Is there a need for a new sub-forum?

[Booster MPS]

Hi All

 

It's very clear that there are a lot of very intelligent members of CA that have a wealth of technical information to offer. Beyond that, more than most communities, the members here craft some very well thought out discussions and arguments. This can have some negative unintentional consequences when the original arguments get lost and proving somebody wrong becomes more important than the discussion or offering good information.

 

In my opinion, this has been pretty bad recently. Pick your thread of objectivists versus subjectivists, fuses, if it can be heard it can be measured and so on. I think there is technical merit to some of the more obscure discussion such as the one with fuses. We are all 'philes and by nature of that, we are detail people. However, a lot of this seems to come down to people asking questions that don't need to be asked or pushing other members on their personal beliefs that don't affect others. I see it as negative and something that needs to be carved out of the General forum into a sub. That can be a sandbox for those that enjoy those discussions to go there and ask all of the audiophile questions that are in the "tails of the distribution" of most common experiences.

 

Would this have a benefit and help us keep other discussions on track and topic?

 

George D. III

[Blake]

Excellent idea George. I would support this 100%. A subforum called "The Objectivist/Subjectivist Sandbox". When someone goes off tangent into subjective/objective discussion that is unrelated to the post in question, or someone wants to debate about sighted listening or "prove it with measurements", any member is free to politely refer the poster to the Sandbox.

 

It is a subforum I will rarely (if ever) visit but I know there are members who love this sort of debate. I think this will help to make the CA forums a more friendly and helpful place. I would put a big disclaimer on the Objectivist/Subjectivist Sandbox- "ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK".

 

I will admit that I have considered going "on walkabout" from CA altogether over the last month. I am so tired of the endless and predictable back and forth blabbering between the camps. I would love to have this stuff is tucked away from my sight.

[Paul R]

If a sub forum does get created, I vote it gets names 'Blazes'.

[AudioDoctor]

If a sub forum does get created, I vote it gets names 'Blazes'.

 

I think we should name it "Take your argument and stuff it straight into this sub-forum..."

 

 

Ok, I think I have had my limit tonight...

[Booster MPS]

Excellent idea George. I would support this 100%. A subforum called "The Objectivist/Subjectivist Sandbox". When someone goes off tangent into subjective/objective discussion that is unrelated to the post in question, or someone wants to debate about sighted listening or "prove it with measurements", any member is free to politely refer the poster to the Sandbox.

 

It is a subforum I will rarely (if ever) visit but I know there are members who love this sort of debate. I think this will help to make the CA forums a more friendly and helpful place. I would put a big disclaimer on the Objectivist/Subjectivist Sandbox- "ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK".

 

I will admit that I have considered going "on walkabout" from CA altogether over the last month. I am so tired of the endless and predictable back and forth blabbering between the camps. I would love to have this stuff is tucked away from my sight.

 

I think that if part of the mission of the forum is to attract people to CA and to also educate those looking for information, you don't want to put people off with some of the arrogance and posturing that can happen. The technical stuff is intimidating enough for people to get their arms around so it does not help to put up another that could keep somebody from posting for the first time. Let's move all of that ancillary conversation to it's own sandbox and keep the other sub forums and discussions on topic.

 

Sure, gear is cool and that is part of the mission. The other half of the mission is the music. But if you are just showing up here to create friction and debate questions that really don't matter, you have the right to do that but it's not value added.

[Jud]

I think we should name it "Take your argument and stuff it straight into this sub-forum..."

 

 

 

If we're considering titles, I vote for "Get a room!"

[Blake]

If we're considering titles, I vote for "Get a room!"

 

Classic!

 

When you enter the subforum, the screen background switches to a scene with a bear skin rug, a fireplace and Barry White singing in the background.

[Jud]

Classic!

 

When you enter the subforum, the screen background switches to a scene with a bear skin rug, a fireplace and Barry White singing in the background.

 

OT, true story: Back in the day before liability lawyers took all the "fun" (drinking) out of office Christmas parties, two of my wife's co-workers at such an event took a shine to each other and went looking for a suitable spot rather late in the evening/early in the morning. All the motels they drove by, however, seemed to have no vacancy. Finally they found a place and pulled into the parking lot. She stayed in the car, and he walked inside to the front desk. There was no one behind the desk, but there was a buzzer, which he pressed once, then twice, then repeatedly as the clerk was taking forever to show up and he was becoming very impatient. When the staff member at the nursing home finally did come to the desk, she and the fellow wanting the room were both quite surprised.

