Should the behaviour of members of the trade be more strictly regulated than regular members?

[Paul R]

This poll reflects the underlying feelings of the "us against them" mentality that seems to pervade so many conversations on the internet vis a vis manufacturers and dealers in the audio business. From now on I personally will restrict my reading and commenting to the music portions of the forum on this site.

 

Don't be silly David - of all the people who are vendors on here, you rank right up at the top with your ethics and helpfulness to everyone on the system. Please continue doing what you do as you feel like doing it. I am quite sure Chris C. will intervene should something you do make him uncomfortable.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

XCKD today was so apt to this discussion...

 

[realhifi]

David ... with respect the replies to the poll are very much on the side of the "professionals" with a 4:1 ratio answering No to Yes.

 

With respect to my own comments; I felt that the points I put across would actually benefit both professionals and other members of the forums.

 

For example I know you are a retailer from your comments: however no where on your profile or .sig is this made clear and so others (possibly new members to the site) may no have the correct frame of reference when you make a post. To further the comments I will pick on your recent thread you opened (and while I am picking on you it is more a general observation)...

 

Now first off I have no idea if you are a dealer for Marantz equipment. The post in of itself is useful; the equipment mentioned has been discussed on the forum previous with people asking when it will actually be available, its specifications, etc. Where I would criticise you is in the second part of final sentence "Coming in at $649 it looks to be a very good deal." I'm sorry but such a subjective comment (the part in italics) is out of place unless you make it clear that as a member of the trade you would benefit either directly (from profits on potential sales) or indirectly (from a company you represent making profits). Now this was a very minor oversight on your part and hardly worth commenting on; but is (IMO) against the the rules Chris sets down for trade members.

 

The trouble is though I would not want to see such a post banned - I see it as useful information weather it comes from a manufacturer, dealer or just an interested member. I would just ask that such information is kept to being factual without subjective comments especially when it comes from a dealer. Perhaps if such posts were headed with the prefix "Product information: " or similar.

 

Please note: While the examples are aimed at you as they are in reply to your post, I would not consider you to be a problem with your posting; I feel more that it is an oversight on Chris' part and perhaps some clearer guidance from Chris would prevent inadvertant transgressions.

 

I am not a Marantz dealer, I can get it for customers through distribution. The policing of comments, etc , are tiresome and frankly I really don't need the aggravation. You are probably right in all you are saying but to be honest, I'm just not up to watching every word I say. I'm out. See you in the music section.

[wakibaki]

Do you have any specific examples you might label as abuse? I couldn't find any I would consider abuse within the last few months.

 

-Paul

 

I don't want to be the one to point the finger, Paul. It too readily becomes about personalities. I'm getting enough flack at the moment.

 

Perhaps you might find a breach of this one more easily:

 

'A Member of the Trade may not--via the forums or Private Messaging--volunteer any information about a specific product that he is selling or making, in response to a general request for information about a type of product or in any other discussion in the Main Forums.'

 

*my bold

[Superdad]

'A Member of the Trade may not--via the forums or Private Messaging--volunteer any information about a specific product that he is selling or making, in response to a general request for information about a type of product or in any other discussion in the Main Forums.'

 

Excuse me, but the above is NOT in the Terms of Service for the ComputerAudiophile.com web site. Why are you asking another member to find breaches of another web site's ToS here at CA?

[Jim Sylva]

Excuse me, but the above is NOT in the Terms of Service for the ComputerAudiophile.com web site. Why are you asking another member to find breaches of another web site's ToS here at CA?

Excellent point and question.

[EuroDriver]

We are big boys on this forum, and we should be wise enough to take comments with a pinch of salt when needed.

 

I am happy not to be nannied !

[Audio_ELF]

We are big boys on this forum, and we should be wise enough to take comments with a pinch of salt when needed.

 

I am happy not to be nannied !

Yes; but how do you know who IS a trade member?

The policing of comments, etc , are tiresome and frankly I really don't need the aggravation. You are probably right in all you are saying but to be honest, I'm just not up to watching every word I say. I'm out. See you in the music section.

David; I think you missed my point: just make it clear you are a trade member.

[Ajax]

This poll reflects the underlying feelings of the "us against them" mentality that seems to pervade so many conversations on the internet vis a vis manufacturers and dealers in the audio business. From now on I personally will restrict my reading and commenting to the music portions of the forum on this site.

