Forum Decorum | Feedback Please

[Norton]

Not sure what’s behind this as I hadn’t noticed the Forum being any worse than usual, and I have never had recourse to use the “ignore”  function.  Having said this, 1,2 5 and 9 seem sensible.

[Dutch]

In reaction to the first post of this topic; I very much applaud what’s proposed. Please implement yesterday! 👍😉

[semente]

I find that some objective/technical counterpoint to subjective claims is important if the goal of the forum is to provide information, educate and even to push boundaries forward. I would struggle with the idea of a subjective-only sub-forum where any claim would go unchallenged.

I agree that it is perhaps hard to strike a balance but I don't think that AI can replace human moderation.

 

In my view, the forum is working reasonably well as it is.

What is not right is for your mailbox to get flooded with complaints...

[Rexp]

Already a few OT posts, would be good if hitting the OT button removed these posts. The occasional dispute could be decided by CC. I'm against further censorship otherwise. 

[tmtomh]

23 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

 

Chris, thanks as always for your unceasing work to maintain this forum as a great community and resource. I'll happily abide by any rules you make, within reason (and the above are all reasonable, if not all to my preference).

 

Since you are asking for feedback on them, here's my $.02:

 

1. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I think most of us like the wit and the occasionally biting humor, but sarcasm does not have to be outright nasty; it is still possible to be polite without sanitizing one's preferred modes of expression.

 

2. Absolutely yes, IMHO even more fundamental than #1, because this rule gets to the heart of the problem: It's not about free speech and expression; it's about social (or anti-social) behavior. This rule is reminding everyone that basic behavioral norms are not an impediment to free expression, but rather the necessary foundation of a platform where free speech can exist and flourish.

 

3a. I am strongly opposed to this: I am not one of those folks who plays the "censorship" card in response to forum moderation (not to mention, some censorship is fine on a privately owned and moderated forum), but I think confining certain specific words and phrases to only one subforum on a huge forum like this would be a very negative and damaging form of censorship. Not to mention, we have many clever members here who would immediately push the envelope of terminology to work around and/or challenge the rule - and given how active the likely suspects are, how many of them produce valuable info here, and how many of them there are, I doubt you would want to ban all of them.

 

3b. I'm not in favor of this rule, but so long as dedicated threads where folks could still directly debate were allowed, I guess I could live with it.

 

4. Very much against this, because sometimes folks will post a lot in a given day as part of a productive, informative back and forth, while other times they will post a lot because they're fighting and threadcrapping everywhere. So I don't think there's any way to assign a numerical cap that will allow for the former while preventing the latter.

 

5. I've never been a fan of OPs being able to mod threads just because they start them. If you want to let members have blog posts here and have mod rights to those, fine. But this is a community - you can put people on ignore, you can block people from PM'ing you, but you shouldn't get to force everyone else to watch you hold court via your own controllable discussion thread.

 

6. Fine.

 

7. I don't think this is necessary, but I don't really have a problem with it either - could be interesting to try it again.

 

8. Strongly opposed - the anonymity will only encourage folks to overuse the downvote feature. Not to mention, when I upvote a post now (via a positive reaction), I usually want the person to see that I was an upvoter. This can be crucial to forum civility - for example if I've been disagreeing with or debating someone and they make a good point or we are starting to come to a consensus; or if I've been in a somewhat antagonistic argument with someone and we take it down a notch and get more polite, I want them to see when I upvote/like one of their comments. I think it helps.

 

9. Absolutely!

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

My intention is to have recordings available for playback at will that cannot be distinguished from the musicians playing live in my home. I haven't yet heard an audio system that "works as intended" in that sense.

 

Jud, I hope you know the very high esteem in which I hold your contributions to this forum, for their content and tone, That said, you must know that only a vanishingly small percentage of all recorded music consists of recordings that were (a) performed and recorded live and synchronously with no artificial creation of soundstage during mixing; (b) produced, mixed, and mastered with zero processing that might negatively impact the pure, in-the-room feel of the recording session(s); and (c) capture an ensemble playing in a space that is small enough to have any hope of being realistically reproduced in a space the size of a typical home listening room.

