Forum Decorum | Feedback Please

[rando]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There is no current proposal to sanitize the site. 

 

The end result of any decisive action is going to be attempts at razing the forum.  Unless you unite it.  

 

                                                       

[Ralf11]

BTW, some forum software allows replacement of prohibited words with &*&*(*& etc.

 

I am thinking of the apparent prohibition of the Fword but allowing bull 'pucky' in the last day or two

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I also received a message about enabling a reaction (that’s the official name of the upvote, like, etc... button)  so people can mark comments are aren’t civil or comments that are undesirable in a thread. 
 

Just adding this to the proposals. 

 

These things don't work. The Disagree button is often used to punish people rather than actually expressing real disagreement, IME. Marking comments as undesirable will be similarly abused, if not more.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Hopefully, the forum will still be useful.

There's the rub. What attracted me here originally was the relative balance of views being expressed and tolerated. Many other forums swing too far in whichever is their direction. It's ok to simply say you did X and heard Y without doing a study worthy of a scientific journal. At the same time, it should be ok to respond that X causing Y seems unlikely and perhaps there's something else going on. This forum has thus far tolerated both. Lately, however, I have sensed a crackdown on science and reason when this rubs someone the wrong way. Perhaps the more subjectively minded feel similarly offended; I do not know. Regardless, this increasing polarisation is not something I like.

 

In order to keep this place both friendly and educational, I urge everybody, whichever "side" they may be on, to think twice before engaging with those who irk them. I say this while admitting that I too am guilty of saying things better left unspoken.

 

The hands-off approach taken by Chris is what has allowed this forum to flourish. I fear that with stricter rules and heavier moderation, the easy exchange of information and experiences will be replaced by a culture of reporting and fear of being reported. In the end, everybody will lose.

 

So please, next time you feel your dearly held views insulted, let it slide. For the benefit of us all.

[John Dyson]

34 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Hi S.T.

 You can always take that to friendly PMs as we have done on several occasions, where we often came to a degree of consensus

 

Regards

Alex

I have started a few days ago, taking my own longer than one or two digressions off to PM..   That is a good idea...

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

Lately, however, I have sensed a crackdown on science and reason when this rubs someone the wrong way

 

 IIRC, Chris recently remarked that there hadn't been attacks on Science as such, and that he wouldn't tolerate it.

 

 What is at question here is whether currently accepted Scientific information is completely up to date , or is more research needed in certain areas.

[The Computer Audiophile]

35 minutes ago, mansr said:

There's the rub. What attracted me here originally was the relative balance of views being expressed and tolerated. Many other forums swing too far in whichever is their direction. It's ok to simply say you did X and heard Y without doing a study worthy of a scientific journal. At the same time, it should be ok to respond that X causing Y seems unlikely and perhaps there's something else going on. This forum has thus far tolerated both. Lately, however, I have sensed a crackdown on science and reason when this rubs someone the wrong way. Perhaps the more subjectively minded feel similarly offended; I do not know. Regardless, this increasing polarisation is not something I like.

 

In order to keep this place both friendly and educational, I urge everybody, whichever "side" they may be on, to think twice before engaging with those who irk them. I say this while admitting that I too am guilty of saying things better left unspoken.

 

The hands-off approach taken by Chris is what has allowed this forum to flourish. I fear that with stricter rules and heavier moderation, the easy exchange of information and experiences will be replaced by a culture of reporting and fear of being reported. In the end, everybody will lose.

 

So please, next time you feel your dearly held views insulted, let it slide. For the benefit of us all.

Hell has frozen over. 
 

Only kidding. Thanks for the post. 

[photonman]

Set the rules and enforce them with your proposed item 9.  I would avoid too many rules that require granular management by yourself or your designees.  Everyone here knows how to conduct themselves and should not need too many do's and do-not's.  To help manage the site can you assign additional forum moderators (after an exhaustive selection process of course) perhaps from different world time zones so the site has good 7/24 moderator coverage so you don't wake up to site crisis.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I know we’ve been down this road in the past, but perhaps adding moderators to hide comments that are clearly in violation of forum rules and clearly against the spirit of discussion in a specific thread, is necessary. 
 

If posts that add nothing and will likely lead to endless arguments are hidden, we may avoid more aggressive methods. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, photonman said:

Set the rules and enforce them with your proposed item 9.  I would avoid too many rules that require granular management by yourself or your designees.  Everyone here knows how to conduct themselves and should not need too many do's and do-not's.  To help manage the site can you assign additional forum moderators (after an exhaustive selection process of course) perhaps from different world time zones so the site has good 7/24 moderator coverage so you don't wake up to site crisis.

