Is It Time For Moderators?

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

No, but that is a given.  Each of us to a very significant degree disagrees as to what "fairly", or "civil", or "respect" even means.  As soon as this is pointed out, most of us react with the thought "that's not true, we were all taught by our mothers/society what these things means, everybody knows, it's just that some choose not to be fair, civil, and respectful".  Yet the actual evidence, counter-intuitively, points in the opposite direction.  Tmtomh talks of a "community".  He is exactly right, a necessary condition of a community is trust and a certain amount of "common ground", which is a prerequisite for "common sense" - the agreement of what "civil" and "respect" means.  

 

So the OP will moderate in the direction of what he or she sees is "fair"...

WTF?!!?

[Music Enthusiast]

It will become a major problem when someone posts about some manufacturers product. As we could potentially have a loose cannon representing somebody's product unfairly. Or the OP could be a friend of that manufacturer who deletes any posts that fairly question the validity of certain claims. 

[look&listen]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

No, every OP is the moderator of his/her own thread.

If they aware of this CA 'practice.

Where do they learn?

Maybe long time (never?) for newbie to run across some mention of subject in dusty corner of CA 

Maybe 'sticky' post somewhere logical? Maybe in text in 'New Topic' window? Or ??

[davide256]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For the most part I view moderation as keeping topics on topic. This means, if the OP wants a purely objective topic, a moderator would remove the purely subjective comments per the OP's wishes. 

 

We will never moderate opinions if left in the right place and without a personal attack. 

I'm fine with moderating threads I start. Does the thread originator get notice of any new comment on a thread they start?

 

 

[esldude]

41 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I’ll tell you why from my perspective. If a thread owner moderates something I post, I’ll just stop posting in that thread. If a site moderator moderates something I believe is appropriate, I’ll leave the site. 

I wouldn't always leave.  Sometimes the moderation is correct about something I've posted.  

 

Alex repeatedly asks me why I post mostly in the General forum saying I should spend time in sponsored sub-forums.  Well those are moderated by someone with self interest in a commercial product, so count me out from the get go.  And I'm not accusing any of those people of heavy handed moderation.  I simply am not going to take part under those conditions.  Why would I? Not in debating their products.  Those can be good as a way for the sponsor to interact with customers.

 

I've had threads where I asked for certain topics not to be brought up as I wanted a cleaner discussion.  Usually in time half the posts were people complaining of that.  

 

I'm sure there will be some people whose thread I'll ignore if they had full moderating power.  Others even if I disagree I will take part. 

 

So if Chris thinks this will help, that is fine.  It won't fix the basic dichotomy of people who think their hearing is the ultimate measure vs those who think otherwise.  The problem with that is when someone on either side confuses this dichotomy as being equal to the difference between good vs evil.  

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

I wouldn't always leave.  Sometimes the moderation is correct about something I've posted.  

 

That would never happen to me -- I'm always right ? You'll notice that I said I'll leave if my posts are being moderated when I believe they are appropriate. It's a matter of trust. If I can't trust site moderators or their motivations, then I have no desire to stay and fight censorship. I have no problem accepting the thread owner's desire to moderate their own thread.

 

 

[ARQuint]

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

I voted Yes, although I defer to @The Computer Audiophile's ultimate decision.

 

The reason I voted Yes, FWIW, is that I think there's a persistent misunderstanding online - here, but not just here - of the difference between controlling certain views on the one hand, and controlling basic behavior on the other.

 

Everyone should have the right to challenge others' claims and assertions - but everyone should not necessarily have the right to do that in whichever thread, and whichever context, they want. Sometimes such challenges are appropriate and necessary. But other times they take a thread OT. And other times they are on-topic but people engage in them in ad hominem, nasty, and personal ways that derail the thread and make it into a personal fight between 2 or 3 people.

 

Ultimately, however, Chris is just going to have to decide what kind of forum he wants this to be, because there are plenty of folks here who view the nastiness, borderline trolling, ad hominem, snark, etc as an essential part of their free expression, and an important component of calling BS on views they think are invalid. So, sad to say, there will likely be a decent number of active members displeased whatever Chris decides here. Hopefully everyone can be cranky within the context of wanting to remain a member of this community. 