 

So unless one's music collection consists primarily of live audiophile recordings of small acoustic combos and small chamber ensembles, the "musicians playing live in my home" standard cannot be met during reproduction because that sonic experience is not there in the source to begin with.

 

Now, you might reply that even though that's the case, such recordings, however infrequent, still remain the purest standard for high fidelity and so if stereo equipment cannot reproduce such recordings with a fully convincing illusion of realism, that shows us that audio systems do not yet fully "work as intended."

 

My response there would be that the problem there is not in the playback equipment - it's in the physics of the room, the interaction of the speakers with the room, and perhaps in the entire premise of 2-channel audio (as opposed to some more esoteric multi-speaker or surround models). Speakers are of course playback equipment, and they do play a significant role in the creation of a convincing or unconvincing illusion - but even then they do so only in concert with the listening space and how we are positioned within that space, meaning that even speakers are not good or bad in and of themselves at creating the desired illusion.

 

And certainly USB cables, ethernet switches, and the like play no role (except when malfunctionning) in the ability or inability of a system to create or not create the illusion you're after - would you agree with that?

[Jud]

34 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

And certainly USB cables, ethernet switches, and the like play no role (except when malfunctionning) in the ability or inability of a system to create or not create the illusion you're after - would you agree with that?

 

I don't think I am able to answer on topic within the context of this thread other than to say my attitude as to such discussions is "live and let live." I've read posts in various threads to which my personal reaction is that I don't think they can be correct, but I don't see a crying need for me to point that out to adults making their own decisions. Not everyone feels that way.

 

Whether we ought to have a forum where my "live and let live" inclination is enforced by rule - whether we should let people require under forum rules that they not be confronted with contradictory opinions, except in certain specific areas of the forum - is the question, and I don't have a quick easy answer.

[Summit]

I vote yes for all but 7 and 8.   

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 hours ago, ARQuint said:

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.

 

I agree, with the caveat that "expertise" that comes from a manufacturer should be subject to a higher level of skepticism than a source with nothing to gain if the product succeeds or flourishes.  The same goes for publications that simply parrot manufacturer's marketing claims as "expertise".

[rickca]

Hardware and software vendors providing product support should be exempt from any caps on daily post counts in point #4.

 

[crenca]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

1. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I think most of us like the wit and the occasionally biting humor, but sarcasm does not have to be outright nasty; it is still possible to be polite without sanitizing one's preferred modes of expression.

 

2. Absolutely yes, IMHO even more fundamental than #1, because this rule gets to the heart of the problem: It's not about free speech and expression; it's about social (or anti-social) behavior. This rule is reminding everyone that basic behavioral norms are not an impediment to free expression, but rather the necessary foundation of a platform where free speech can exist and flourish.

 

3a. I am strongly opposed to this: I am not one of those folks who plays the "censorship" card in response to forum moderation (not to mention, some censorship is fine on a privately owned and moderated forum), but I think confining certain specific words and phrases to only one subforum on a huge forum like this would be a very negative and damaging form of censorship. Not to mention, we have many clever members here who would immediately push the envelope of terminology to work around and/or challenge the rule - and given how active the likely suspects are, how many of them produce valuable info here, and how many of them there are, I doubt you would want to ban all of them.

 

3b. I'm not in favor of this rule, but so long as dedicated threads where folks could still directly debate were allowed, I guess I could live with it.

 

4. Very much against this, because sometimes folks will post a lot in a given day as part of a productive, informative back and forth, while other times they will post a lot because they're fighting and threadcrapping everywhere. So I don't think there's any way to assign a numerical cap that will allow for the former while preventing the latter.

 

5. I've never been a fan of OPs being able to mod threads just because they start them. If you want to let members have blog posts here and have mod rights to those, fine. But this is a community - you can put people on ignore, you can block people from PM'ing you, but you shouldn't get to force everyone else to watch you hold court via your own controllable discussion thread.

 

6. Fine.

 

7. I don't think this is necessary, but I don't really have a problem with it either - could be interesting to try it again.

 

8. Strongly opposed - the anonymity will only encourage folks to overuse the downvote feature. Not to mention, when I upvote a post now (via a positive reaction), I usually want the person to see that I was an upvoter. This can be crucial to forum civility - for example if I've been disagreeing with or debating someone and they make a good point or we are starting to come to a consensus; or if I've been in a somewhat antagonistic argument with someone and we take it down a notch and get more polite, I want them to see when I upvote/like one of their comments. I think it helps.

