Is It Time For Moderators?

[firedog]

16 hours ago, Blake said:

I believe in the current status quo that allows each thread starter to impose rules and moderate their own thread.

 

If no such rules are imposed by the thread starter, then I prefer an organic approach and just let the thread evolve or devolve without moderation (except by Chris when things get too out of hand). 

 

I would also like to see Chris putting members on "time out" for a week as an intermediate step to banning if they continually exhibit exceptionally obnoxious or spastic behavior (i.e. opening multiple new threads in a day and responding to their own posts ad nauseam).  

But as far as I can tell, the OP can't really moderate. Can an OP independently remove any posts he feels are off topic or nasty? Seems like "rules" set by OP's are often ignored, whether the OP likes it or not.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

Can an OP independently remove any posts he feels are off topic or nasty?

 

Not normally. That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me, no matter which side you come from, as it's too open to abuse.
 However, the Sponsored forums have this ability, which is as it should be.

[4est]

On 12/26/2018 at 11:38 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

It's five pages into this Chris, and about a tie. My question to you is how do you feel about it yourself? Would more moderation make a change that you want to see, and is there time for you to manage it yourself better if need be?

 

I remember your suggesting our viewing your site as us being in a pub atmosphere where we discuss audio. Presently, is this the sort of establishment you want your name on? Are we a biker bar in the hood, a country club in the 'burbs or a sports bar downtown? I happen to like the neighborhood pub model myself. An Irish one at that likely. One where there is good food, lively debate and perhaps even a scuffle here and there from people passionate about their ideas. You'd also not be worried to bring your son or daughter along.

 

Really though, things seem alright now, but I do miss the earlier environment when there was more tolerance between "camps". As a moderate I find both extremes tiresome. I just came here to learn from other peoples experiences AND knowledge. That requires tolerance and acceptance to both avenues using my own internal compass for the usable information.

[Summit]

1. I don’t think all people that has started a thread is really suitable to be moderators so I will vote against it.
2. We can look how other audio forums is moderated and my observation is that a few moderator that take responsibility for different parts of the forum and/or time of the day is working well.  
3. I believe that most of the OT posts that are messing up threads are related to difference in opinion of one thing: subjective reports on difference between audio gears VS “hard evidence”. Some people cannot stand that someone have find a SQ difference and are demanding proof in form of DBT or measurement. If we can find a way to overcome this much more people will feel at home on CA IMHO.

[PeterSt]

IMO moderation can't be done on a per thread base. Moderation is largely about bringing across a forum's sense, ideas and level of civility. Or: how the community really is one and how it differentiate from others.

 

Generally this can be done by one person only, and in this case it should be Chris. Or maybe just not Chris because he already actually chose not to moderate much at all (it is a way of living). This is how this community has been formed by now. So mind you, today this exhibits as a bunch of wild cats without much (or any) respect to each other but without the calling names. Cursing is pretty much allowed (as we can observe).

 

In my view the problem lies in the combination of the camp that has a clear mind about how things scientifically can't be, with thus no respect to the other camp who is not able to prove the contrary This is inherently so for audio, with the funny matter that the objectivists think it can while all they can do is show nothing relevant. And btw, might one be in this latter camp but with scientific education or background, then still it can not be proven ("we" don't know how to) and again nothing relevant can show.

 

Because the disrespect is not moderated, the first camp will grow and it will grow with the newbees who are trying to learn something. Well, if they watch closely, they will learn that computer audio won't make a difference whatsoever, because all can only sound the same. At least that's what they are profoundly told. This, while the whole computer setup can - and should explicitly be utilized to change SQ for the better.

Lost opportunity.

 

This is an American forum full with Americans who want to be more free than the rest of the world. I realize that (nothing wrong with that thought either). But maybe we must consider that this forum is not for Americans per se any more. From this might follow that central moderation could be helpful for all of us. I mean, a forum with a handful of agreeing anti-cable etc. people is no fun either.

The greatness of this hobby is partly about the mystique why things are as they are. As soon as this is degenerated to voodoo, we are on the wrong Playlist.

[wgscott]

Authoritarian governments are on the rise world-wide, and, let's face it, the majority of people can't seem to get enough. There are sound reasons for this, and let's not flinch from this reality. It seems only natural that these tendencies should propagate through all aspects of our lives, and provide order and expedience. If the thick-headed gadfly who just doesn't get it is permitted unfettered opportunities to object and disrupt a carefully-constructive narrative, we need to have the jack-boots on the ground to deal with these small-minded deviants before their conduct becomes uncivilized.  Make the Internet Great Again!

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

If the thick-headed gadfly who just doesn't get it is permitted unfettered opportunities to object and disrupt a carefully-constructive narrative, we need to have the jack-boots on the ground to deal with these small-minded deviants before their conduct becomes uncivilized.  Make the Internet Great Again!

