Is It Time For Moderators?

[Allan F]

I don't like moderation in general. However, there have been more than a few instances where trolls insist on posting their views in threads despite being told by the OP or CC that their posts are inappropriate and/or off topic. I "moderate" their behaviour by placing them on the Ignore List. Unfortunately, if quoted in replies, those posts are still visible. It would be nice if there was a way to hide posts of those on Ignore Lists even when included as a quote.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 FFS, they don't even use Ad Hominem or Logical Fallacy in Parliamentary debates in most countries!

 

Of course you won't see the terms used during a Parliamentary debate, Alex. They are used to describe the nature of the content of a debate or post; they are not part of the content itself. It is no different from describing a post as a personal attack. You won't see the words "personal attack" in the offending post. Ad hominem is clearly understood to refer to an attack on the person, when a debate is supposed to challenge a person's argument or ideas.

 

By now you surely know what ad hominem means, so I don't understand why you get upset when someone uses the term appropriately.

[Allan F]

49 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Do you use these phrases there too, or do you use normal English or (French as applicable ) in Canada  ?

 I doubt that one solicitor/lawyer often tells the opposing solicitor/lawyer that his is a Strawman argument either.

 

When discussing electronics you sometimes use technical terms that are not necessarily understood by others, including me. I don't expect you to "dumb down" your content for those who may not follow what you have to say. There is no harm in occasionally looking something up to expand one's knowledge.

 

When a solicitor/lawyer believes that the opposing solicitor/lawyer is making a strawman's argument, he is likely to reply using far more colourful language. In a courtroom, that critical reply will often begin with the phrase, "As to the argument of my learned friend...."

 

Quote

It's hard enough for many whose first language isn't English without also making them Google dead Latin phrases as well as the intended meaning of some posts by a few other members.

 

With respect, I believe that this is more an assumption on your part than anything else. I don''t recall anyone else complaining about the use of ad hominem. In fact, Latin is more familiar to many whose first language is not English than it is to those whose first language is English.

[Allan F]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Allan

 It's too bloody hot here at present to argue about such stupid things.

You didn't answer my question about the use of " Strawman Arguments" in court either.

 

It's 5°C in Vancouver. BTW, I answered your question in my edited post. The KISS principle generally works, but some people are too thick to understand the simplified version.

[Allan F]

With a moderate degree of moderation, there is no need for a moderator.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

storm in a glass of water, we say over here.

 

"tempest in a teapot" in North America

[Allan F]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is one of my biggest frustrations. Adults who can’t let other adults be adults. Some treat adults like children by attempting to save them from something with which they disagree. 

 

If people don’t like subjective threads about cables, tweaks, etc... then leave the threads alone. If people have something to offer, then by all means offer it up. But, don’t enter the thread and give adults the same arguments they’ve been hearing for decades. It gets old. 

 

I think many people who try to save others from themselves are also playing dumb. They know what’s going to happen, but frequently pretend to offer “help” for some kid who may see the thread and “not know how things work” etc...

 

i also don’t understand why people like to participate in topics where those who are enjoying themselves in the topic clearly don’t want their participation.

 

I don't know that they are playing dumb. Rather, they are narcissistic and constantly seek attention by derailing threads.

 

Sadly, the cloak of anonymity of internet forums attracts such trolling behaviour. It seems that the only way to discourage them is to ignore them. If referring to them as trolls is "labelling", so be it.

[Allan F]

23 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I don't think the subjects involved here, are anonymous. We know them too well.

 

We know their forum personalities and pseudonyms, Peter. However, with few exceptions, we don't know who they really are and they prefer it that way in order to continue their offensive behaviour with few, if any, repercussions.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

If the first responder states an opinion as fact, is it unreasonable for the second responder to point out that there are no objective measurements that support the first responder's assertion?   

 

It might be more helpful for the second responder to point out that the original post is only an opinion and, if they disagree with it, indicate why they don't agree. That may include that they know of no objective measurements to support that support the assertion.

 

That is far different from demanding that a person offering an opinion based on his/her experience provide objective data to prove their claim, as is very often the case. And it is completely different from hijacking a thread with such demands when the OP has made it clear that he/she is interested only in the experiences of others.

[Allan F]

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Perhaps Bill's question was rhetrical

 

In which case he is more than welcome to ignore my reply.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

All I am saying is there isn’t a way to analyze say subjective reviews of DACs. However if you want a transparent DAC you can find objective reviews and compare and analyze the data.

 

The only problem, IMO, is that the objective reviews and analysis of data won't tell you how it sounds.

 

Quote

So so would you want a DAC with good subjective reviews with a signal to noise ratio less than 96 dB? I wouldn’t. We can then discuss calmly how much over a 110 dB is necessary. 

 

Measurements are important. But, subjective reviews from writers I have learned to trust over a period of time give me a good indication of whether a product will be of interest to me. If it is, I will then look at measurements to see if there are any significant aberrations. For example, some DACs tend more toward a sound that is somewhat warmer and more "musical", while others tend more to the clinical. I prefer the former which, in my experience, are better at bringing out the timbre of acoustic instruments, a characteristic of high priority for me. The latter are therefore of less interest to me.

[Allan F]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

A few years ago, I got two separate PMs from people in opposite "camps" asking me if you were secretly a moderator...

 

While he many not be and has no desire to be a moderator as defined in the subject title, Jud frequently does have the effect of bringing moderation to a discussion. And the vast majority of us are thankful for it.

