A proposition for a new Subcategory on CA.

[mayhem13]

I propose an area or subtopic outside of the general forum entitled ' the think tank' or something similiar for theoretical discussions and the like. I would assert that such a theoretical discussion area could at times become passionate to aggressive where such topics would and bring about frequent, heated debates. Many of these have gone on for long lengths and produced valuable information for CA members and the hobby as a whole IMO. And then, sadly they get derailed and die while the topics remain unresolved. I would add that the area should be restricted as to not discourage new or recent members from staying aboard. Our moderator could assign restrictions as to post count, tenure, or even paying members only. Any time a topic pops up in the regular forum that gets intense, the moderator can move it to the restricted area. I would also assert that those that can't be civil be denied access to the Think Tank but still allowed full access to the remainder of the site. Of course, general forum edicate should be practiced all around by all. Much better IMO than closing threads or banning members......and it wouldn't be accessible to trolls wishing to stir the pot.

[InfernoSTi]

I kind of like the idea...but isn't that what PMs are for on the one hand and the discussion on the "regular" categories on the other hand? Not sure why it needs it's own category except to be able to exclude some from participation...and we already have that moderation.

 

Best,

John

[Superdad]

....and it wouldn't be accessible to trolls wishing to stir the pot.

 

Who and how would it be decided just who the trolls are? We might need a sub-sub-forum just to argue about who should be allowed access. I can see it now: We position members along a spectrum and ban those at both extremes, leaving just us moderates .

 

Sorry, but while I like the idea of a separate forum for just ideas, theories, and other stuff that does not necessarily translate into real-world, physical audio system "things" and tweaks, I thing the notion of restricting access is neither practical nor desired.

[wgscott]

I think this is a great idea. In addition, all participants should have to reveal their full name, social security number (or foreign-bastard equivalent), bank account numbers, and their income tax returns from the last five years.

[sdolezalek]

What I actually like about Mayhem's idea (and one might question whether he himself gets included or excluded -- whenever he lives up to his moniker) is that if you think about a thread like the current "Are we just kidding ourselves" post; there is a huge amount of extremely valuable, even if sometimes technically way over my head, stuff in there, but just in the last couple of days it has wandered off track. Keeping it (and other threads like it) focused on just the technical arguments on both sides makes for great reading.

[mayhem13]

I gave some examples of those would have access but my own submission would be tenured members. Threads wouldn't originate there but be moved there by the moderator instead of being closed or edited. Those that violate the terms of civility with threads of the think tank could have future access denied. No more need for the ignore feature or derailed threads.

 

Trolls.......those that join forums for the sake of starting threads that result in combative discussion. Usually low post counts indicating purposeful new membership. They could certainly start threads within the general forum, but once moved to the think tank if they became intense could no longer view or participate.........defeating the purpose in the first place.

 

Again, no censorship, sharing of personal information or revealing or relying on credentials......one's ability to convey their position in an educated manner is all that is required.

[mayhem13]

Who and how would it be decided just who the trolls are? We might need a sub-sub-forum just to argue about who should be allowed access. I can see it now: We position members along a spectrum and ban those at both extremes, leaving just us moderates .

 

Sorry, but while I like the idea of a separate forum for just ideas, theories, and other stuff that does not necessarily translate into real-world, physical audio system "things" and tweaks, I thing the notion of restricting access is neither practical nor desired.

 

You're afraid there's no room for subjectivity in such a place huh? Well this hobby of ours is built on subjectivity as much as one prefers the taste of chicken or beef. How can anyone argue which tastes better? There's certainly room for subjectivity in a theoretical discussion.....but those supporting their theories with subjectivity alone better bring their A game........it's not a sturdy position to stand on by itself.

[sandyk]

.....but those supporting their theories with subjectivity alone better bring their A game........it's not a sturdy position to stand on by itself.

 

It's starting to sound like a little Elitist area for those who don't sit too well with the "Audiophile" in the name of this forum.

[sdolezalek]

It's starting to sound like a little Elitist area for those who don't sit too well with the "Audiophile" in the name of this forum.

 

When did "content rich" become "elitist"?

 

The way I see it, there are those who have strong opinions and have clearly enough voiced those opinions -- DONE. You have just done that with this thread.

 

Then there are others who provide new information that has the potential to change opinions -- that's what is valuable. How adding value and new ideas to a discussion makes it elitist is beyond me. In my business, we have a saying about the best entrepreneurs: "Their ideas are strongly advocated but loosely held."

[Encore]

It would have the advantage of uncluttering the What's New page from the endless discussions about placebo et cetera, which are the reason that I find myself checking the CA forum less often--seems like deja vu every time I do.

[sandyk]

.....but those supporting their theories with subjectivity alone better bring their A game........it's not a sturdy position to stand on by itself.