 

Build that wall! Don't want any deviants disrupting my peaceful community. As Peter said, freedom is overrated and is mostly an outdated US invention. Nobody really wants it anymore, not even Americans.

 

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

This is an American forum full with Americans who want to be more free than the rest of the world.

 

[RickyV]

Yep, make the internet/(America) great again. Starting with CA?. So stop polarization, listen to each other, have more respect and more tolerance for each other and there’s opinion.

And remember we are not all scientists, electronics engineers or s.w gurus here, CA is a hobby audio forum.

If not you will probably get moderation! And I am all for it then but preferably not, we are not children right!!!

 

[Blake]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

But as far as I can tell, the OP can't really moderate. Can an OP independently remove any posts he feels are off topic or nasty? Seems like "rules" set by OP's are often ignored, whether the OP likes it or not.

 

Good point.  The moderation is only informal and more often than not, the OP's reminders are ignored.

[rando]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

But maybe we must consider that this forum is not for Americans per se any more. From this might follow that central moderation could be helpful for all of us.

 

Unfortunately the only real power some Americans respect is a razor sharp beak directly between the left and right wings. Those for whom the only way forwards is with a steady dose of acidity.  Diplomacy and at least a few other worthwhile key human elements in a healthy international grouping don't factor in. 

 

 The ranks of intelligent users disposed towards casually and infrequently delving into subjects of interest continue to dwindle.  Chris has personally taken this up as a cause for concern.  It was promptly devalued, argued down, and declared of limited importance. Though it was nice of him to remember the weak and traitorous who had failed to stick by him/CA. 

 

Hopefully you can understand this Peter. 

[RickyV]

24 minutes ago, rando said:

The ranks of intelligent users disposed towards casually and infrequently delving into subjects of interest continue to dwindle.  Chris has personally taken this up as a cause for concern.  It was promptly devalued, argued down, and declared of limited importance. Though it was nice of him to remember the weak and traitorous who had failed to stick by him/CA. 

I hope you rank yourself not to the intelligent users.

[NOMBEDES]

No.  There is nothing wrong with Computer Audiophile.    According to some, the internet is 40% fake.  (Bots, click farms etc)  So let us keep this site human.  Humans are flawed.  They get hot under the collar about cables!  With the state of the world today a place where we argue about how many bits can dance on the head of a pin is somewhat refreshing.

 

If you get upset.  You can ignore threads and posters.   

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

25 minutes ago, RickyV said:

I hope you rank yourself not to the intelligent users.

 

interesting place and thread for a personal attack...

 

 

 

Anyway, I am American and I want MORE freedoms. You can have them when I am dead.

[mav52]

18 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

interesting place and thread for a personal attack...

 

 

 

Anyway, I am American and I want MORE freedoms. You can have them when I am dead.

 

Agree

[crenca]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

...So mind you, today this exhibits as a bunch of wild cats without much (or any) respect to each other...In my view the problem lies in the combination of the camp that has a clear mind about how things scientifically can't be...Because the disrespect is not moderated, the first camp will grow and it will grow with the newbees who are trying to learn something. ....because all can only sound the same...This is an American forum full with Americans who want to be more free than the rest of the world...I mean, a forum with a handful of agreeing anti-cable...

 

 

Say more, say more!

[PeterSt]

29 minutes ago, crenca said:

Say more, say more!

 

Hint please.

[christopher3393]

I'd like to address the content of this topic, but I don't think I can do that without being subject to personal attacks that are not even based in any visible attempt to understand the substance of what I've written. I have objected to this to no avail. It continues. The moderator has addressed this several times and warned. But with no visible consequences.

 

Just one example: "When your a Knight in the Civility Crusade, the truth of what you said and how you said is quite besides the point.  Don't worry, we got it..."

This is a serious accusation offered without any supporting evidence. It is presumed to have been well established as true when in fact I've never been permitted to state my position without interruption, disruption, and more personal attacks. If one repeats something often enough unobstructed, it is sometimes taken to be true.

 

I've asked the poster to stop and I've asked the moderator to intervene, but with little or no effective change.

 

Since nothing has changed,  I either need more info from the moderator regarding what constitutes a personal attack and what doesn't, anas well as what kind of pattern of personal attacks calls for intervention, and what kind of intervention is called for. Right now the policy seems very flexible and ad hoc.

 

This is just one personal example but this pattern is not isolated. I agree that having additional moderation staff will ideally allow for more timely, informed moderation, as Chris has suggested. This could be a very good thing for the forum, so that we can remain more content focused and /or sort out disagreements based on the issues.

[Teresa]

18 hours ago, sandyk said:

... 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 ?

 

Yes! Let's be free of Latin!

 

17 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Non sequitur. ?

 

Please speak simple English!

 

15 hours ago, sandyk said:

...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.