[Allan F]

12 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

I guarantee this headline was written by a Liberal Arts degree holder...

 

It depends on whether the headline editor was aware of and intended the double entendre. If he/she was, I agree with you. If not, it was more likely written by someone with an engineering background.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

It won’t tell me about colorations but I want transparent. I don’t want it to have a sound. I used to think I could trust reviewers but less so now that I have met them and talked them. Too much price hierarchy for my taste.

 

I my case I’m almost never listening to any music unamplifed. I only want colorations in the speakers. The better word is transparent. Clinical is biased in my view.

 

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.

[Allan F]

Based on the on-topic posts, in the interests of fairness,  it seems to me that an "appeal court" of some type would be necessary to provide a way to challenge decisions of a moderator if a number of the broad powers suggested by some were granted to one.

 

The line between moderation and censorship can become a thin one if discretion is not exercised wisely.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I think phone posting should be banned

 

The above post is anything but the product of thinking.

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Funny, that.  The post you refer to is one hour old.  The most recent "Yes" vote is four hours old.  So you are just making shit up to suit your agenda.  Again.

 

Funny that but, IMO, it's pretty hard to view the unnecessary bickering and insults being exchanged between those for and those against moderation as anything but an argument in favour of it.

[Allan F]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Allan, presumably your recent YES vote was influenced by this. You waited quite a long time to cast your vote.

 

Hi David,

That would be a reasonable inference to be drawn.

[Allan F]

On 12/29/2018 at 4:04 PM, serendipitydawg said:

"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." 
- Isaac Asimov

 

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. That is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." - Carl Sagan

 

Moderation will inevitably try & remove all the "most ruthless skeptical scrutiny"

 

Somehow, I sincerely doubt that Isaac Asimov was referring to individuals who hijack or derail threads because they object to the OP's premise in soliciting opinions, notwithstanding that they are politely asked not to do so. Nor do I believe that Carl Sagan was suggesting that personal attacks serve as a legitimate form of "the most skeptical ruthless scrutiny of all ideas, old and new".

 

IMO,  your prediction is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the context of the words you quote as they apply to the AS forum.

[Allan F]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I don't blame anyone for being concerned that moderators might tend to be harder on viewpoints opposed to their own, because I can't assure anyone that people who aren't even identified yet will be uniformly fair.

 

That's one reason I suggested some form of moderation by the OP.  Anyone who feels moderation in one thread is unfair can choose others or start their own.

 

Surely, it depends on the ground rules for moderation. Because of my distaste for censorship, I believe that less is more when it comes to moderation. IMO, however, moderation to address the abuses I cited in my post can hardly be described as unfair, and should be consistently applied. That would be difficult with OPs.

 

As usual, the devil is in the details.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

If I were confident we could all agree on exactly where and when moderation was required, I'd think site wide moderators might have a better chance of working. But since it is precisely arguments and misbehavior that create a need for moderation, why should we expect uniform happy agreement on when, where and how moderators should act? In my own view it is better to anticipate disagreement and allow users to "vote with their feet" regarding which threads and moderation styles they prefer.

 

The content of this thread and the history of the forum is more than enough proof that it is completely unrealistic to believe that we could all agree on when moderation is appropriate, and therefore that should not be the goal. OTOH, have you considered the possibility or, IMO, the likelihood that granting the power to moderate to every OP will lead to a lot more moderation than if limited to site wide ones?

[Allan F]

26 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Allan, that's a given. Every poster would be a moderator. I'm not following how that addresses or even if you seek to address what Jud and I have been saying about OP based moderation.

Cheers

David

 

Very simply, David, IMO OP based moderation does not provide a particularly good or consistent answer to the complaints giving rise to a desire for moderation or to the arguments against it.

[Allan F]

59 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

You're absolutely correct, it will not be consistent.  Would 5 or 10 moderators all be consistent with each other?  Would the moderators in an effort to be consistent consult Chris, and would people on the forum be tempted to "run to Daddy" if they disagreed with a moderator's decision, making more work for Chris, not less?

 

I also agree, as I said a while back, that OP moderation of threads won't be "better," whatever that means to all of the various individuals here.

 

The differences I see from what's going on at the moment would be (1) hopefully less work for Chris, and (2) a variety of choices, including starting a thread yourself in the unlikely event you couldn't find a couple of threads among hundreds where the moderation style suited you.  So perhaps there will be many threads moderated more heavily, but there will also be threads moderated lightly enough to suit you (even if you have to start one).

 

Where we have a basic disagreement is the potential for a high degree of inconsistency with OP moderation and a much lesser degree with a selected few. IMO, moderators consulting with each other and Chris, on occasion, to develop consistent standards would be a good thing and, in the long run, would create far less work for Chris.

 

While no approach will satisfy everyone, IMO the application of consistent standards promises a far greater measure of fairness, a factor that is a major concern of those who oppose moderation.

[Allan F]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

No, we don't disagree at all.  🙂  But that's just fine if you have the choice to avoid those whose moderation you don't like. 

 

Well, we do as to which is the lesser of the two evils. But, that's fine too!

[Allan F]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

And now the same people are using the off-topic vote in the same way, as a punishment, although to a lesser extent. The suggestion was to make off-topic votes count against the daily posting quota as a means of deterring such abuse.

 

A number of OT votes are simply a reaction to those above, with the intent of sending a message to the offender (as in, "If you want to play silly bugger others can do it too; please take the hint and stop it"). I am not suggesting that it is particularly effective, as the initiator is usually too self-absorbed to either get or take the hint.