 

Happy now Wakibaki?

 

Bored were you? Thought you'd liven things up and have a shot at other peoples' integrity.

 

Life is short, and getting shorter for a lot of the members here, and you can see the importance CA has in their lives so why the F...ck do you have to throw stones at something that is not broken. Can you give examples of anyone who has been "ripped off" or bought a product that they are unhappy with?

 

On another thread some (****removed by editor****) (JR4321) likened the presence of professionals on CA as "swimming in a sewer".

 

So ..... over reaction from David? Is he being silly? Has he missed the point.

 

Not in the least. Why would anyone continue to freely give of their time and help others over many years and then have it insinuated that they "may" behave badly in the future so lets make sure they are good girls and boys and force a set of rules on them. How would you like to be a member of a group, where your expertise and knowledge has really helped others, and then have it insinuated that your not trustworthy. How would you feel if you were likened to shit floating in a sewer.

 

How's this for a joke. David recently gave helpful information about a product that he doesn't sell (Marantz) and then by chance someone uses that as an example of him behaving badly. Should he list all the products he sells? In case you don't recognise it where I come from that's called adding value, which is precisely what the professionals who frequent this site do.

 

The results of your insidious poll reflects the 80:20 rule. In this case 80% get it and 20% never will. Can those 20% who voted for more stringent rules please give examples of being "ripped off" or buying a product that didn't perform?

 

I see this all too often ... small minded "little" people attacking those that have a go and actually achieve something for themselves. In Australia we call this the tall poppy syndrome - those that haven't the ability or courage to step outside their comfort zone become jealous of those that can and do. They can't come to grips with their own lack of achievement and want to pull those that do well down to their own level.

 

I hope you and your (****removed by editor****) friends are happy now because I am really angry that those that have been so generous with their expertise and time have been treated so poorly and I am pissed off that I will loose access to one of them. Without them this site will be just a bunch of angry old men arguing absolute dribble.

[Audio_ELF]

How's this for a joke. David recently gave helpful information about a product that he doesn't sell (Marantz) and then by chance someone uses that as an example of him behaving badly. Should he list all the products he sells? In case you don't recognise it where I come from that's called adding value, which is precisely what the professionals who frequent this site do.

As you have mentioned my post, I will respond...

 

Yes I do think that David (and all other "trade" members) should list openly what products they manufacture/sell. As a minimum they should provide a web link.

 

Perhaps the question isn't if trade members should be held to a higher standard; perhaps it's should trade members hold themselves to a higher standard? That was any accusation of impropriety can be avoided.

 

Eloise

 

PS. I actually voted "No"

[sandyk]

"Coming in at $649 it looks to be a very good deal." I'm sorry but such a subjective comment (the part in italics) is out of place unless you make it clear that as a member of the trade you would benefit either directly (from profits on potential sales) or indirectly (from a company you represent making profits). Now this was a very minor oversight on your part and hardly worth commenting on; but is (IMO) against the the rules Chris sets down for trade members.

 

I don't agree. David would possibly be in a better position than most to evaluate new arrivals against the existing competition, and suggest whether it looks like good value for money, or not.

It would be a different matter if David benefitted personally as a dealer as a result of posting such comments, but there is nothing in his signature that would result in members sending business his way.

[christopher3393]

Happy now Wakibaki?

 

Bored were you? Thought you'd liven things up and have a shot at other peoples' integrity.

 

Life is short, and getting shorter for a lot of the members here, and you can see the importance CA has in their lives so why the F...ck do you have to throw stones at something that is not broken. Can you give examples of anyone who has been "ripped off" or bought a product that they are unhappy with?

 

On another thread some (****removed by editor****) (JR4321) likened the presence of professionals on CA as "swimming in a sewer".

 

So ..... over reaction from David? Is he being silly? Has he missed the point.

 

Not in the least. Why would anyone continue to freely give of their time and help others over many years and then have it insinuated that they "may" behave badly in the future so lets make sure they are good girls and boys and force a set of rules on them. How would you like to be a member of a group, where your expertise and knowledge has really helped others, and then have it insinuated that your not trustworthy. How would you feel if you were likened to shit floating in a sewer.

