Forum Decorum | Feedback Please

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

When I dread reading my own AS emails in the morning and feel a sense of ease reading the Album of the Evening notifications in my inbox, things have gone off the rails. I know that if I'm fed up with arguments and incivility, the members of the community must be well beyond this. Something must change. 

 

Over the last week or so, I've exchanged emails with several members of the AS community about how to curtail undesirable discussions. The feedback has been excellent and from all sides of the issue. With this post, I'm asking for feedback from the community about proposed rule / feature changes to the site. 

 

The goal of these changes is to increase people's enjoyment of this wonderful HiFi hobby. To do this the changes should curtail incivility, encourage lurkers to post, stop "thread-crapping", and separate discussions that generate unwanted comments and arguments. I wish I could just ask everyone to be a decent human being, but that just doesn't seem to work. We all have different definitions of decency. 

 

I want to stop subjective threads from receiving unwanted comments. 

I want to stop objective threads from receiving unwanted comments. 

I want to encourage people to post both types of comments in threads where this is wanted. 

I want to stop posts that are made for the sport of online arguing.

 

Here are some proposals. Please provide feedback.

 

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. 

 

 

Again, these are proposals. All rules / features have unintended consequences. Please provide feedback and any other proposals you see fit. 

In theory, this is a great idea. But the reality would be quite different. I’m specifically talking here about the two proposals where subjective and objective threads are enjoined from having unwanted comments. This would encourage, in my estimation, threads that are merely “preaching to the choir”. Can you imagine, for instance a Presidential debate where everyone on either side of the political line agree 100% of the time on every issue? Actually this would apply to any debate. It would be incredibly boring. No one would watch such a debate, because it wouldn’t be a debate, it would just be a mutual admiration society, and who would want to read that? No; the essence of a forum such as this one is the free exchange of ideas. Without that, this forum would become lifeless, devoid of interest, and totally stagnate.

I used to contribute to a moderated audio forum on Usenet, and I found it to be a pain in the neck. The reason is that the moderators saw themselves as little Napoleons, with absolute power over what got posted. This power was colored by the moderator’s own ideas of what they, themselves wanted to see posted. They heavily censored those posters who’s point of view with which they did not agree, and they allowed practically anything to get posted from those contributors with whom they did agree. I’m all for a forum that is “a kinder, gentler forum”. But I would hate to see it turn into a moderated forum where every post had to be approved before showing up on the thread. Not only is that a recipe for stagnation,

censorship and partisanism, but more importantly, it’s a recipe for a downward spiral into boredom. My advice is to tread here carefully.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Sounds like no matter what, I agree with your general attitude..  The question is?  How much to actually implement, and how much to 'threaten'?

 

 I agree in general with what John has said in his post, but also wonder about the need for Section 3 if members follow the spirit of the changes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

In theory, this is a great idea. But the reality would be quite different. I’m specifically talking here about the two proposals where subjective and objective threads are enjoined from having unwanted comments. This would encourage, in my estimation, threads that are merely “preaching to the choir”. Can you imagine, for instance a Presidential debate where everyone on either side of the political line agree 100% of the time on every issue? Actually this would apply to any debate. It would be incredibly boring. No one would watch such a debate, because it wouldn’t be a debate, it would just be a mutual admiration society, and who would want to read that? No; the essence of a forum such as this one is the free exchange of ideas. Without that, this forum would become lifeless, devoid of interest, and totally stagnate.

I used to contribute to a moderated audio forum on Usenet, and I found it to be a pain in the neck. The reason is that the moderators saw themselves as little Napoleons, with absolute power over what got posted. This power was colored by the moderator’s own ideas of what they, themselves wanted to see posted. They heavily censored those posters who’s point of view with which they did not agree, and they allowed practically anything to get posted from those contributors with whom they did agree. I’m all for a forum that is “a kinder, gentler forum”. But I would hate to see it turn into a moderated forum where every post had to be approved before showing up on the thread. Not only is that a recipe for stagnation,

censorship and partisanism, but more importantly, it’s a recipe for a downward spiral into boredom. My advice is to tread here carefully.

HI George - Fortunately, there is a proposal for threads containing all sides of issues as well and this isn't a Presidential debate. There's a reason why cable news networks skew toward one side or the other, people have preference and like to listen to others who think along the same lines. Same with genres. People don't want a Country track mixed into the Classical playlist. 

 

That said, I hear what you're saying and hope, if we go down this route, that most posts will contain information from everyone. 