[christopher3393]

Hi All

 

It's very clear that there are a lot of very intelligent members of CA that have a wealth of technical information to offer. Beyond that, more than most communities, the members here craft some very well thought out discussions and arguments. This can have some negative unintentional consequences when the original arguments get lost and proving somebody wrong becomes more important than the discussion or offering good information.

 

In my opinion, this has been pretty bad recently. Pick your thread of objectivists versus subjectivists, fuses, if it can be heard it can be measured and so on. I think there is technical merit to some of the more obscure discussion such as the one with fuses. We are all 'philes and by nature of that, we are detail people. However, a lot of this seems to come down to people asking questions that don't need to be asked or pushing other members on their personal beliefs that don't affect others. I see it as negative and something that needs to be carved out of the General forum into a sub. That can be a sandbox for those that enjoy those discussions to go there and ask all of the audiophile questions that are in the "tails of the distribution" of most common experiences.

 

Would this have a benefit and help us keep other discussions on track and topic?

 

George D. III

 

maybe, but I think it more likely that the request would be ignored, especially if it seemed like a "walk of shame".

 

But I really like this thread! And either agree with or enjoy everything that's been said!

[Jsmith]

Based on many of the threads going on the past few days, I think this suggestion needs to move forward.

[mav52]

I think we should name it "Take your argument and stuff it straight into this sub-forum..."

 

 

Ok, I think I have had my limit tonight...

 

 

I'm with you AudioDoc , 'Blazes' or 'The Hell Freezes Over' sub-forum since a few in this forum will never cease to halt their attack on each other. Who in the right mind trying to learn about Computer Audio wants to read and bunch of rants by a few, not many.... Its getting rather old and non-productive and possibly destructive for the good of what this website is all about.

[christopher3393]

How about something that combines the hell theme with the get a room theme and also suggests the futility of the debate?

 

 

No Exit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[mav52]

How about something that combines the hell theme with the get a room theme and also suggests the futility of the debate?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10695[/ATTACH]

 

No Exit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

LOL , like it

[Booster MPS]

The personal attacks by Diogenes digging up personal stuff from the internet on a member completely crosses the line. It's pretty disgusting to bring somebody's work into this forum and there is no place for it.

[REShaman]

 

Enjoy the music. The banter I can do without.

Best,

Richard

[REShaman]

The personal attacks by Diogenes digging up personal stuff from the internet on a member completely crosses the line. It's pretty disgusting to bring somebody's work into this forum and there is no place for it.

 

Precisely! I am baffled by the seeming indulgence from Chris Connacker, who I respect and like, but has only seen fit to reprimand. It would appear from the response from the parties involved, that the reprimand has no teeth. I am not suggesting someone be removed, but as a member and a subscriber, I do not appreciate when another member is asked to desist but instead persists. The attribution of the comment to Chris Connacker by another member that if you do not care for the content of the thread, do not visit the thread, in my view is not the proper medicine. Jud's medicine recommended to ignore the poster is valid in many cases, but as Booster MPS articulates, the banter is insipid, inappropriate, and lowers the standards at CA. Some years ago when subscriptions were being discussed, I expressed the belief in contributing to help make CA a welcome Forum to visit. These exchanges do not favor the CA best interests.

 

I enjoy auto racing. Some enjoy the events and the crashes. I enjoy racing and the skill demonstrated in passing and competition. The crashes involve people sometimes getting injured. I haven't a clue as to what the purpose in turning away from the crashes between members at CA whether or not an injury occurs. They have no place at CA, and while I am not the owner of this Forum, I am a member expressing what I favor.

 

In support of the best interests of CA.

 

Best,

Richard

[Jud]

As we know, Chris was on vacation. When he saw the problem he promptly warned the commenter, then banned him when the warning was ignored. But often Chris is understandably reluctant to take an extreme step like banning. So let me suggest a warning method that will serve as a sort of probation, and also let newbies know that the sort of behavior the commenter exhibits is not desirable on this forum. Ready?

 

OK, here it is: Disemvowelment. No, I am not suggesting medieval torture, nor exhibiting bad spelling. This is a technique used at some blogs and fora, where the host/moderator provides a warning short of banning by using software that removes all the vowels (in English, the letters a, e, i, o, and u - I don't think y is affected) from a commenter's posts. This does several things. It provides a warning; it serves as a sort of probation that can last until the commenter actually reforms or is finally banned; it makes these commenters' posts rather difficult to read; it exposes them to a fair amount of hilarity, which such commenters usually dread more than outright banning; and it causes newbies to ask what has happened to these folks' comments, thus giving the opportunity to explain what type of conduct is out of bounds at the site.