 

How's this for a joke. David recently gave helpful information about a product that he doesn't sell (Marantz) and then by chance someone uses that as an example of him behaving badly. Should he list all the products he sells? In case you don't recognise it where I come from that's called adding value, which is precisely what the professionals who frequent this site do.

 

The results of your insidious poll reflects the 80:20 rule. In this case 80% get it and 20% never will. Can those 20% who voted for more stringent rules please give examples of being "ripped off" or buying a product that didn't perform?

 

I see this all too often ... small minded "little" people attacking those that have a go and actually achieve something for themselves. In Australia we call this the tall poppy syndrome - those that haven't the ability or courage to step outside their comfort zone become jealous of those that can and do. They can't come to grips with their own lack of achievement and want to pull those that do well down to their own level.

 

I hope you and your (****removed by editor****) friends are happy now because I am really angry that those that have been so generous with their expertise and time have been treated so poorly and I am pissed off that I will loose access to one of them. Without them this site will be just a bunch of angry old men arguing absolute dribble.

 

My sentiments are similar, also because David has been an all around pleasure to have here, a decent guy with good sense and good social skills. I'll sit this out until I cool off.

[Audio_ELF]

I don't agree. David would possibly be in a better position than most to evaluate new arrivals against the existing competition, and suggest whether it looks like good value for money, or not.

It would be a different matter if David benefitted personally as a dealer as a result of posting such comments, but there is nothing in his signature that would result in members sending business his way.

Personally I would prefer though that David (and others) were completely open about their associations. Are David's comments fair or are they biased? Well as he hides what he sells there is no way to assess his information / opinions.

 

I'm not suggesting what David (or anyone else as I wasn't really wanting to aim comments to him personally just as he took umbridge he became a target of my examples in my reply) wrote was in any way wrong or underhanded, I just ask he is open about his associations. Being open just avoids any accusations of acting in an underhand manner!

[Paul R]

I don't want to be the one to point the finger, Paul. It too readily becomes about personalities. I'm getting enough flack at the moment.

 

Perhaps you might find a breach of this one more easily:

 

'A Member of the Trade may not--via the forums or Private Messaging--volunteer any information about a specific product that he is selling or making, in response to a general request for information about a type of product or in any other discussion in the Main Forums.'

 

*my bold

 

Is that in the Code of Conduct? I just briefly looked at it, and this is what I found, but it is significantly different from what you posted.

 

I wonder if this is a solution without a problem?

 

-Paul

 

 

"b)

Except as specifically authorized, you will not: (i) upload or otherwise post User Content with a commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, offers to sell products or services or attempts to solicit funds or to advertise products or services; (ii) post or upload User Content that constitutes or contains "affiliate marketing," "link referral code," "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," unsolicited commercial advertisement, behavioral or viral marketing, or other spam; (iii) or e-mail such User Content to other users who have not indicated in writing that it is ok to contact them about other commercial services, advertisements, products or commercial interests; or (iv) post or upload User Content that includes links to commercial services or web sites."

 

[Norton]

Should the behaviour of members of the trade be more strictly regulated than regular members?

 

No, up-front members of the trade make a really valuable contribution to this forum and there is absolutely no need to "regulate their behaviour". However it should be a requirement that they are up-front about it in their profile (like the Naim Forum for example) and especially so on a site that is not specific to a single manufacturer (although some days on CA I'm not sure about that one either..)

[Paul R]

Deleted

[Audio_ELF]

Heck - just saying - I would trust David with a CC number if I wanted to buy something from him. I would trust him far more readily than most anywhere around here.

Paul, as I say it's not about David, just he was being critical so I used him as an example.

 

Norton (two posts above) stated my point perfectly.

[sandyk]

Personally I would prefer though that David (and others) were completely open about their associations. Are David's comments fair or are they biased? Well as he hides what he sells there is no way to assess his information / opinions.

 

I'm not suggesting what David (or anyone else as I wasn't really wanting to aim comments to him personally just as he took umbridge he became a target of my examples in my reply) wrote was in any way wrong or underhanded, I just ask he is open about his associations. Being open just avoids any accusations of acting in an underhand manner!

 

Until a few here pushed the point about David being a member of the trade, most members wouldn't have even been aware of that .We may as well insist that all E.E.s and related occupations when they tell us "how to suck eggs" or how silly we are for querying the validity of old science, include in their signature their qualifications ! That would better inform similarly qualified members about how in depth they need to go with their replies to that poster, but not to your average member.

