, and what inspired loyalty in me.

Jim
Amen to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now let's look into getting back the people who can no longer participate in the day to day banter because of the demise of The Shout Box. For example jnighting, artboy, the spanish lads and Steady Stan and Artemis.

I know that there is a Bandwidth issue here but I'm wondering if this might not be as bad as it seems. The Black Box was taken away immediately after the 5th anniversary party during which it was, understandably, HAMMERED. The way I see it and the way people who have been affected by this have explained it to me (Yes, it's true...people do talk to me :) ) the problem arises in that the Chat Room is Too obtrusive for when they are in the office. It can get VERY busy and it's difficult to concentrate on work with all that activity going on. What they need is an area that they can look at occasionally and comment from time to time should they wish to do so.

<KeithieW goes into Total Non understanding Geek mode> If that area was away from the Home page and refreshed every 5-10 minutes (or some other convenient time period) and not every time someone posted, would that have a less harmful effect on the Bandwidth issue? I'm guessing that the code for the original Shout Box is still in the system somewhere and perhaps with a bit of tweaking from someone in the know could be adapted to work in a way that will suit both our beloved and much missed moonies and the Hosts.

As a matter of interest.............the "other chat room" that appears on the left hand side of the Home page has a lot of the attributes that are required here. Could THAT be adapted? It is less obtrusive, gives people the ability to say whether they're working, lurking, away from desk etc. I remember that there were issues with it but maybe a bit of tweaking could resolve those.

OK Boys and Girls, fire away with the "Dork" comments. :D I make no apology for posting this as I know it's something that people out there would like to see.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Dr. Dot rolls up his sleeves...

Originally posted by Keith Waye
Amen to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If I didn't make it clear, I'd like to now: this hasn't been one of my more pleasurable experiences with Aural Moon. I'm glad it's over. Now let us address Keithie's concern's regarding Shout:


Now let's look into getting back the people who can no longer participate in the day to day banter because of the demise of The Shout Box. For example jnighting, artboy, the spanish lads and Steady Stan and Artemis.


A worthwhile task indeed...certainly more enjoyable than cleaning up after the subject of the recent ire around here.


I know that there is a Bandwidth issue here but I'm wondering if this might not be as bad as it seems. The Black Box was taken away immediately after the 5th anniversary party during which it was, understandably, HAMMERED. The way I see it and the way people who have been affected by this have explained it to me (Yes, it's true...people do talk to me :) ) the problem arises in that the Chat Room is Too obtrusive for when they are in the office. It can get VERY busy and it's difficult to concentrate on work with all that activity going on. What they need is an area that they can look at occasionally and comment from time to time should they wish to do so.


Well, I personally don't KNOW precisely how much of an impact the shoutbox will have on our bandwidth usage, but I suspect it'll be fairly significant. Exactly HOW significant has yet to be seen.


<KeithieW goes into Total Non understanding Geek mode> If that area was away from the Home page and refreshed every 5-10 minutes (or some other convenient time period) and not every time someone posted, would that have a less harmful effect on the Bandwidth issue? I'm guessing that the code for the original Shout Box is still in the system somewhere and perhaps with a bit of tweaking from someone in the know could be adapted to work in a way that will suit both our beloved and much missed moonies and the Hosts.


(Emphasis changed to conform with quoting style sheet)

Yes, it would likely have a beneficial effect on bandwidth usage if we were to move it to a lighter page. However, I'm afraid that doing that will have a serious negative impact on the viability of the shoutbox. Part of the draw of the shoutbox is that it's there when you go to the main site. You can keep the site up, still keep in contact, and not have the SPChat window popping up on top of what you're trying to do. Updating it every 5-10 minutes might not be a bad idea, however...although it's mighty tough to keep even the most extended of real-time conversations going with that sort of delay.

It's a balancing act that would impress even the Flying Wallendas.


As a matter of interest.............the "other chat room" that appears on the left hand side of the Home page has a lot of the attributes that are required here. Could THAT be adapted? It is less obtrusive, gives people the ability to say whether they're working, lurking, away from desk etc. I remember that there were issues with it but maybe a bit of tweaking could resolve those.


