Is It Time For Moderators?

[Cornan]

17 minutes ago, Summit said:

I’m against OP moderating because not everyone can and want to monitor treads they have started 24/7 or even every day. That will probably leave us only with the usual suspect that doesn’t seems to have anything else to do all days ?. To me it is the diversity of people from all around the world that share knowledge, experience and interest in computer audio and good music that is the strength of this forum.

 

So the question is how much help does Chris really need to keep CA going successfully?

 

The sponsor section is already monitored and the music section doesn’t need to be supervised much or at all, so we have the equipment forums that need some supervision. Among the equipment forums I would say that the general forum is the one that is toughest to moderate and the one that most people post in.

 

Maybe we wouldn’t need more moderators if the rules was a tiny bit more clearly defined and well-known by all members?

 

Perhaps we can even have different rules for different sections of CA, so that we can chose levels of set rules along with theme and topic?  

 

I really don’t think it will be neccessary to monitor the thread 24/7 and to daily remove posts. To me that's clearly a non-justified action. The purpose of letting the OP to moderate the content is to remove obviously distructive posts. I agree that this is not needed in the music sections. Only in the technical sections.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, marce said:

I will moderate my reply until another time.

 

Nicely put !

Marce, I didn't write it that way, although you can read it that way. What if you just state the situation I wrote about as fact ? So nothing about you, but but someone being there as the authority from whom one can not win because of not being able to have counter data. It just is so ! Completely nothing negative about you. The "situation" just can't work out. That was what I was trying to say.

And it couldn't even me moderated. I think that was in my message as well (at least it was in my head when I wrote it).

[marce]

OK. ?

[Summit]

40 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

I really don’t think it will be neccessary to monitor the thread 24/7 and to daily remove posts. To me that's clearly a non-justified action. The purpose of letting the OP to moderate the content is to remove obviously distructive posts. I agree that this is not needed in the music sections. Only in the technical sections.

 

No of course not, but we never know before then a tread will get messed up, do we?

 

I believe in clearly defined and well-known rules. Which is desirable anyway or we will likely get 100s of different rules set by different OPs.

[mansr]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Agreed but the counter example is that people leave here now because they are tired of either the vitriol, attacks or just simply hearing the same old argument in multiple threads.

You and your sandy friend are among the worst offenders in that regard.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

OK. ?

 

Thanks.

 

Now we are this far, how would you suggested this is moderated ? I mean:

 

You will have seen that there is not much we disagree over. Not on the technical merit of matters (but with the clear note that you will literally be better at it, so please take that as the context, if necessary). Now, apart from the fact that most audiophiles do not agree with you because they will not be able to follow your technical logic, nor the books you may refer to (always the best in my view), there's also a handful of people like me who surely understand your stances and merit, but those people still disagree. Just take me as the example and you will know for 100% what I mean. Now:

 

We thus totally disagree and in each thread we both participate I will help the people who don't agree with you and you will pull more books for better reference. You think you are doing the best thing and I think I am doing the best thing. It seems unsolvable and it will leave you with disappointment (see your one but last post in this thread) and it will leave me with a kind of anger because there is indeed no way to convince you (see the text you quoted from me which talked about that). Agree to disagree is a bit nonsense which I tend to avoid.

 

We could try to discuss how to agree in the future, but this is bar next to idiot. What could happen, however, is how camps like yours and mine could be addressed by a due moderator, so we would both accept / respect the intervenience.

 

Meanwhile I hope it is clear that this is not about us (or the two camps for that matter) but that it is about the ideas how a moderator could approach this. Thus, just the subjects discussing this.

 

In the end the subjects are not you and me, but the two camps as a whole. You are too special because it is just your work and indeed the "electron speed" levels - I am a sort of special because I sure am the objectivist with clear subjectivist behavior. No need to further elaborate that both camps as a whole should be ready to accept the moderation that could come forward from this (if at all, of course).

 

An idea could be "guys, just cut it out now". Just because it is announced in advance that this is part of a rule set (TOS). When that happens, either camp -which will be individuals at that moment- will nicely stop the (undoubtedly heated) discussion, leaving the others with it. This should be fine because there won't be a solution to it anyway (or we'd have the same as we have it today).

 

All right. Just trying something. Reluctant to press "Submit", but I'll do it anyway.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Agreed but the counter example is that people leave here now because they are tired of either the vitriol, attacks or just simply hearing the same old argument in multiple threads.

You and your sandy friend are among the worst offenders in that regard.

 

Oh Pleeeze. More personal attacks / accusations. I guess your chosen name suits you!

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Oh Pleeeze.