 

An example sentence, excerpted from one of a banned commenter's remarks:

 

n th strtps v thr fndd r fndd n th by r v hd t mng qt fw MT nd Stnfrd nd CB nd ClTch PhDs.

 

Little bit of a comedown from "In the startups I've either founded or funded in the bay area I've had to manage quite a few MIT and Stanford and UCB and CalTech PhDs," eh?

[AudioDoctor]

The personal attacks by Diogenes digging up personal stuff from the internet on a member completely crosses the line. It's pretty disgusting to bring somebody's work into this forum and there is no place for it.

 

That happened?

 

I miss so much here.

[Jsmith]

Diogenes actions were disrespectful and over the line. I don't believe it needs to go that far for Chris to take action. Right now CA seems on a bit of spiral where many of the threads break down into pointless bickering ruining the experience for many of us. For example, the threads "Should "objectivists" be asked to leave?" and "How does your dog react to your music?" have no merit, and in the case of the former almost seemed to beckon an argument to start. These threads should have been locked within seconds, and the author reprimanded.

 

I have seen the following reasons put out there several times, but quoting Jud since it is in this thread.

But often Chris is understandably reluctant to take an extreme step like banning.

 

I ask why? Based on the number of threads about people leaving CA, and even this thread there is obviously many members who are getting put off by this type of behavior. If we continue to drive away the positive contributors because of refusal to take action on some where will this leave CA? The Forum "Anything But CA" offers CA members a mechanism for their rants, issues, and other off topic discussions. Why can we not force more of these topics there? Just because a topic has the word audio or music in it, does not mean it has real merit to what this site is about.

[Booster MPS]

Jud - I would agree that some sort of reprimand or warning would be appropriate. In general I tend to favor the "hands off" approach to monitoring the forum that has been adopted here (not that anybody asked or it is up for vote). However, I think that it has unfortunately been proven that adults cannot be left to have a discussion and behave as adults. Sad but it just does not work. Another option would be to enact a cooling off period when members get close to the line - a temp ban if you will. First 24 hours, then a couple of days, lastly a week. It would do some members well to take a break when they get so wound up in proving someone is wrong for their own experiences.

 

Jsmith, I understand your frustration. I really do, however moderating is a very difficult task and sometimes the best moderation can be to let the community's voice keep people in line. I personally agree that many of the discussions have little merit and that the focus of them has little to do with audio/music and more to do with how well a person can construct a philosophical debate on an abstract topic.

[REShaman]

Diogenes actions were disrespectful and over the line. I don't believe it needs to go that far for Chris to take action. Right now CA seems on a bit of spiral where many of the threads break down into pointless bickering ruining the experience for many of us. For example, the threads "Should "objectivists" be asked to leave?" and "How does your dog react to your music?" have no merit, and in the case of the former almost seemed to beckon an argument to start. These threads should have been locked within seconds, and the author reprimanded.

 

I have seen the following reasons put out there several times, but quoting Jud since it is in this thread.

 

 

I ask why? Based on the number of threads about people leaving CA, and even this thread there is obviously many members who are getting put off by this type of behavior. If we continue to drive away the positive contributors because of refusal to take action on some where will this leave CA? The Forum "Anything But CA" offers CA members a mechanism for their rants, issues, and other off topic discussions. Why can we not force more of these topics there? Just because a topic has the word audio or music in it, does not mean it has real merit to what this site is about.

 

Precisely!

 

I am posting again about these matters because it has reached a critical mass, in my view, for all the reasons that Jsmith and others have expressed. Different models of the World contributes to diversity and lively discussions and no one I am aware of objects to those activities at CA if that is one's choice. But it is divisive to justify what is clearly perceived by many members as antagonistic and derisive as dismissive of their point of view. If it is a matter of sensibility, or personalty traits, and a member does not perceive what is appropriate, then someone needs to help that member. Ironically, some members are comfortable with communicating in a critical manner and become defensive. If we support each other in maintaining a reasonable standard for exchanges at CA, lively exchanges can still exist. Laissez-faire, turning a deaf ear to expressions which alienate set a climate of discomfort and threatens the integrity of free exchanges.

