Is It Time For Moderators?

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, 4est said:

This is a specific logical fallacy. This is the short effective way of saying what they want to. You are on an audio debate forum. I'd take the opportunity to learn some of them. It would help your arguments and understanding. I mean no disrespect.

4est

 I take what you have said in the spirit that you have intended , however you may have noticed that  recently there has been WAY less use of either of those terms in this forum with members from many different countries and different levels of education.

 The vast number of non USA members are unlikely to have even participated in a school Debating team.

 Logical Fallacy is also a term often used by both sides which is also abused, and often used when the poster doesn't have a proper detailed answer.

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

 

Alex

[4est]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Logical Fallacy is also a term often used by both sides which is also abused, and often used when the poster doesn't have a proper detailed answer.

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

You can bet most all of them know what they are though.

[Ralf11]

ad hominem is Latin; not a technical term (EMF could be called a technical term); and should be put in italics (unless the Millennials have finally succeeded in destroying civilization)

 

dunno what Ad Hominen is

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, 4est said:

You can bet most all of them know what they are though.

 

Yes, many of them will, but in modern multi cultural countries a large number of the constituents that they represent won't .

[4est]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

4est

 I take what you have said in the spirit that you have intended , however you may have noticed that  recently there has been WAY less use of either of those terms in this forum with members from many different countries and different levels of education.

 The vast number of non USA members are unlikely to have even participated in a school Debating team.

 Logical Fallacy is also a term often used by both sides which is also abused, and often used when the poster doesn't have a proper detailed answer.

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

 

Alex

I've never been in a debate, nor been taught these in school. I am largely self taught and appreciate the opportunity to learn from the many educated people here. Its a chance to grow and learn. These terms are no less applicable than some of the electronic terms used here. My lack of formal education is not an issue in debate. That IS the beauty of proper debate. Your arguments are supposed to be judged, not you. BTW, when they attack the individual instead of their argument, it is called an ad hominem, "attacking the man" or some such. Just to bring it back around and wrap it.

[Ralf11]

There is a Glossary or Dictionary or Terms thread I started to try and alleviate some of this problem.  One of those 3 in a search should pop it up, but it never took off tho

[4est]

deleted

[lucretius]

41 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

In some cases, perhaps just the offending part of the post ?

 Why do  some of you guys feel the need to use stuffy dead Latin language phrases such as Ad Hominen  ? 

Surely it can be said even more effectively in plain English for the non technical members who would appear to be in the majority in this forum ?

 

Non sequitur. ?

[rickca]

Let's keep things in perspective.  Most of the incidents of derailing threads, trading insults, etc are attributable to a handful of posters.  I agree that it makes CA less productive and it disrupts the collegial vibe.  I don't try to engage with these guys because it's pointless.  It doesn't warrant a heavy handed response.

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, 4est said:

it is called an ad hominem, "attacking the man" or some such. Just to bring it back around and wrap it.

 IOW, a Personal Attack .

 Why is that so hard to say when moderating , when so many members already accuse a select few of engaging in this type of behaviour ?

[Ralf11]

because it doesn't exactly connote that

[lucretius]

51 minutes ago, sandyk said:

In some cases, perhaps just the offending part of the post ?

 

I think this is a slippery slope and would much prefer the whole post is either rejected or accepted. Perhaps a notification could be sent to the "offending" poster giving him/her the opportunity to edit their original post and reposting?

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Perhaps a notification could be sent to the "offending" poster giving him/her the opportunity to edit their original post and reposting?

 

That would be an ideal situation, but editing would probably not be possible with current Forum S/W as the time limit on editing of the post would need to be restarted (or removed?)  again, and even then the OP may no longer be online, perhaps due to different time Zones.

[rickca]

How about a limit on the number of posts you can make per day?  I can hear the screams already.  It would encourage people to make more thoughtful posts and constrain the annoying number of trivial posts from some of the most prolific users.  It would also reduce the frequency of insult trading incidents and the need for intervention by a moderator.