Wow, what timing. 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know we’ve been down this road in the past, but perhaps adding moderators to hide comments that are clearly in violation of forum rules and clearly against the spirit of discussion in a specific thread, is necessary. 
 

If posts that add nothing and will likely lead to endless arguments are hidden, we may avoid more aggressive methods. 
 

 

 

However, the posts should not simply disappear, and the Forum Rules should clearly state that the decision of the Moderator is final and non debatable, and will lead to a formal warning if done so.

[Daccord]

I like the forum. Some posters annoy me, so I use the ignore function. Sometimes a thread devolves into a tedious repeated argument, at which point I use the ignore function. I understand that you don't like to field the constant complaints, but it's not your job to make everyone feel better. When you receive a forum complaint, most of the time you can send some canned neutral response. You only need to deliver a solution when someone needs to be banned, and you know when to do that.

[austinpop]

43 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hell has frozen over. 
 

Only kidding. Thanks for the post. 

 

My initial reaction too! 

 

While the suddenly-noble sentiments expressed by our self-confessed Troll are laudable, they can still be implemented within a framework of posting guidelines as you proposed. We are where we are because the current laissez-faire self-policing approach has not worked. I know too many thoughtful and contributing ex-members who have left AS due to the negativity.

 

I vote for change. If we don't, why would we expect a different outcome?

 

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results - Unknown

[vortecjr]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

1. Be polite. I could literally stop here and 99% of the people on AS would have no problem following the rule.

2. Avoid defamatory statements, personal attacks, name-calling, insults, trolling, thread crapping, and thread-derailing topics. It's often not what you say, but how you say it.

3a. If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," "snake oil" etc., please post it in the XXXXXXXXXXXX forum (a to-be created sub-forum). 

3b. If there's an existing forum thread in which you'd like to discuss that mentioned above in 3a, you must start your own thread about the subject in forum XXXXXXXXXXXX. Optionally you can post a link to your newly started thread, in the existing thread where your comments aren't allowed. This insures all points of view have space here on Audiophile Style. Separating these topics also enables more focused discussions and enables members of the community to read each point of view if they so chose. 

The above is probably the most controversial proposed rule change. It presupposed all threads are subjective, given our overwhelming majority of subjective leaning members. This proposed rule is used on Head-Fi, but may need massaging here on AS.

4. A daily cap on the number of posts by each member.

5. Make it clearer that OPs can have moderation rights to their threads. This includes removing posts and asking other members to stop posting in the threads. 

6. Enable the site feature that blocks members from specific threads. This is only a reactive method and would require a PM to the moderator. 

7. Bring back the down vote feature for comments.

8. Anonymize the up/down vote feature. This will resolve the sophomoric issue we've had in the past of down vote retaliation. 

9. Consequences for not following the rules will include bans from topics, temporary and permanent bans from the site. 
 

1. I can agree with this.
2. I can agree with this even though I give people or dumb things nick names for fun:) 

3. Both of theses are terrible. People need to be able to have a point and counter point type discussion in any thread. Threads with rules should not be allowed. If you want a “me to” forum then start a private thread not a public thread.

4. I see no reason for this as long as 1 and 2 are met.

5. This is terrible and will cause “me to” threads. In fact, we already have one.
6. If someone reaches this state they just need a time out:)

7. I don’t see the point in these. 

8. Again, I don’t see the point in these.

9. Some people just need a huge and some just need to be kicked out. 

 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

what sets this site apart is that engineers and scientists post here

Having spent several years hanging out at evolutionary biology and climate science blogs, there seem to me to be two types of people who derail discussions and cause problems in those forums:

 

- Those who discount science entirely in favor of their own subjective “truth.”

 

- Scientists and engineers from other disciplines who feel exposure to science or engineering of any type qualifies them to comment authoritatively on any other type.

 

So yes, scientists and engineers are a great advantage for a forum - when they talk about what they know well. And of course when they exercise good forum citizenship.

 

Getting back to the original post: Most of the proposals seem reasonable. I don’t agree with downvoting or other permutations of it, anonymous or otherwise, because it’s too easily abused to chase away anyone a group of people dislikes for any reason, justified or unjustified. Anything that leads to a ban ought to require going through you from the outset, @The Computer Audiophile - even though I know that’s a burden on you, unfortunately.

 

Some of these proposals will tend to minimize some fruitful interchanges. Even so, I wonder if unfortunately they’ve become necessary.

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

So yes, scientists and engineers are a great advantage for a forum - when they talk about what they know well. And of course when they exercise good forum citizenship.

 

 

Even if not subject matter experts, I find that scientists and engineers bring a welcome intellectual rigor to many discussions on this forum.