 

That was unexpected, right ? (see other thread)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That was unexpected, right ? (see other thread)

 

I think we may have to appoint you as a moderator ?

[Taz777]

Do some people come onto these forums with daggers drawn preparing to do battle?

 

Sadly, that's the feeling I get reading many threads and posts on here when all I really want to see is how people have improved their HiFi systems according to what they hear, at various budget levels. If someone says that swapping a cable eliminated interference noise in their specific setup and someone else was looking to buy the same components then that's a great bit of information to share. Small incremental improvements in sound is what this hobby is about, isn't it?

 

I love music and my HiFi system exists solely for me to listen to my music and discover new artists that enrich that experience. I have no analysis equipment at home apart from my ears. I experiment using trial and error, swapping bits out until I achieve a sound that's pleasing to me. That's what I do with my bicycles too, another hobby of mine. It's thoroughly rewarding to end up with a product or an experience that you enjoy using/listening to.

 

I spent a few weeks building my first computer-based HiFi system recently. I got through three DACs, two sets of bookshelf speakers, six different USB cables and a box full of audio interconnects before I reached what I consider my end game, albeit at the budget end of the HiFi hobby. I love the sound and I enjoy the music immensely.

 

I hope we can post more of our real-life experiences at whatever level we're at in our HiFi journey within this great, wallet-emptying hobby.

[Cornan]

42 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

No of course not, but we never know before then a tread will get messed up, do we?

 

I believe in clearly defined and well-known rules. Which is desirable anyway or we will likely get 100s of different rules set by different OPs.

 

I also beleive in clearly defined and well-known rules, but obviously few people enjoy ruin the fun. I think that the OP is the one that should choose to moderate or not to moderate his own thread in a way that it is suppose to be heading. It is not forced by law. It is just a matter of removing off topic posts that derail the purpose of the thread. I strongly beleive that threads would survive much longer if obvioysly distructive posts or personal attacks could be removed or edited in subjektive threads.

[PeterSt]

52 minutes ago, Taz777 said:

Do some people come onto these forums with daggers drawn preparing to do battle?

 

52 minutes ago, Taz777 said:

Sadly, that's the feeling I get reading many threads and posts on here when all I really want to see is how people have improved their HiFi systems according to what they hear, at various budget levels.

 

Thank you for posting this.

 

For those who don't know: Taz777 is the OP of the Coax cable thread which has been mentioned regularly as the example in this "Moderator" thread and also the reason why this thread emerged (Chris will know for sure, but that's my perception of it).

 

So there you go.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Taz777 said:

Do some people come onto these forums with daggers drawn preparing to do battle?

 

Sadly, that's the feeling I get reading many threads and posts on here when all I really want to see is how people have improved their HiFi systems according to what they hear, at various budget levels. If someone says that swapping a cable eliminated interference noise in their specific setup and someone else was looking to buy the same components then that's a great bit of information to share. Small incremental improvements in sound is what this hobby is about, isn't it?

Were my responses to your recent query about S/PDIF cables hostile or otherwise unwarranted?

[Taz777]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Were my responses to your recent query about S/PDIF cables hostile or otherwise unwarranted?

 

Nope. My comments are just a general observation on the non-audio-related threads and posts!

[Rt66indierock]

9 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

If you only listen to amplified music, you cannot possibly tell if it is being reproduced accurately or transparently. Only those present during the recording session are in a position to do that. No DAC or audio component is perfectly neutral and, to at least some extent, every one of them has a sound. Ultimately, what sounds best is subjective.

 

The late Harry Pearson's definition of the "absolute sound" - the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space - was an attempt to define an objective standard of comparison for evaluating the sound of audio gear.

 

My apologies. This belongs in the objectivist/subjectivist thread.

 

Funny as I’ve said I spend time in studios so I can judge. I was there enough. Transparent is the same signal in and going out. We can test this and a lot of equipment is  at least arguably close.

 

Harry Pearson was a good enough environmental reporter. His thoughts caused TAS to go broke in the ninties. Audio would be better off without him.

[ARQuint]

57 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

 

Harry Pearson was a good enough environmental reporter. His thoughts caused TAS to go broke in the ninties. Audio would be better off without him. 

 

If you truly believe this, then I'm convinced, Rt66indierock, that you and I have different hobbies. Harry was an eccentric and sometimes difficult person, but he was a brilliant man, and his way of listening to audio gear and recordings, and the language he used to describe the experience, were of enormous significance. Do you think you'd be using the word "transparent" if not for HP?