 

Yes, I don't come here to work.

 

14 hours ago, Allan F said:

...I don''t recall anyone else complaining about the use of ad hominem...

 

I have complained several times before. Why would anyone use the Latin words ad hominem when the English words personal attack are understood by most English speakers.

 

I am completely against using Latin terms and ten dollar words.
 
A ten dollar word is a longer word that is used in place of a smaller and more well-known word. The origin of ten dollar words dates back to the early 19th century when writers and speakers would use highfalutin words to inflate their appearance and seem smarter than the more average person.
 
I believe people use Latin terms and ten dollar words to show off. Well, I'm not impressed. Use common English please. I spend enough time looking up computer terms and abbreviations. I don't feel it is fair to make me do even more work when what one has to say can be said with normal English words that everyone can understand. Please be more considerate and simplify you use of the English language.

 

P.S. I know this is off topic but I felt a need to reply. In reference to the thread subject, I don't think Latin and $10 words should be moderated, I just feel it is common courtesy to use English that is understood by most English speaking people. 

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

I'd like to address the content of this topic, but I don't think I can do that without being subject to personal attacks that are not even based in any visible attempt to understand the substance of what I've written. I have objected to this to no avail. It continues. The moderator has addressed this several times and warned. But with no visible consequences.

 

Just one example: "When your a Knight in the Civility Crusade, the truth of what you said and how you said is quite besides the point.  Don't worry, we got it..."

This is a serious accusation offered without any supporting evidence. It is presumed to have been well established as true when in fact I've never been permitted to state my position without interruption, disruption, and more personal attacks. If one repeats something often enough unobstructed, it is sometimes taken to be true.

 

I've asked the poster to stop and I've asked the moderator to intervene, but with little or no effective change.

 

Since nothing has changed,  I either need more info from the moderator regarding what constitutes a personal attack and what doesn't, anas well as what kind of pattern of personal attacks calls for intervention, and what kind of intervention is called for. Right now the policy seems very flexible and ad hoc.

 

This is just one personal example but this pattern is not isolated. I agree that having additional moderation staff will ideally allow for more timely, informed moderation, as Chris has suggested. This could be a very good thing for the forum, so that we can remain more content focused and /or sort out disagreements based on the issues.

 

 

But (but but) you ARE on a civility crusade!  Your particular viewpoint around "social media ethics" was put forward, I don't know, 2 years ago now.  The forum went round about it, on several threads (usually these were OT discussions), in both a positive and negative way.  Your viewpoint was in the main rejected. I and many others don't agree with you.  You continue to put forth your viewpoint, as is your right.  Rather than trying to persuade however, you claim "personal" attack.  You have little tolerance for others view on this, and claim "personal attack" and victimhood relentlessly.  Folks have said I am on an "anti-MQA crusade" and I don't complain - I even admit the truth in it!  

 

You being on a civility crusade, refuse to own up to it.  In THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH following your claim of victimhood you try to convince that a change is needed, something called "informed moderation" (by which you really mean those who agree with you on civility), and how this would be "good" for the forum.  I believe this would be bad for the forum.  You believe in the righteousness of your cause, of your particular cities standards.  I don't - I come from a different city.  You claim victimhood, I deny it - or whatever the truth in it get over it, its audio.  You have demanded change and your ethical standards.  I call this a crusade, and it is.  

 

Up is down, left is right...

[PeterSt]

35 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Just one example: "When your a Knight in the Civility Crusade, the truth of what you said and how you said is quite besides the point.  Don't worry, we got it..."

This is a serious accusation offered without any supporting evidence.

 

It is dedain as dedain can be.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

You have little tolerance for others view on this

 

Say that again ?

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

Folks have said I am on an "anti-MQA crusade" and I don't complain - I even admit the truth in it!  

 

Your justification is that you admit it ?

Anything else ?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

or whatever the truth in it get over it, its audio.

 

That simple eh ?

 

You have no idea how dedain you are.

[crenca]

26 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You have no idea how dedain you are.

 

You don't like me or my perspectives.  On top of that, you find me disdainful.  On the other hand, I don't like you or your perspectives, think you $sell$ vodoo, etc. 

 

Thing is, I don't want you "moderated" away.  If you say I am on a crusade, I don't want your statement or you censored.  I own my anti-mqa, anti-censorship, pro-consumer crusade.

[BigAlMc]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

You don't like me or my perspectives.  On top of that, you find me disdainful.  On the other hand, I don't like you or your perspectives, think you $sell$ vodoo, etc. 

 

Thing is, I don't want you "moderated" away.  If you say I am on a crusade, I don't want your statement or you censored.  I own my anti-mqa, anti-censorship, pro-consumer crusade.

 

@The Computer Audiophile,

 

Was this thread a test perchance?

 

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

 

Cheers,

Alan