Is It Time For Moderators?

[audiobomber]

I've seen two problems with moderators

1. Each moderator has a different tolerance level and standards

2. Some get drunk on power

 

@The Computer AudiophileI didn't vote, because I believe it should be up to you. If you feel the current system is too much of a burden, then you should definitely get some help. This is an unusual site because objectivists mix with subjectivists. Usually one group dominates and drives the other out. 

 

[audiobomber]

2 hours ago, BigAlMc said:

Was this thread a test perchance?

I'm worried were failing if so. Or should that be ipso facto ?

 

? We should have a LMAO button along with Upvote, Like and Off Topic.

 

Is perchance a $10 word? If not, it must be at least $8.

[audiobomber]

8 minutes ago, rickca said:

It looks like we need moderator intervention in this thread.  Ironic.

Considering that our only moderator is participating, I assume he does not see a need to moderate. Censoring this mild thread would be heavy-handed IMO. 

[audiobomber]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

The strength of CA is that a number of electronics engineers, manf. consultants, etc., scientists, recording engineers, and industry professionals (real professionals, not PR people) post here.

If that is your main interest, there are other sites with more industry pros and deeper technical discussions, e.g. DIYAudio, Hydrogen Audio, probably others. You would be quite at home at Audio Science Review, where you could join them in sneering at audiophiles.

[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

[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.

[audiobomber]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

You shouldn't equate "how it works" with a blind faith in (limited) measurements.

Both listening and measurements are observations.

 

But offtopic for the issues of moderation ... sorry

Listening is a useless measure according to objectivists here, unless it is conducted blind and with statistical analysis. I am interested in technical specs, but listening is more important to me. 

 

I disagree that this subject is off topic, because 99% of the arguments and hard feelings on this board are due to objectivist vs. subjectivist, listening vs. measurement. It is certainly closer to topic than a discussion of Harry Pearson's TAS.

 

Here goes my off-topic contribution; American stereo magazines and TAS in particular were clueless about great sound in the 70's and 80's. Brit mags set the standard (Hi-Fi News, Hi-Fi World, Hi-Fi Choice, Hi-Fi+, not What Hi-Fi.)

[audiobomber]

13 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

That is not a fair or accurate characterization.

Listening is a useless measure according to most objectivists here, unless it is conducted blind and with statistical analysis.

 

Happy now?

[audiobomber]

44 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

But of course,  it is only the opinion of Chris that matters...

 

 

 

So who was censored?

 

[audiobomber]

7 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

That was a question for the group - who would you have - well, not censored - but you who would you have declared out of order?   because the thread immediately went from a discussion re: the merits of certain cables to the typical cable thread -  partly my fault, but there were others.

 

So rephrasing the question(s) what do we want? what does Chris want?  

 

Then we (or Chris) decide(s) what if and what kind of moderation is needed...

 

v

I assume that what Chris wants is what happened in your referenced thread... i.e. he did not act, he let it play out. Which does not mean there was no moderation. We have a moderator, who chooses to moderate lightly and minimize interventions. If he were not moderating, things would get very ugly here, very fast.

[audiobomber]

0 warning points

No restrictions being applied

I feel like I'm underachieving. 😃