 

Lawyers as well, sometimes... 👺

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

welcome intellectual rigor

Sure. But these days I also look around the site and think "So many damn arguments!" I (and I'm sure everyone else) wonder how to have stimulating discussions without having a large percentage of them dissolve into mere bickering.

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

5 hours ago, mansr said:

"Rajiv's massive thread" begs to differ.

 Yes, as does the MQA thread for all intents and purposes

 

Personally I see these kind of vendetta-like posts (both of them) as the worst and most hurtful to keeping threads on-track.

These kind of often sneaky and snarky at the same time posts, could imply an immediate ban of, say, one day.

This self-indulged posting (which is what it is too, IMO), is killing for the 99% of people who beg to differ with the skills involved. If not 100%, because audio is what it is, and one's own ideas and systems are always the best (and imply the highest degree of subjectivity, but so be it).

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Having spent several years hanging out at evolutionary biology and climate science blogs, there seem to me to be two types of people who derail discussions and cause problems in those forums:

 

- Those who discount science entirely in favor of their own subjective “truth.”

 

- Scientists and engineers from other disciplines who feel exposure to science or engineering of any type qualifies them to comment authoritatively on any other type.

 

So yes, scientists and engineers are a great advantage for a forum - when they talk about what they know well. And of course when they exercise good forum citizenship.

 

Getting back to the original post: Most of the proposals seem reasonable. I don’t agree with downvoting or other permutations of it, anonymous or otherwise, because it’s too easily abused to chase away anyone a group of people dislikes for any reason, justified or unjustified. Anything that leads to a ban ought to require going through you from the outset, @The Computer Audiophile - even though I know that’s a burden on you, unfortunately.

 

Some of these proposals will tend to minimize some fruitful interchanges. Even so, I wonder if unfortunately they’ve become necessary.

 

There is an error here, and a fundamental one.

 

However, anyone who has taken 2 years of physics (physics majors, and chemistry and biology majors) is well versed in the fundamentals of classical physics, and therefore easily able to "comment authoritatively" on violations of fundamental laws of classical physics, i.e. cable threads.

 

Engineers take (or used to take) a different physics than physics majors, but any EE or EE will also be able to "comment authoritatively" on such matters.

 

Analogies to evolutionary biology or climate science, in large part, are inapposite.  As someone who has worked for decades in those two areas, I am able to "comment authoritatively" that the analogy does not hold.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Engineers take (or used to take) a different physics than physics majors, but any EE or EE will also be able to "comment authoritatively" on such matters.

 

In spite of what you imply, engineers differ on many of these topics, just like non-engineers. I'm pretty sure John Swenson, to give one example of many, doesn't think he is designing snake oil products, no matter what you think. 

Engineers perspective is good, but isn't proof. Just gives us dueling experts instead of dueling non-experts. 

[SoundAndMotion]

6 hours ago, austinpop said:

I know too many thoughtful and contributing ex-members who have left AS due to the negativity.

I agree with the bold, but don't agree with the italicized. I find this is true for all audio forums I read (used to be 7, now 6). Although for many that left, the negativity was part (perhaps all), for others it was just not worth the effort, or they preferred spending their time in other ways.

At first I wanted to analogize: if you don't like getting hit, don't choose boxing. But the point of boxing is to hit. Better examples would be basketball, soccer or hockey. Hitting is not explicitly part of the game, but it happens and if you don't like it, choose another sport.

I don't think "negativity" (and other bad things) are explicitly or necessarily part of audio forums, but it's part of every one I've seen.

I admire Chris' moderation, not because I agree with his decisions, but because of the results (over the long term). If it has become an unpleasant burden for him, I'll trust his decisions and won't offer advice. I know if I had an audio forum, I'd kill it with bad decisions.

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

However, anyone who has taken 2 years of physics (physics majors, and chemistry and biology majors) is well versed in the fundamentals of classical physics, and therefore easily able to "comment authoritatively" on violations of fundamental laws of classical physics, i.e. cable threads.

 

Engineers take (or used to take) a different physics than physics majors, but any EE or EE will also be able to "comment authoritatively" on such matters.

Well you didn't go to my university, where Bio and Chem majors took 1 year - a special version with some, but not too much, calculus. Physics and Engineering majors took the first 4 quarters (a year and third) together in the calculus-intensive courses.

As someone who took 4 years of calculus-intensive physics, I can tell you how important simplifying assumptions are to introduce topics (frictionless surfaces, infinite planes, pure vacuums), but how limiting it is to stick with them. This does not mean cables have magical properties, but it does speak against the arrogance of "I had some courses, so I know everything about that".

Even when I think someone is right, I find that unwarranted overconfidence to be a problem. "Commenting authoritatively", aka an appeal to self-authority, is not a convincing tactic for me.