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

In theory, this is a great idea. But the reality would be quite different. I’m specifically talking here about the two proposals where subjective and objective threads are enjoined from having unwanted comments. This would encourage, in my estimation, threads that are merely “preaching to the choir”. Can you imagine, for instance a Presidential debate where everyone on either side of the political line agree 100% of the time on every issue? Actually this would apply to any debate. It would be incredibly boring. No one would watch such a debate, because it wouldn’t be a debate, it would just be a mutual admiration society, and who would want to read that? No; the essence of a forum such as this one is the free exchange of ideas. Without that, this forum would become lifeless, devoid of interest, and totally stagnate.

I used to contribute to a moderated audio forum on Usenet, and I found it to be a pain in the neck. The reason is that the moderators saw themselves as little Napoleons, with absolute power over what got posted. This power was colored by the moderator’s own ideas of what they, themselves wanted to see posted. They heavily censored those posters who’s point of view with which they did not agree, and they allowed practically anything to get posted from those contributors with whom they did agree. I’m all for a forum that is “a kinder, gentler forum”. But I would hate to see it turn into a moderated forum where every post had to be approved before showing up on the thread. Not only is that a recipe for stagnation,

censorship and partisanism, but more importantly, it’s a recipe for a downward spiral into boredom. My advice is to tread here carefully.

A thoughtful post , very well stated George

.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I agree in general with what John has said in his post, but also wonder about the need for Section 3 if members follow the spirit of the changes.

Hi Alex - I think this is a belt and suspenders type of thing and it makes sure there is a place for everything here on AS. 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

In theory, this is a great idea. But the reality would be quite different. I’m specifically talking here about the two proposals where subjective and objective threads are enjoined from having unwanted comments. This would encourage, in my estimation, threads that are merely “preaching to the choir”.

A while ago, I suggested adding an Echo Chamber section where disagreeing with the OP of any thread would be forbidden. Why not do it and see what happens?

[sandyk]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Alex - I think this is a belt and suspenders type of thing and it makes sure there is a place for everything here on AS. 

 Chris

 I am also concerned about what George has said about Preaching to the Choir type threads.

 By their very nature, the vast majority of them are not destined to become more than short threads before ending up diverging way off topic to keep them alive. 

 There is nothing stopping members from starting a Blog on any subject .

 

Alex.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

A while ago, I suggested adding an Echo Chamber section where disagreeing with the OP of any thread would be forbidden. Why not do it and see what happens?

I believe we got to where we are because of people pestering others with frequent comments in many threads. If everyone was polite and respectful we'd have no need for any of this. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 Chris

 I am also concerned about what George has said about Preaching to the Choir type threads.

 By their very nature, the vast majority of them are not destined to become more than short threads before ending up diverging way off topic to keep them alive. 

 There is nothing stopping members from starting a Blog on any subject .

 

Alex.

The data doesn't backup your concern. 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 I am also concerned about what George has said about Preaching to the Choir type threads.

 By their very nature, the vast majority of them are not destined to become more than short threads before ending up diverging way off topic to keep them alive. 

"Rajiv's massive thread" begs to differ.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

A while ago, I suggested adding an Echo Chamber section where disagreeing with the OP of any thread would be forbidden. Why not do it and see what happens?

 

That is complete Censorship, and there is nothing stopping member writing technical treatises etc. in a Blog.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

"Rajiv's massive thread" begs to differ.

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

 

 

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

HI George - Fortunately, there is a proposal for threads containing all sides of issues as well and this isn't a Presidential debate. There's a reason why cable news networks skew toward one side or the other, people have preference and like to listen to others who think along the same lines. Same with genres. People don't want a Country track mixed into the Classical playlist. 

 

That said, I hear what you're saying and hope, if we go down this route, that most posts will contain information from everyone. 

While I hear what you are saying, and agree that when a subject is controversial, people like to hear their side of the controversy supported by some authority such as a news network. But that’s because these news people are thought of as “authorities” and people gather comfort from knowing that there are authorities on the subject that agree with them. This is a forum of peers, and while many contributors here are authorities in their respective fields, they do not post here from any exalted position. They’re merely fellow enthusiasts and can be debated with. You and I can’t debate the celebrities on the cable news channels, so instead, we pick the cable news channel that best represents our point of view. That doesn’t apply on a public Internet forum. And, finally, my use of a presidential debate was not intended as parallel example to this situation, but rather to express the point that what makes these debates interesting is that the participants have, often, wildly different points of view on the same subjects, and the way each responds to the other’s ideas is what makes them fascinating and entertaining.

 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I believe we got to where we are because of people pestering others with frequent comments in many threads. If everyone was polite and respectful we'd have no need for any of this. 