 

Exactly! Having a moderator (or moderators) will create a stance between "anything goes" and expulsion. It'll be a better option than CC's interventions when he issues a "warning" or advises combatants to take an offensive exchange into the private realm. The usual suspects will howl about any nod to civility—of course they will, it lessens their power as disruptors. But it will ultimate strengthen the sense of community that the great majority of those that visit CA want to experience.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

I would respectfully suggest that they also should extend that basic trust to Chris' abilities and good faith when picking some mods to help him out.

 

 I agree that Chris should hand pick the moderators.

Some members such as Jud seem to be ideally suited for this purpose,. as he is well respected by the majority of members from both sides of the Great Divide.

Do we even need more than one moderator, especially one who would be normally able to fill in for Chris when he is in transit, at shows etc. ?

[Music Enthusiast]

3 hours ago, Music Enthusiast said:

It will become a major problem when someone posts about some manufacturers product. As we could potentially have a loose cannon representing somebody's product unfairly. Or the OP could be a friend of that manufacturer who deletes any posts that fairly question the validity of certain claims. 

Perfect example can be found here:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/55205-mola-mola-tambaqui/?tab=comments#comment-909724

[rickca]

29 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Perfect example can be found here:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/55205-mola-mola-tambaqui/?tab=comments#comment-909724

I have asked Chris to delete my thread because you didn't want to respect the intended scope.  So you did the right thing and started your own thread.  Thank you.  I have no relationship to Mola Mola or its dealers/distributors.  I am simply considering buying one and wanted to keep the discussion factual.

[Music Enthusiast]

Just now, rickca said:

I have asked Chris to delete my thread because you didn't want to respect the intended scope.  So you did the right thing and started your own thread.  Thank you.  I have no relationship to Mola Mola or its dealers/distributors.  I am simply considering buying one and wanted to keep the discussion factual.

If all you want in your thread is listening impressions, call it the Mola Mola Tambaqui listening impressions thread. A general title will attract general posting. And I think people like to have the option to have general discussions about the DAC and the pros/cons of the design. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Music Enthusiast said:

If all you want in your thread is listening impressions, call it the Mola Mola Tambaqui listening impressions thread. A general title will attract general posting. And I think people like to have the option to have general discussions about the DAC and the pros/cons of the design. 

You seem to have trouble accepting rules laid out by an OP. 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You seem to have trouble accepting rules laid out by an OP. 

 

Exactly!  These rules were not fair, or were not applied fairly - even though everyone knows what fairness is ?

 

[One and a half]

CA has survived, and thrived if you like, so far without moderation. That's what enduring about the place. There are posters I can't stand, even on ignore, much like family, you don't get to chose and have to put up with behaviour that's incompatible with your own. Put up with it, or speak out are choices.

 

The reason moderation is considered, if there's a parallel opinion and the paths don't meet. This is not Jihad.. There are those of equally divided polar opinions that won't give an inch either way, 'because it's what I hear, it did make a change and am happy with it' or at 180 degrees 'that's how it works, science says so, it's all in your head'. To find moderation in between two completely opposing views is a challenge in itself and why, honestly, would anyone take on that extra level of stress? And for free? The battle rages on and on, and the only way is to lock the thread, although it's still possible to create a reaction after the thread is locked..(!!).

 

Head-Fi have a Forum section that's DBT free. Anyone can talk about their experiences with cables, DACs impressions on any gear related to audio playback. Any mention of challenging the opinion with a DBT post is removed. If you don't like what's posted in the DBT Free thread, don't go there. Is this section worth looking at for CA? Subjective opinions are important, because no one among hobbyists has the resources of $$$,$$$ worth of gear to test, and are those measurements a yardstick of good performance anyway? Does it mean 0.001% is worse than 0.00099%? By the sheer numbers of equipment that's manufactured, that doesn't appear to be the case. 

[Music Enthusiast]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You seem to have trouble accepting rules laid out by an OP. 

The general title of the thread gave the impression that it was a thread about open discussion regarding the DAC. Not everyone is going to scroll back to the 1st post to read the rules in the real world. So I think it's better to put that it's a listening impressions thread in the title, if that's the intention of the thread. 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Alex repeatedly asks me why I post mostly in the General forum saying I should spend time in sponsored sub-forums.

 I  only suggested Forums other than just the General Forum, although it certainly wouldn't hurt to look in at some of the sponsored forums from time to time to see what other members are doing.

 You don't have to buy their products to see some interesting technical discussions from members that are also worthy of a place in the other non sponsored areas.