 

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Analogies to evolutionary biology or climate science, in large part, are inapposite.  As someone who has worked for decades in those two areas, I am able to "comment authoritatively" that the analogy does not hold.

Please explain. Appeals to self-authority because one had some "related" courses would seem a problem in all types of technical/scientific forums. I'd be happy if you'd tell me why I'm wrong, but just not "because I say so".

[mansr]

1 hour ago, SoundAndMotion said:

I agree with the bold, but don't agree with the italicized. I find this is true for all audio forums I read (used to be 7, now 6). Although for many that left, the negativity was part (perhaps all), for others it was just not worth the effort, or they preferred spending their time in other ways.

At first I wanted to analogize: if you don't like getting hit, don't choose boxing. But the point of boxing is to hit. Better examples would be basketball, soccer or hockey. Hitting is not explicitly part of the game, but it happens and if you don't like it, choose another sport.

I don't think "negativity" (and other bad things) are explicitly or necessarily part of audio forums, but it's part of every one I've seen.

I admire Chris' moderation, not because I agree with his decisions, but because of the results (over the long term). If it has become an unpleasant burden for him, I'll trust his decisions and won't offer advice. I know if I had an audio forum, I'd kill it with bad decisions.

It is important not to conflate scepticism and negativity.

[ARQuint]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

Having spent several years hanging out at evolutionary biology and climate science blogs, there seem to me to be two types of people who derail discussions and cause problems in those forums:

 

- Those who discount science entirely in favor of their own subjective “truth.”

 

- Scientists and engineers from other disciplines who feel exposure to science or engineering of any type qualifies them to comment authoritatively on any other type.

 

So yes, scientists and engineers are a great advantage for a forum - when they talk about what they know well. And of course when they exercise good forum citizenship.

 

Getting back to the original post: Most of the proposals seem reasonable. I don’t agree with downvoting or other permutations of it, anonymous or otherwise, because it’s too easily abused to chase away anyone a group of people dislikes for any reason, justified or unjustified. Anything that leads to a ban ought to require going through you from the outset, @The Computer Audiophile - even though I know that’s a burden on you, unfortunately.

 

Some of these proposals will tend to minimize some fruitful interchanges. Even so, I wonder if unfortunately they’ve become necessary.

 

As usual, Jud's observations are cogent and measured.

 

I would add that scientists and engineers within the same discipline can look at the same set of facts and come to completely different conclusions. This has, of course, been responsible for significant advances in many areas of human endeavor for hundreds, if not thousands, of years

 

A lot has been written, contemptuously, about "appeal to authority" on several CA forums. Like expectation bias, it's a phenomenon that can undermine the logical rigor of a person's belief system. But there is such a thing as expertise, in both the objectivist and subjectivist camps, and it's worth hearing from people with experience on both sides of the aisle. If Chris's guidelines are observed, I think more writers and other industry people will return and potentially enrich the dialogue.

[Iving]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

Sure. But these days I also look around the site and think "So many damn arguments!" I (and I'm sure everyone else) wonder how to have stimulating discussions without having a large percentage of them dissolve into mere bickering.

 

Just an idea - and I'm not familiar with the deep history of the site ...

Presumably @The Computer Audiophile and maybe others have thought about Guest Editorials from people who really know what they're talking about -

I don't mean industry reps or journalists with vested interests -

I'm thinking more "Scientists and Engineers" - especially audio specialists

For me also Psycho-Acoustics people although of course they can be "Scientists and Engineers" anyway -

Expert Psychologists too -

Would it not make commercial sense to pay them a few bucks for their work writing an Article/Proposition and maybe a little time to respond to Comments for 7 days (not 24/7 obv.) -

The Forum could provide impartial competent moderators from the get go and for the long-term (who could maybe get a few bucks too) -

A bit like ebay will (or used to anyway) provide a selling service if you're not a dab hand yourself -

This could really shake up the culture here - stoking up a lot of lurker and new interest -

Contempt breeds Contempt. Dignity breeds Dignity. etc

[mansr]

1 hour ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Well you didn't go to my university, where Bio and Chem majors took 1 year - a special version with some, but not too much, calculus. Physics and Engineering majors took the first 4 quarters (a year and third) together in the calculus-intensive courses.

As someone who took 4 years of calculus-intensive physics, I can tell you how important simplifying assumptions are to introduce topics (frictionless surfaces, infinite planes, pure vacuums), but how limiting it is to stick with them.

It is often useful to simplify a problem, provided the approximations are "safe." For example, suppose someone claims their car does 0-60 in two seconds. If we assume ideal conditions of zero friction and constant maximum engine output, and the calculated acceleration for the mass of the car still gives us a 0-60 figure of five seconds, we can be certain that the real-world result will not be any better.