 

Harry's "thoughts" didn't cause TAS nearly to go under 25 years ago—his poor instincts as a businessman were responsible. As a CPA, I'd think that would have been pretty obvious to you. But, actually, I think that your comment may be a textbook example of trolling—that is, designed to inflame and direct more attention to yourself. You've succeeded: As someone who has written for the magazine for over two decades, about both music and equipment, and knew Harry very well, I can't let this one go.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[PeterSt]

Okay ...

 

Good example again of how difficult moderation with sense, would be.

 

49 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Harry Pearson was a good enough environmental reporter. His thoughts caused TAS to go broke in the ninties.

 

So I read that. Does nothing to me because I don't know more than not liking today's TAS much (which is irrelevant in itself, so please). So, "phrase accepted".

 

51 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Audio would be better off without him.

 

This gets dangerous, knowing who tells it. (Anti) MQA behavior. Super bad ? no. Rt66indierock is sufficiently "distant". Mind you, to me.

Still no problem. Small red flag up though. Let it go ...

 

10 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

designed to inflame

 

I carefully left out further context. But red little flag grows hugely. "us knows us" is suddenly in order and I'd have to decide that a following text should be in order, me not being able to judge really:

 

All right. You both said your thing. Keep it at that, please. The real reason is that I don't think it is appropriate at all to talk about someone who can't defend himself. Besides that it does not belong in this thread, but which Alan accidentally caused (no worries Alan).

A new thread about said transparency will open a nice pandora's box, which is fine. Starting out with Harry Pearson is also fine. But keep it decent please.

 

People, this is virtual. But what I like to point out is that a carefully constructed text like this takes me 20-30 minutes. And this is not really because of my lack of English. And probably still Rt66 will be angry, or ARQuint will feel not appreciated.

The task, when done like this, is undoable for one person - I promise. And when done quick and dirty we end up with teasing away all the good guys.

[Ajax]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some do this and it’s a bit annoying in this hobby. When it comes to politics it can be deadly. Fortunately this is a harmless hobby. 

 

Hi Chris,

 

My first reaction to your question was a resounding NO, as you're doing a great job and have the right personality and "balance" to be the moderator. However, even with the knowledge that this was your thread, and that you would personally be monitoring it, contributors have still behaved badly. So your ability to influence the civility of the forum is limited, despite your abilities. 

 

On a business level, as CEO of Computer Audiophile your time should be spent where it is most constructive - growing your business and keeping your sponsors and customers (us) happy. There is no better business than repeat business.

 

If I were in your shoes I would go back to your business plan and ascertain where you can best spend your time. I would be very surprised if it was to baby sit some precious and boring egos. Therefore delegate the responsibility and move on. IMO the thread by thread approach will not work as it will create too many inconsistencies and with a few vindictive personalities on the forum it may result in an even more toxic environment. 

 

When I ran my business I would avoid "difficult" customers like the plague and would simply stop quoting to them as they would "burn" me up. I would often find myself spending my time putting out fires started by them instead of looking after those customers that actually added value to my business. The bad guys were stopping me from properly servicing the good guys.

 

Please therefore hire a moderator and simply encourage members to report abuse to him so that he does not have to read every thread. Give him the responsibility, and the authority, to make decisions with the understanding that your door is always open to discuss the more difficult (grey) situations. It will be more about choosing an individual with the "right" personality than preparing a list of "policies" to follow, although you will need them.

 

IMO you should be slight less tolerant with abuse and inflammatory language (1st warning then out). Please also give some consideration to monitoring the amount of misinformation that is currently presented as facts. e.g. "All Digital Amps suck" & "Linn is not a high end audio company" - no prizes for guessing who wrote that. This is for those new to our hobby - at the moment it would be incredibly difficult for a newbie to know what to believe.

 

I for one would much prefer to see you spend your time reporting on Audio Shows and reviewing equipment (which you do very well) than dealing with some of the rubbish that gets dished up here. That would add a lot more value to me as a CA member.

 

On a personal level it is simply not healthy for you to be continually putting out fires and playing judge and jury. It's draining. You didn't study law so why are you now a judge? Also it is really important (vital) that you get the family / work / fun / sport / hobby balance right if you are going to be good at any of them so please get a moderator asap. You little girl needs you and so does your business.

 

My 2 cents.

 

All the best

 

Ajax

 

 

 

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Close enough.  

 

"Close enough" for liberal arts majors... ?

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Okay ...

 

Good example again of how difficult moderation with sense, would be.

 

 

So I read that. Does nothing to me because I don't know more than not liking today's TAS much (which is irrelevant in itself, so please). So, "phrase accepted".

 

 

This gets dangerous, knowing who tells it. (Anti) MQA behavior. Super bad ? no. Rt66indierock is sufficiently "distant". Mind you, to me.

Still no problem. Small red flag up though. Let it go ...