 

That applies to you too . (smile)

[Audio_ELF]

Until a few here pushed the point about David being a member of the trade, most members wouldn't have even been aware of that.

YES. And that's the point. At least IMO we SHOULD know who is a member of the trade. I believe it's also Chris' "rule" that members of the trade identify themselves.

 

We may as well insist that all E.E.s and related occupations [...snip...]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse!

 

Please this isn't about a particular individual!

[sandyk]

Please this isn't about a particular individual!

 

It certainly gives that appearance.

I also fail to see why those who insist on correcting others by way of theoretical replies shouldn't disclose either their qualifications or Industry membership. (I.E.E.E. etc.) Many would take more notice of their replies than perhaps a reply by an unqualified member in this area.

I note that some members such as Ringensherre ( Peter, the Computer Scientist) and John Walker do include their qualifications.

[wakibaki]

It certainly gives that appearance.

I also fail to see why those who insist on correcting others by way of theoretical replies shouldn't disclose either their qualifications or Industry membership. (I.E.E.E. etc.) Many would take more notice of their replies than perhaps a reply by an unqualified member in this area.

I note that some members such as Ringensherre ( Peter, the Computer Scientist) and John Walker do include their qualifications.

 

I do have a considerable list of qualifications, Alex, but I prefer my arguments to stand on their own merit. Anyway, as I said when I revealed some of my credentials, this was FYI the correspondent, this stuff is unverifiable to all intents and purposes. A couple of published designs or papers you can point to is another matter.

 

All I have done is draw attention to the type of regulation that is in place on a sister website. Does this really warrant the uproar that has resulted?

[sandyk]

I do have a considerable list of qualifications, Alex, but I prefer my arguments to stand on their own merit. Anyway, as I said when I revealed some of my credentials, this was FYI the correspondent, this stuff is unverifiable to all intents and purposes. A couple of published designs or papers you can point to is another matter.

 

All I have done is draw attention to the type of regulation that is in place on a sister website. Does this really warrant the uproar that has resulted?

 

C.A. is different to most forums in that it is less regulated by Chris C. Most members here appreciate the lighter touch of Chris's moderation.

 

What's so hard about something like "Member I.E.E.E." or "Past member I.E.E.E." in your Signature ?

People would take the views of members like that much more seriously than that of a wannabe E.E.

[Paul R]

Paul, as I say it's not about David, just he was being critical so I used him as an example.

 

Norton (two posts above) stated my point perfectly.

 

 

I think part of the problem is that these kinds of things are personal- at least they are to the people that care about being here. It is impossible for them not be, given this is more of a community than anything else.

[wakibaki]

HNC microelectronic engineering with distinctions

 

B.Eng.(Hons.), Satellite Communications

 

AMIEE

 

Post graduate courses:

 

Design and Strategy for Software Test (Lucent)

CDMA for Fixed Wireless Access (Lucent)

EMC Design (Lucent)

UMTS Air Interface (Lucent)

DSP and System Simulation (Entegra SystemView)

VHDL for Simulation (ModelSim)

Voice Over IP (Lucent)

Design for Test and Manufacture (Lucent)

Introduction to VHDL Design (Esperan)

Practical RF/Microwave Design (Oxford University CPD)

 

Lucent was formerly Bell Labs

[esldude]

HNC microelectronic engineering with distinctions

 

B.Eng.(Hons.), Satellite Communications

 

AMIEE

 

Post graduate courses:

 

Design and Strategy for Software Test (Lucent)

CDMA for Fixed Wireless Access (Lucent)

EMC Design (Lucent)

UMTS Air Interface (Lucent)

DSP and System Simulation (Entegra SystemView)

VHDL for Simulation (ModelSim)

Voice Over IP (Lucent)

Design for Test and Manufacture (Lucent)

Introduction to VHDL Design (Esperan)

Practical RF/Microwave Design (Oxford University CPD)

 

Lucent was formerly Bell Labs

 

Okay, well we can safely ignore your opinion if those are you qualifications. As experienced high end listeners we would have much more credibility than your qualifiations. For Pete's Sake, you don't list anything directly related to audio. This is an example of what is wrong with engineers. They think knowledge in a slightly related field gives them some idea of how audio works. Audio is different. Different from everything else, and nothing really applies from your background from what I can see.

 

SMIRK!