It's on our plate. It had to be pushed aside, however, due to more ... pressing matters.


OK Boys and Girls, fire away with the "Dork" comments. :D I make no apology for posting this as I know it's something that people out there would like to see.

Now I wouldn't do that. The only people that receive that sort of invective from me are maturational children that have a sense of entitlement that exceed the standard norms of civil society.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Oh, and one more thing...

All of the Flower Kings and Grendel by Marillion have been restored to the playlist. Subject to removal, as usual.

If I'm missing anything, let me know.

Roger -Dot- Lee, compassion toward my fellow man not covered by this statement.

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
All of the Flower Kings and Grendel by Marillion have been restored to the playlist. Subject to removal, as usual.

If I'm missing anything, let me know. Blue Shift - Rome
The Appleseed Cast - Blind Man's Arrow/Flower Falling From Dying Hands

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Yesspaz
Blue Shift - Rome
The Appleseed Cast - Blind Man's Arrow/Flower Falling From Dying Hands

I knew I could count on you, Spaz.

Restored.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[RogorMortis]

The restoration of the Black Box is a very positive move and can only benefit the Aural Moon movement and postive vibes.

Thansk for Jim and Dot for that.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by RogorMortis
The restoration of the Black Box is a very positive move and can only benefit the Aural Moon movement and postive vibes.

Thansk for Jim and Dot for that.

I don't think it's possible for me to agree more with that statement, Rogor. It CAN only benefit the Moon.

I just need to tune the system a little bit to adjust for the extra load.

Roger -Dot- Lee, one thing at a time...

[Steady Stan]

gladdens my heart and reconnects me with my dear friends. The beauty of the shout is the short history it saves, allowing you to sense the day's vibe. It also allows the "theme of the day" request idea to work, if we're so inclined. Personally, the themes were one of my favorite aspects of the station, as it allowed the collective creativity of the listeners to shine. It also prompted people to pick unfamiliar songs, just to fit the theme.

Thank you Roger & Vax for using the simplest & most effective way of combatting the over-requesting situation (i.e., ban the problem child). It seemed to start on the heels of the 5th Anniversary party. I often wondered if it was a jealous competitor that was the guilty party. No evidence, just a thought.

See everyone in the shout! :) :cool: :p

[VAXman]

Originally posted by Steady Stan
Thank you Roger & Vax for using the simplest & most effective way of combatting the over-requesting situation (i.e., ban the problem child). It seemed to start on the heels of the 5th Anniversary party. I often wondered if it was a jealous competitor that was the guilty party. No evidence, just a thought.

See everyone in the shout! :) :cool: :p

;) Pays to have a geek or two around once in a while.

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by VAXman
;) Pays to have a geek or two around once in a while.

This is most assuradly true.

And ya know...

For our efforts, we should get at LEAST TWO gripe free geek-out sessions.

It's the least they could do. :p

Roger -Dot- Lee, like that's ever stopped us...

[MrMagoo]

Thank you from the bottom of my heart dotman, and KW for asking the question. It is glorious to have the BB back, for all the reasons mentioned above. I think it's the largest part of what makes AM 'family'; let's us all stay in touch, kinda like grooming in apes :)

[Rick and Roll]

taste better than mine!

[dinosaur]

Just like to say THANKS to Roger for taking the time to address this issue. Lots of good ideas are floating around. Here's hoping whichever solution eventually chosen (if any) is easily implemented.
For myself, I will be happy when the AM station folks are happy.
With over 12000 songs to hear, and normally roughly an hour or so after requesting until it plays, I can't imagine wasting a request on one that's already known to me...
Go figure.

[Yesspaz]

Hey there Dinoman. Long time no post. Welcome back.

[dinosaur]

Hey Spaz, and all you other moonies.
I try to keep track of your adventures every chance I get... They're much more interesting than my own.

[lotus]

Thank you Roger and Vax for being able to put Black back into operation. It is one of the eyeopeners for people who come new to the moon, like it was for me beginning of this year.

I hope only, no new probs will come up...