 

In the midst of this fallout, one member who apologized for past behaviors to make amends asks disingenuously if another member first language is English. Another member expresses a preference for carnage vs deepening the connection, whether the response was artificial or not. Both members have a history of insensitivity to others. And look to the other person as deserving of ridicule.

 

I support making a commitment to the CA community to take a stand against the complex of behaviors that finally resulted in a ban, which occurs infrequently, but is rampant at CA. I believe there is a consensus amongst those of us who enjoy this hobby that incidents of unacceptable behavior from certain members needs curing. Threads are consistently hijacked with OT posts. Members take pot shots at others to express their POV in the guise of humor or to save the rest of us from being hoodwinked, misled as if they are the Enlightened and the Entitled. Too often any attempt to reason with them is met with further disdain if not contempt, criticism, stonewalling or sarcasm. As those behaviors are fatal to couples in relationship leading too often in divorce, here at CA members leave, take sides into factions and pervade the threads with impunity because it has been decided their behavior, repugnant to others, are in the bounds of what is tolerated at CA until something so repugnant attracts Chris Connacker's attention who dispenses an intervention.

 

Given there is room for humor, edgy exchanges, disagreement, and a variety of other dynamics, that should not give license to take those behaviors into the realms of excessive, repetitive undesirable attitudes. You know it when you hear it. Except those who seem to delight in those dynamics and gravitate to conflict for their amusement or because they lack character. Trying to be careful with my remarks. Forums are open and democratic and composed of diverse personalities such that it can easily become difficult to agree on what is what.

 

I prefer to express my concern openly. I prefer the membership create the most welcoming and free climate for the exchange of information, love of music and camaraderie at CA for this hobby that we visit with considerable attention. This represents my commitment to the community in the best interests. I join all those who want more desirable experiences and less undesirable experiences. I believe it is more about taking personal responsibility than having a moderator decide what is. Banning is unfortunate unless a member dismisses feedback and persists.

 

CA is what we members for our part make it. Chris Connacker does his part. I have been a student of Huna for over thirty years. They believe it is a sin to hurt oneself, or another or the space you are in. When I enter CA, I regard my time here as if I have invited others to my home, welcome them, treat them accordingly as my guest.

 

In support of the best interests of CA.

 

Richard

[Melvin]

Jud, this is great! I've not seen this technique used anywhere. Seems it would be reasonable and quite effective.

[Paul R]

I have an idea here. It is based upon the theory that most of the "conflicts" here on CA are fueled more by the media than by intent.

 

Let's try rephrasing "offensive" statements here. I suggest that we never use real names (to protect the innocent) and that all exchanges here are between MacBeth and Duncan, or any other two Shakespearian characters you like who have unusual names not common on CA.

 

So it could be:

 

ORIGINAL:

Duncan:

"I think everyone should make their own decisions about how Preamps sound, even if they are making a stupid mistake."

 

 

MacBeth:

"Thank you for pointing out how stupid people that do not agree with you are."

 

 

REWORDED

Duncan:

" I think everyone should have the choice of making their own decisions about how Preamps sound. My favorites are Model X, because it does not have the same faults as Model Y and sounds better to me."

 

 

MacBeth:

"That's interesting, I like Model Y better because of it's schromogifier circuit."

 

 

This idea would only work if the poster makes a concerted effort to obfuscate the identify of the offending poster.

 

Once posted, anyone would have the opportunity to comment on it. Comments can range from "I think you might be a little too sensitive there" to "Yep, that would definitely have been better."

 

The point is that this would be a more constructive way to get points across about the tone and content of some messages, presentation, or how some humor or thoughts can be easily mis-construed.

 

Just an idea for your consideration.

[Melvin]

Richard,

 

Wonderful. If I may, this one sentence sums up what I thought this forum was about:

 

I prefer the membership create the most welcoming and free climate for the exchange of information, love of music and camaraderie at CA for this hobby that we visit with considerable attention.

 

Lately, not so much. Hopefully there is enough interest in turning the tide back. More desirable experiences .. yes.

[REShaman]

Richard,

 

Wonderful. If I may, this one sentence sums up what I thought this forum was about:

 

 

 

Lately, not so much. Hopefully there is enough interest in turning the tide back. More desirable experiences .. yes.

 

Hello Melvin,

 

Yes!

 

In an imperfect World with us/you/me/they Humans-in-Training doing the best we can, that is all I am expecting.

 

Enjoy the music,

Richard