 

The sentence above that I quoted from Mayhem13 suggests strongly that is intended to be a boy's club for people like himself and you. Subjective reports are clearly not welcomed unless they come with suitable acceptable proof, which most here realise is damn nigh impossible to provide. I can fully understand Superdad's concerns too.

 

It would have the advantage of uncluttering the What's New page from the endless discussions about placebo et cetera

The words "endless discussions about Placebo et cetera" are also a dead set indicator why certain members want this boys' club where they call the shots about who, and what content will b e welcome.

It's called CENSORSHIP. of opposing views to those of "The Establishment"

i.e. Professional Engineers etc.

[Encore]

The words "endless discussions about Placebo et cetera" are also a dead set indicator why certain members want this boys' club where they call the shots about who, and what content will b e welcome.

It's called CENSORSHIP. of opposing views to those of "The Establishment"

i.e. Professional Engineers etc.

 

Yes, you have a point. And in fact, I do think we need the discussions. It's just that they are o very little practical value for actually getting good sound.

 

So how about this: On the What's New page, a separate box is created for ongoing discussions of a more philosophical character. The links to these discussions should be open to everyone. When a discussion moves along the same ol' lines of discussing placebo or real differences, Chris moves the discussion to this box. Thus uncluttering the What's New page.

[mayhem13]

The sentence above that I quoted from Mayhem13 suggests strongly that is intended to be a boy's club for people like himself and you. Subjective reports are clearly not welcomed unless they come with suitable acceptable proof, which most here realise is damn nigh impossible to provide. I can fully understand Superdad's concerns too.

 

 

The words "endless discussions about Placebo et cetera" are also a dead set indicator why certain members want this boys' club where they call the shots about who, and what content will b e welcome.

It's called CENSORSHIP. of opposing views to those of "The Establishment"

i.e. Professional Engineers etc.

 

And you quite unfairly edited me for your quote. I deserve an apology if you wish for me to respect your integrity going forward. Opinions are one thing......this, quite another.

[sandyk]

Anthony

I apologise.

I should have attributed the last paragraph in my reply to Encore.

I doubt that some members see your suggestion as for any more than an exclusive boys' area, which I don't personally believe is your intention. You appear to be seeking "deep and meaningful discussions", but without the usual childish behaviour that we all engage in from time to time, with taking of sides.

We don't need that other "them and us" scenario with entry approval required. There is already a place for that, and it's called Hydrogen Audio.

 

Regards

Alex

[beanbag]

Headfi has a forum called "sound science" for technical discussions, where it appears they have a special set of more strict rules for discussion, and also a link to a section on "how to disagree".

 

It mostly points out "wrong" ways to discuss topic, such as making ad hominem remarks, responding to the "tone" of a post, etc.

 

example from their posting guidelines:

 

 

Avoid getting personal. Do not make personal attacks, even veiled ones, such as "All people who believe X are deluded.", "All people who can't hear the difference must be deaf.", "This will be fine for people without hearing problems." etc. If you disagree with someone's opinion, discuss the opinion, not the person. Likewise, avoid weasel or derogatory words such as shill, fanboy, koolaid, audiophool, snakeoil, etc. You'll look like a troll and your post will likely be deleted.

 

A good tip is: When you start posting about the member ("You ...") instead of the product or discussion about it, then you're getting personal."

[sandyk]

From what I have seen of Jude's commercial operation, it doesn't appear to have lifted the game too much.

Say anything unfavourable about an advertiser's product, or point out a design flaw and you are likely to be banned too.

[PeterSt]

I don't think this can work;

 

Almost all threads start out for good reason but even more threads die of not being able to stay on topic. So my promise : all threads will end up in that new section. One difference : Those who are still not in there are still worth while following.

But it looks impossible to moderate such thing.

 

The real solution is strong moderation about staying on topic. So just that. This doesn't require high qualified engineers etc. as the only ones to participate in the threads. Everybody can, and not making much sense is no crime (plus who decides what's sense in what context).

What IS a crime is me starting a subject about super smooth reel to reel capstans which dear Alex manages to turn into fine rips. Such guy should be banned for at least some cooling off period.

But since this is not about guys only, the Teresa's with ever reoccurring lists of SACDs should also be banned when originally it were about reel to reel.

Of course I should be banned as the first because I am posting that reel to reel subject in the D/A section. The reason could be "sheer stupidity".

 

I hope I put it all in balance somewhat, but it is about these kind of things, me thinks.

 

The most difficult part will be about reoccurring subjects which are related to the original subject and of which it seems legit to deal with it for the 100th time. But it is not legit because there's already a thread for that, no matter it is old.