 

9. Absolutely!

 

I second what @tmtomhsays here.

 

I would add a 10th proposal:

 

10.  Members will be able to vote for name changes of other members.  @mansrcould be renamed "Short and Sweet and Sour", and @The Computer Audiophilecould be renamed "T-Boned the industry"...

[mansr]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

I second what @tmtomhsays here.

 

I would add a 10th proposal:

 

10.  Members will be able to vote for name changes of other members.  @mansrcould be renamed "Short and Sweet and Sour", and @The Computer Audiophilecould be renamed "T-Boned the industry"...

Nobody has ever called me that before.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Nobody has ever called me that before.

 

😁 Possibly because your a tall northern european (Swedish if memory serves)? 

[ARQuint]

43 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I agree, with the caveat that "expertise" that comes from a manufacturer should be subject to a higher level of skepticism than a source with nothing to gain if the product succeeds or flourishes.  The same goes for publications that simply parrot manufacturer's marketing claims as "expertise".

 

Well, that certainly moved the dial, especially since crenca and mansr have rung in.

Chris, I have no idea why you thought this was going to be difficult.

 

Can we agree that skepticism should be expressed without the use of the terms "shill", "confidence man", "lie", and a couple/two three others to be determined by the International Commission?

 

 

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Can we agree that skepticism should be expressed without the use of the terms "shill", "confidence man", "lie",

 

Nope, we don't agree.  The industry is full of confidence men (Bob Stuart scam called "MQA" means he is one), and a lie is a lie.

[Ralf11]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

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.

 

indeed it is necessary sometimes - and only someone in the area of research knows whether such simplifications are valid or not

 

Firedog, Jud used "comment authoritatively" - I agree it is not proof

 

ARquint's attempt to compare progress on the frontiers of science with the hoopla in audio engineering - a field using electronics that has long been well understood is simply more deflection from him

[Thuaveta]

 

17 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Can we agree that skepticism should be expressed without the use of the terms "shill", "confidence man", "lie", and a couple/two three others to be determined by the International Commission?

 

Well, I'd counter it doesn't seem possible to have a discussion about even standards of discussion without triggering the fragile egos of conmen snake oil salesmen, and having them sidetrack it to shill their products. Given that, why should we refrain from calling a lie a lie ?

[The Computer Audiophile]

As I've had many conversations via email and PM this week, something really stood out to me. The fact that 99.999% of the members of this community are really nice, logical, and well intentioned people who'd all likely get along at the local pub (before several beverages). Even the people with polar opposite audio views express similar opinions to me about forum decorum and their wishes for AS. 

 

Heck, one member of the community is sending me a sampler of tea from a local tea shop, even though we've gone at it in the forum recently. Just when you think everything has gone to hell in a hand basket, another side of people comes out. 

 

We are all human. We all can get worked up over things and our behaviors can be affected by the fact that many people are watching. 

 

P.S. If anyone is interested in my favorite tea that also happens to be from a cool company, check out the Organic Nepali Golden Black from Young Mountain Tea.

[Jud]

https://www.silvertipstea.com/pages/makaibari-tea-estate

 

They don't appear to have any of the eponymous Silver Tips tea at the moment. Usually they do at a relatively good price.

 

Here's someone who does seem to have it:

 

https://www.arborteas.com/organic-makaibari-estate-silver-tips-white-tea.html

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, tmtomh said:

1. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I think most of us like the wit and the occasionally biting humor, but sarcasm does not have to be outright nasty; it is still possible to be polite without sanitizing one's preferred modes of expression.

 

2. Absolutely yes, IMHO even more fundamental than #1, because this rule gets to the heart of the problem: It's not about free speech and expression; it's about social (or anti-social) behavior. This rule is reminding everyone that basic behavioral norms are not an impediment to free expression, but rather the necessary foundation of a platform where free speech can exist and flourish.

