Song Requests

[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.

[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(Admin)]

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(Admin)]

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(Admin)]

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(Admin)]

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.

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

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Consolidated into one post for the sake of brevity.

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

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
• 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(Admin)]

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.

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

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!