[jabbr]

Perhaps the current system, as I understand, where the OP sets the "rules" of engagement could be bolstered by allowing an OP to delete posts however it should become apparent that such threads are edited.

 

I tend to post less in threads that are edited. Good to keep this all fun...

 

The current system where users and threads can be ignored is great. My ignore list is very very very short (1)

[christopher3393]

36 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Good to keep this all fun...

 

What makes this "fun"?

37 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The current system where users and threads can be ignored is great. My ignore list is very very very short (

 

very dependent on your particular criteria for "ignoring": what are they?

 

Do you consider the overall common good when you consider these things or is it just for what pleases you? What do you see as good rules/ moderation for the COMMON good, or do you think this a specious fabrication (i.e., there is no common good)?

[rando]

When this subject came up previously it was my pleasure to offer some novel ideas. 

 

I'll start afresh with the novel idea that Chris was perhaps reminded how much more he would like to partake in the lives of his family over the holidays.  This is so much nonsense it took restraint to resist marking his first post as off topic. 

 

1. Monetize high levels of input and behavior becoming of adult professionals. Paid up members gain a clear notch upwards in this community. Refunds and prompt dismissal back to the open forum await all who partake in disruptive behaviors which unsettle either side of the divide. That means less resources on SEO/internal search optimization for less desirable input and a clear cut line where moderation takes it's sweet time addressing poor behavior. It also continues on from the last post purge where notification of post erasure wasn't issued. Only those being offered reason to brighten their outlook would draw on administrative resources. 

 

2. Anonymous roving personnel with low level permissions allowing them to pause and hide sections of threads containing attacks before they fully develop into site disruptions.  Ideally allowing established threads to embark from their last known point of constructive input and failing to allow unworthy newfound efforts to gain traction or widespread awareness.  I'm confident a discrete automated message could be crafted to alert those most likely to redouble their efforts. 

 

3. Enforcement with teeth, balls, steely resolve, unflappable constitution, decisive action, backbone, etc. and so forth. Until everyone catches on and the steel glove isn't required to rest close at hand.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, rando said:

1. Monetize high levels of input and behavior becoming of adult professionals. Paid up members gain a clear notch upwards in this community. Refunds and prompt dismissal back to the open forum await all who partake in disruptive behaviors which unsettle either side of the divide.

 

May be a lot more profitable to sell the right to break the rules than to refund. Want a week of no moderation? Pay up, then disrupt as much as you want 

 

[wgscott]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - As the title says, is it time for moderators in the forum?

 

This could work really well, iff the moderators were people who genuinely do not want to be moderators.

[jabbr]

21 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

What makes this "fun"?

 

You tell me. If its not fun, and if it isn't part of your job, then you don't need to be here.

 

I find the different points of view, mixed with folks who are knowledgeable about their own viewpoints, interesting. 

 

21 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

very dependent on your particular criteria for "ignoring": what are they?

 

If I am unlikely to learn anything new, or if the pattern of the posts is entirely predictable, then I don't need to read.

 

21 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Do you consider the overall common good when you consider these things or is it just for what pleases you? What do you see as good rules/ moderation for the COMMON good, or do you think this a specious fabrication (i.e., there is no common good)?

 

Common good? Like curing cancer, or feeding starving children?

 

I'd say that Chris ought to do what keeps most people engaged on the site.

 

There are other sites where differing viewpoints aren't tolerated. A strength of this site is that it is diverse. Diversity breeds conflict but that is the cost of maintaining diversity.

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

This could work really well, iff the moderators were people who genuinely do not want to be moderators.

That is my feeling too.  Sort of feel the same way about police for what it is worth.  I've thought maybe we should draft police like the military once did for soldiers.  

[sandyk]

Only 36 votes so far suggests that perhaps the timing of this thread isn't right. 

Perhaps we need to see  if things settle down more after the holiday season before taking any action on the results ?

[sphinxsix]

As for moderation - IMO the less the better. Computer keyboards don't kill after all. What Chris does is IMO in general ok (except from removing, yes removing not closing threads without a single word of explanation ) but if the burden is too heavy it's natural some helpers would be necessary.

 

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Only 36 votes so far suggests that perhaps the timing of this thread isn't right. 

Perhaps we need to see  if things settle down more after the holiday season before taking any action on the results ?

I'd agree with that. Besides it's 50/50 now.