What I suggested is basically your #3 but applied only to that section. If the proposed name offends you, feel free to call it Civility Corner or Snowflake Sanctuary instead.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Snowflake Sanctuary instead.

 This kind of remark is exactly why we have so many problems already .

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

While I hear what you are saying, and agree that when a subject is controversial, people like to hear their side of the controversy supported by some authority such as a news network. But that’s because these news people are thought of as “authorities” and people gather comfort from knowing that there are authorities on the subject that agree with them. This is a forum of peers, and while many contributors here are authorities in their respective fields, they do not post here from any exalted position. They’re merely fellow enthusiasts and can be debated with. You and I can’t debate the celebrities on the cable news channels, so instead, we pick the cable news channel that best represents our point of view. That doesn’t apply on a public Internet forum. And, finally, my use of a presidential debate was not intended as parallel example to this situation, but rather to express the point that what makes these debates interesting is that the participants have, often, wildly different points of view on the same subjects, and the way each responds to the other’s ideas is what makes them fascinating and entertaining.

 

Thanks George. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

What I suggested is basically your #3 but applied only to that section. If the proposed name offends you, feel free to call it Civility Corner or Snowflake Sanctuary instead.

 

Just now, sandyk said:

 This kind of remark is exactly why we have so many problems already .

 

it certainly doesn't help.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I'll just say that I left the Hoffman forum years ago because of Hoffman's unabashed bias towards "subjectivists" (to use the forum vernacular).

 

While @The Computer Audiophile hasn't said so explicitly, I'm getting a strong feeling that "subjectivists" are over-represented in the sampling of email that he talks about dreading in the OP.

 

I'd just like to say that this forum is a big reason for all the current skepticism around MQA (one example).  And we got there through no small measure of pearl clutching and vitriol.

 

I'm just going to watch the hammer fall and see what's left.  Hopefully, the forum will still be useful.

[Ralf11]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

"Rajiv's massive thread" begs to differ.

 

since that sort of thing already exists, how will a new proposal alter things?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I'll just say that I left the Hoffman forum years ago because of Hoffman's unabashed bias towards "subjectivists" (to use the forum vernacular).

 

While @The Computer Audiophile hasn't said so explicitly, I'm getting a strong feeling that "subjectivists" are over-represented in the sampling of email that he talks about dreading in the OP.

 

I'd just like to say that this forum is a big reason for all the current skepticism around MQA (one example).  And we got there through no small measure of pearl clutching and vitriol.

 

I'm just going to watch the hammer fall and see what's left.  Hopefully, the forum will still be useful.

Thanks for the post. The emails I dread are my notifications and reported posts from threads that have gone off the rails. I think to myself, come on people, do grown adults really act this way? 

 

You have point about MQA, but it really irks me when people try to use AS a soapbox for their own agenda. A few people love to argue for sport. That isn't OK. A few people love to belittle subjectivists with short quips that do nothing but cause problems. That isn't OK. A few people like to YELL at objectivists for not having an open mind. That isn't OK. 

 

If you, or anyone, wants to make AS the front line on the war against HiFi, then you're in the wrong place. If not, great.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

since that sort of thing already exists, how will a new proposal alter things?

It alone doesn't work good enough. More seems necessary.

[Thuaveta]

re: 3a, it's a seductive, because it'll lower the load on you, and I'd suspect might keep some of your more narcissistically sensitive advertisers happy, and their customers reassured in their choices, but it's ultimately a bad idea.

 

Part of what makes CA/AS interesting is the people it attracts and the debates it fosters. If you artificially sanitize it by banning seven dirty words from conversations, just because some people are too fragile to hear 'em, then why even bother ? The MQA thread is a perfect example of this: would the community have been able to have such a vigorous debate without a bunch of objectivists playing ball-trap with the BS marketing ?

[STC]

I do not think deleting posts for differing and wrong opinions should be encouraged. At times, those heated exchanges helped me to relook certain things that I have been doing for a long time. 
 

What I would like to suggest is the OP should be allowed to click a post as OT or Disagree and it would immediately moved to a General Topic perhaps called “ Free for All” and the discussion can continue from there. I have come across a few posts that even though OT but important. Replying the post would be disruptive to the OT but they are very much relevant nevertheless. 

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

I have come across a few posts that even though OT but important. Replying the post would be disruptive to the OT but they are very much relevant nevertheless. 

 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

[jcbenten]

Seems, to me, that OPs are part of the problem...not specific enough and they post and disappear.  Makes it easy for thing to go off the rails.  Perhaps if the OP does not reappear within 24 hours the thread is locked.  

 

Personally I have no problem replying "Not interested" any number of times.