 

I could also say : The behavior I see is like a loose bunch of happy talk which clogs up the real thing so much with 955 posts out of 900 useful, that nobody is able to digest the thread to begin with after being late 2 days. Such thread should be 55 posts and that is doable. And you know what ? even after 20 days and 550 posts it is doable because now all is interesting. Today ? today after the 5th post someone starts about the weather which obviously generates 20 more posts within the hour, but I can't see where the shit stops so I stop bothering at all.

But I *also* stop bothering in attempts from my side to be informative because I can see that others will suffer from the same issue so who is going to read it anyway.

 

At this stage it is all not so easy any more; it seems too late and the attitudes are there by now.

Hey, I'm tempted to higher my post count by responding with an "OMG" to each post I see unrelated. If more people concur with the idea they could all start doing that. It could help.

But it is not me who can decide that, although it won't be against any forum rules either that I know of.

 

Peter

[sandyk]

The most difficult part will be about reoccurring subjects which are related to the original subject and of which it seems legit to deal with it for the 100th time. But it is not legit because there's already a thread for that, no matter it is old.

O.K. Then how about every time somebody posts that power supplies and the writer used makes no difference to the resulting SQ of the rip, I post a link to a particular thread that is around 5 years old ? (grin) .

[InfernoSTi]

One of the good things about CA is that it lets the EE types mix with the CE types, the Audio Pro types, and the Audiophile types. It also lets the expert and the novice mix. Imagine if Barry Diament only spoke with professional audio engineers of his level of expertise? The value is that he shares his knowledge and point of view with folks of all types and all levels of (or lack of) expertise. Sure it's mundane at times but finding the diamonds in the threads is worth it. Besides, without a little "off topic" venting, there can be some ugly moments.

 

I wonder what NEW information would be generated by such a subcategory that ISN'T already being generated?

 

Best,

John

[Jud]

The real solution is strong moderation about staying on topic. So just that. This doesn't require high qualified engineers etc. as the only ones to participate in the threads. Everybody can, and not making much sense is no crime (plus who decides what's sense in what context).

 

Peter

 

Current CA forum rules as I understand them essentially allow the person who started the thread to moderate it. So this all depends on the energy the OP is willing to put into moderating the thread. I think, mayhem and Peter, that perhaps you will want to try to start threads with your desired topics, moderate to your taste, and see what happens. (I do notice when I started a thread about what makes a good filter, it died pretty quickly. Peter was the only "technical" person to respond, and for non-technical folks, maybe not enough controversy?)

[sandyk]

Jud

My understanding was that the OP moderation only applied to Blogs.

Alex

[mav52]

I propose an area or subtopic outside of the general forum entitled ' the think tank' or something similiar for theoretical discussions and the like. I would assert that such a theoretical discussion area could at times become passionate to aggressive where such topics would and bring about frequent, heated debates. Many of these have gone on for long lengths and produced valuable information for CA members and the hobby as a whole IMO. And then, sadly they get derailed and die while the topics remain unresolved. I would add that the area should be restricted as to not discourage new or recent members from staying aboard. Our moderator could assign restrictions as to post count, tenure, or even paying members only. Any time a topic pops up in the regular forum that gets intense, the moderator can move it to the restricted area. I would also assert that those that can't be civil be denied access to the Think Tank but still allowed full access to the remainder of the site. Of course, general forum edicate should be practiced all around by all. Much better IMO than closing threads or banning members......and it wouldn't be accessible to trolls wishing to stir the pot.

 

These words come to mind from your post

 

restricted

Our moderator

assign restrictions as to post count, tenure, or even paying members only

wouldn't be accessible to trolls

 

Well, who deems whom is restricted,

Who is the chosen one of Moderator,

What is the post count allowed number,

Who decides on tenure, as there are a number of vendor types with low post counts

Regarding paying members , since these members pay to support the site, they should be allowed anywhere on this site.

Who decides when a person is a troll , heck some existing members take up trolling habits by bickering with other members and also stir the pot.

 

 

Just wondering

[Jud]

Jud

My understanding was that the OP moderation only applied to Blogs.

Alex

 

It could well be that you're right. But perhaps folks would respond politely to a polite request from the OP and so we could put this into effect for ourselves if desired.

[Allan F]

Sorry, but IMO

 

[esldude]

Not sure what you have in mind exactly for this new sub-forum.

 

As someone mentioned, head-fi has the Sound Science section. It tends to be pretty quiet. Mostly because as someone once said, Science buried most of the audio unicorns long ago, and high end audio is mostly unicorns.

 

I do understand your frustration. A good example is Teresa. You offer up analog based clear cut examples of how digital audio works which are not the way she thinks it works. Get called scum for the effort and she still doesn't believe it. How do you have a worthwhile dialogue under those conditions? I suspect solving this issue is what you have in mind. If I am on the right track as to your aims, and you could provide some better idea of how to solve that issue it would be helpful.

 

Right now I am a bit fuzzy on the character of your proposed sub-forum and how it would be policed.