 

3a. I am strongly opposed to this: I am not one of those folks who plays the "censorship" card in response to forum moderation (not to mention, some censorship is fine on a privately owned and moderated forum), but I think confining certain specific words and phrases to only one subforum on a huge forum like this would be a very negative and damaging form of censorship. Not to mention, we have many clever members here who would immediately push the envelope of terminology to work around and/or challenge the rule - and given how active the likely suspects are, how many of them produce valuable info here, and how many of them there are, I doubt you would want to ban all of them.

 

3b. I'm not in favor of this rule, but so long as dedicated threads where folks could still directly debate were allowed, I guess I could live with it.

 

4. Very much against this, because sometimes folks will post a lot in a given day as part of a productive, informative back and forth, while other times they will post a lot because they're fighting and threadcrapping everywhere. So I don't think there's any way to assign a numerical cap that will allow for the former while preventing the latter.

 

5. I've never been a fan of OPs being able to mod threads just because they start them. If you want to let members have blog posts here and have mod rights to those, fine. But this is a community - you can put people on ignore, you can block people from PM'ing you, but you shouldn't get to force everyone else to watch you hold court via your own controllable discussion thread.

 

6. Fine.

 

7. I don't think this is necessary, but I don't really have a problem with it either - could be interesting to try it again.

 

8. Strongly opposed - the anonymity will only encourage folks to overuse the downvote feature. Not to mention, when I upvote a post now (via a positive reaction), I usually want the person to see that I was an upvoter. This can be crucial to forum civility - for example if I've been disagreeing with or debating someone and they make a good point or we are starting to come to a consensus; or if I've been in a somewhat antagonistic argument with someone and we take it down a notch and get more polite, I want them to see when I upvote/like one of their comments. I think it helps.

 

9. Absolutely!

 

Other than 7, which may still be open to group manipulation, I am pretty much in agreement with you.

 

Alex

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just a reminder that off-topic posts are removed. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just a reminder that off-topic posts are removed. 

 

As you like it Chris.  My point is that mendacity is also quite rude.

[esldude]

18 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.

I think the current situation with the forum is a result of having sponsored forums.  

 

Too many product specific discussions move to those forums from the general forums.  This means more of the general threads are less specific, more philosophical, and lack connection to specific physical products and their use.  Both camps (sorry that is what the situation is) need to be tied to reality to prevent going off the rails in both directions.  While some number of such threads are okay, too many result in both camps flying to extremes and it impacts general forum health. 

 

While some of the proposals from Chris may have merit, the entire premise of the thread necessarily means Chris has decided a division is needed as the two camps can't peacefully coexist.  Divisions are divisive by nature.  A tautology of course. Divide and conquer works, but in this case there is no benefit to any conquering to anyone. Unite and prosper is needed.  To unite and prosper things need to be more closely tied to actual use of actual products and everyone helping each other get the best out of them.  Maybe try and generate a list of proposals more with that in mind. 

 

So my suggestion to improve forum health is step one shutter sponsored forums.  Take 90 days to wind it down.  End them. 

 

I understand the benefit of sponsored forums to sponsors and to users of those products.  I think overall it is a bad deal. 

 

I think Miska provides a good example of someone who supports his work for the benefits of users, usefully takes part in discussions about other things in the forum, and doesn't need his own forum.  He does this by keeping some tether to actual things whether providing measurements to support his ideas or being very specific in what he addresses.  Even when I don't agree with his total conclusions I can't think of him ever being divisive.  

 

I think having a particular thread about a product is good, and plenty for a maker of that product to support his customers, answer questions etc.  Something useful to those who own the product without causing any problems.  

[christopher3393]

I vote to impeach. Whoops! 😊.  Chris, I'm pleasantly surprised by this proposal and am in favor of you experimenting with all 9 points  as you and the forum go through the process of discernment and implementation of change for the better.

 

Then again, I was tagged as Mr. Civility a long time ago, so I'm clearly biased and might have to recuse myself.  🙄

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

While some of the proposals from Chris may have merit, the entire premise of the thread necessarily means Chris has decided a division is needed as the two camps can't peacefully coexist.

No decisions have been made.

[esldude]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No decisions have been made.

Okay fair enough.  But they are being considered obviously.  

 

I do agree something needs to change.  Wish I was wise enough to know what.  I have enjoyed your forums for nearly a decade.  More recently fewer topics seem of interest or worth the time.  I don't think its mostly me as I do sense a change in tone vs a decade ago.