 

 

I carefully left out further context. But red little flag grows hugely. "us knows us" is suddenly in order and I'd have to decide that a following text should be in order, me not being able to judge really:

 

All right. You both said your thing. Keep it at that, please. The real reason is that I don't think it is appropriate at all to talk about someone who can't defend himself. Besides that it does not belong in this thread, but which Alan accidentally caused (no worries Alan).

A new thread about said transparency will open a nice pandora's box, which is fine. Starting out with Harry Pearson is also fine. But keep it decent please.

 

People, this is virtual. But what I like to point out is that a carefully constructed text like this takes me 20-30 minutes. And this is not really because of my lack of English. And probably still Rt66 will be angry, or ARQuint will feel not appreciated.

The task, when done like this, is undoable for one person - I promise. And when done quick and dirty we end up with teasing away all the good guys.

 

Peter no anger.  I just don’t believe Harry Pearson went down the proper path for audio analysis. See my comments to Andrew. 

[audiobomber]

Equating subjectivism with liberal art majors is stereotyping and needs to stop. I am only one of many who do not fit the stereotype.

 

PS Anyone who thinks this thread is too rough should not be a moderator, IMO. 

stereotypenoun [ C ] 

UK  /ˈster.i.ə.taɪp/ US  /ˈster.i.ə.taɪp/ disapproving

a set idea that people have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong

[wgscott]

Almost everyone here is a stereo-type.  (There are a few prominent members who are surround-sound types, and George might have a mono setup).

[jabbr]

19 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I see much of the problem here as symptomatic of a larger problem in society.  And that is the tendency of liberal arts majors ot not understand science at all.  They were taught to think that way by liberal arts faculty (and by abdication of non-majors teaching by science faculty; together with teaching science as a body of knowledge, not as a methodology used to understand reality, that is objective reality).

 

I wouldn't paint liberal arts majors as "anti science", rather there is a larger problem in society of being anti-intellectual. Its a problem in critical thinking. At least as I remember it, teaching critical thinking, whether it be liberal arts or STEM, is important, and unfortunately the anti-vaccine movement was fostered by corrupt scientists. There is also a lack of respect for the study of music, art, philosophy, history etc. Probably Philosophy should be required coursework  

 

19 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

"Viewpoint diversity" is wonderful for addressing policy issue and political questions, but when you are trying to understand an electronic or acoustic device, NOT all viewpoints are of equal value.

 

Yes, assuming you are trying to understand how it works. There are also folks who simply want recommendations on how to achieve better sound. My mother doesn't need to understand how her cellphone works in order to be able to use it. This past summer I tried to patiently sit in my parent's backseat as we were driving to somewhere on the Cape. I told them to use Waze for directions. I sat while my father read the directions to my mother. At one point she exclaimed that Waze took her the wrong way. I noted that she turned right, when the map said left ... following directions doesn't require then need to understanding the physics of GPS -- but no, you can't just turn the way you please ?

[audiobomber]

15 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yes, assuming you are trying to understand how it works. There are also folks who simply want recommendations on how to achieve better sound. 

 

Defining "how it works" is the issue. What is the goal? Do we want audio equipment because the measurements are pristine, or because the sound is pristine? I believe that is the fundamental divide between objective and subjective.

 

There was a fellow on another forum who recommend Chromecast Audio as a DAC, because Audio Science Review said its measurements were great, better than a Yggdrasil. I don't have a Yggy, but I have CCA, and it sounds pretty bad, forget the measurements.

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

If you truly believe this, then I'm convinced, Rt66indierock, that you and I have different hobbies. Harry was an eccentric and sometimes difficult person, but he was a brilliant man, and his way of listening to audio gear and recordings, and the language he used to describe the experience, were of enormous significance. Do you think you'd be using the word "transparent" if not for HP?

 

Harry's "thoughts" didn't cause TAS nearly to go under 25 years ago—his poor instincts as a businessman were responsible. As a CPA, I'd think that would have been pretty obvious to you. But, actually, I think that your comment may be a textbook example of trolling—that is, designed to inflame and direct more attention to yourself. You've succeeded: As someone who has written for the magazine for over two decades, about both music and equipment, and knew Harry very well, I can't let this one go.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

I have believed since the seventies that it takes a combination of objective measurements and listening to achieve the best results. So same hobby. 

 

Yes I would be using the word transparency. In the audio context I learned it from Techtronix engineers in seventies and used it when I was consulting in the broadcasting industry.

 

One of Harry’s failings was not to recognize that most of his readers didn’t and don’t listen listen to unamplified music. A simple business concept understand your customers and your environment.

 

Sorry no trolling or calling attention to myself.