 

Of course the owners of sponsored threads would be exempt, and user posts in those threads wouldn't count toward your limit.  Maybe paying CA subscribers could get a higher limit.  Similarly, authors of front page articles and developers doing product support like @Miska or @hifi25nl would be exempt.

 

I certainly wouldn't support anything that might hurt @The Computer Audiophile's business.  Clearly, there are some downsides to this proposal.  There are legitimate reasons people want to make a lot of posts on any given day.  Maybe a weekly limit would work better.

 

It's a potential control mechanism that could be an alternative to more moderation.

[4est]

4 minutes ago, rickca said:

How about a limit on the number of posts you can make per day?  I can hear the screams already.  It would encourage people to make more thoughtful posts and constrain the annoying number of trivial posts from some of the most prolific users.  It would also reduce the frequency of insult trading incidents and the need for intervention by a moderator.

 

Of course the owners of sponsored threads would be exempt, and user posts in those threads wouldn't count toward your limit.  Maybe paying CA subscribers could get a higher limit.  Similarly, authors of front page articles would be exempt.

 

I certainly wouldn't support anything that might hurt @The Computer Audiophile's business.  Clearly, there are some downsides to this proposal.  There are legitimate reasons people want to make a lot of posts on any given day.  Maybe a weekly limit would work better.

 

It's a potential control mechanism that could be an alternative to more moderation.

I sorta love this idea, although I haven't thought it all through. It might cure a lot of issues in one fell swoop!

[rickca]

5 minutes ago, 4est said:

I sorta love this idea, although I haven't thought it all through. It might cure a lot of issues in one fell swoop!

That's the intention.  It grows on me the more I think about it.  I have 3000 posts myself, but that's over more than 6 years.

 

I just updated it to also exempt developers doing product support for things like HQPlayer or AudioLinux.

[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.

[sandyk]

44 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

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 the 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. 

 

You will often  see the words " personal attack" in a reply to a few members.

 This is an International AUDIO Forum, NOT a  U.S.A. style  Debating team , or a Courtroom.

 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.

 

 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.

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Duplicate deleted

[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.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

When discussing electronics you 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.

 

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

 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.

I am always quite happy to spell out any abbreviations used if asked.

 

 Haven't you heard of the K.I.S.S.   Principle ? 

[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.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

It's 5°C in Vancouver. BTW, I answered your question in my edited post. The problem with the KISS principle is that some people are too thick to get the simplified version.

 

 I like the far more colourful language bit !

 

 Now to back in front of the hot air circulator, A.K.A. a Fan.

 The rest of this house has A/C. but the one in this room is deceased .

 

AT LEAST 3 more days of this, with Western Sydney >40C and a few places exceeding 48C

 

[Hugo9000]

Well, I finally voted in this poll after a lot of consideration of the issue.  I voted 'no,' because I believe that the majority of members are mature enough to curb their own bad impulses (when/if they have them), and Chris does a fantastic job of balancing things already on this wonderful site.  He of course can't be online every moment, nor can he be expected to read every post in every thread, which is why there is a 'report post' function.

 

If you see posts that you believe are abusive and you feel offended, and the 'ignore user' function doesn't satisfy you, then the responsible thing is to report the post with a brief explanation of what you believe the problem is.  It is not responsible behavior to jump into the fray and aggravate the issue.  Or to argue for a bit and then report the other party, or to argue and counterattack and then engage in excuses over who started it, or whose offense was worse once Chris steps in to handle the situation.  If you believe that the forum needs moderators already, then help Chris by bringing problems to his attention promptly, and by refraining from arguing back when you think someone else is being disruptive.

 

If there are too many reports for one person to handle, I would say that might be the time to add moderators to the forum.

 

Despite my 'no' vote in the poll, I fully support Chris if he decides to appoint moderators now.

[TubeLover]

On 12/26/2018 at 1:05 PM, AudioDoctor said:

IMO the only moderating that should be done is the personal attacks. Some people need to realize/remember we are here to discuss something that brings us joy and while we can disagree on the specifics of the how, the end result is the same for each of us as individuals in our own systems. We're not all listening to one system and trying to bend it to our will, we each have our own and differing opinions are just fine.

Well said Doc!

 

JC