[QuantumJo]

WOW, I just read the entire thread. Hats off to the combined effort to remedy the problem. Thanks for the return of the shout box; it is one of the things that keep me coming back for more when I was new to Aural Moon. Also my thanks to everyone involved that make Aural Moon the best music station on line. Hip Hip…Hooray, Hip Hip… Hooray, Hip Hip… Hooray.:D

[Michael Rawdon]

(Michael pages in... haven't had a chance to keep up with the message boards recently. I have too many hobbies, I tell you!)

Originally posted by Roger Lee
Something else you'll want to consider is if there's a show running at the time. I see by your information that you're from Good Olde Silly Con Valley (I made my escape from Sunnyvale in 1996 -- used to live right off Central Expressway and Lawrence Expwy). Anyway, our shows tend to co-incide to your morning/afternoon hours. When a show is running, everything gets pushed back. Tuesdays, from 8am to noon your time are when we do the Gagliarchives replay. Four hours right there. And the requests back up fairly heavily during those times.
Yep, I've noticed that. I tend not to make requests during shows for those reasons.

(In fact, there's a song on the playlist which was getting played seemingly every morning for a while which I simply could not stand, and I'm happy if it means we'll be hearing less of it!)

Which one? If you could give me a name, I'll see if it's being overrequested and yank it if necessary. Who knows, you might even get a round of applause from the regulars! :D

Heh. I was reluctant to mention it since I didn't want several people to say, "But... but... that's one of my favorite songs!" (Or, for all I know, the artists lurk here.) But since you ask, the song was "Oceans Deep" by Strangefish.

As I think I noted, though, it hasn't been played much recently. About 3 months ago it seemed to be getting played every morning.

[progdirjim]

Originally posted by Michael Rawdon

Heh. I was reluctant to mention it since I didn't want several people to say, "But... but... that's one of my favorite songs!" (Or, for all I know, the artists lurk here.) But since you ask, the song was "Oceans Deep" by Strangefish.

As I think I noted, though, it hasn't been played much recently. About 3 months ago it seemed to be getting played every morning.

Yeah, that one was getting abused for awhile, but people have moved on. Our problem has never been with the individual song; the song wouldn't be on Aural Moon if I didn't like it. The problem was hearing it every single day, sometimes twice a day. I'd bet even the artist wouldn't want to hear it every day...

[Rick and Roll]

Originally posted by progdirjim
The song wouldn't be on Aural Moon if I didn't like it.

It's official! Jim likes every song on the Moon!


:p :p :p :p :p

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Originally posted by Michael Rawdon
(Michael pages in... haven't had a chance to keep up with the message boards recently. I have too many hobbies, I tell you!)


Heh. I'm hip.


Yep, I've noticed that. I tend not to make requests during shows for those reasons.


OK, just wanted to make sure you understood why things took so long at certain times.


Heh. I was reluctant to mention it since I didn't want several people to say, "But... but... that's one of my favorite songs!" (Or, for all I know, the artists lurk here.) But since you ask, the song was "Oceans Deep" by Strangefish.


That problem has been permanently and irrevokably rectified. I'm sure you've noticed my making mention to "our favorite overrequester". This person was the person responsible for the "Oceans Deep" overplaying, along with, it seems, 95% of the other songs that have been requested to death.


As I think I noted, though, it hasn't been played much recently. About 3 months ago it seemed to be getting played every morning.

Indeed. But, as I said, the problem has been fixed. You hadn't heard it up until about two weeks ago because it was too busy overrequesting other songs. Since, because they haven't been able to request anything.

Oh, and if you think that something is getting too much play time, by all means speak up. If it's an abberation, we'll handle it one way. If it's genuinely someone with a Problem(TM), we'll handle that too.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[Roger -Dot- Lee]

Jim Originally said:
The song wouldn't be on Aural Moon if I didn't like it.

To which Rick and Roll posits:

It's official! Jim likes every song on the Moon!


:p :p :p :p :p

Oh, I'm sure I could probably find one he doesn't like....

*ahem*

Roger -Dot- Lee, Doma-neeka-neeka-neeka