Song Requests
 

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.

Re: Song Requests
 

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.

"if you like ..., try ..."
 

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:

Re: "if you like ..., try ..."
 

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.

done deal, Rog! :D

Another one bites the dust.
 

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.

I Lost My Head
 

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.;)

Re: Another one bites the dust.
 

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

Re: Re: Another one bites the dust.
 

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

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.

Re: Another one bites the dust.
 

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)

Re: Re: Re: Another one bites the dust.
 

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.

kind of had a feeling it would come to this
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another one bites the dust.
 

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!

Re: kind of had a feeling it would come to this
 

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

p e a c e kirk

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.

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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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

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

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

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

what a bleak and horrible future vision
 

If I was to do this, please forget the asylum! Euthanize me please.


Too bad, I have a second copy here you could have had.

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.

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.

'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.

Actually...
 

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

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:

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.

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.



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.



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.

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

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.

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

On a more personal, less legalistic note:



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.

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.



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.

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

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.

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

Re: Re: Re: Another one bites the dust.
 

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.

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 should have read all of the post, huh?

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another one bites the dust.
 

Consolidated into one post for the sake of brevity.

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

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.



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



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.

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

But then he posts THIS GEM!
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

My Approach to Making Requests
 

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!).

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.

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

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