Article: Audiophile Style State of the Union

[kumakuma]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Don't you think it's obvious in most cases? Serious question. 

 

 

Not always, especially if the person is new or not a frequent poster. 

 

I was thinking something like a flag that the thread creator sets:

 

- All opinions welcome (default)

- Subjectivists only

- Objectivists only

 

Probably a bear to implement though...

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Clarification is always good. 

 

In your specific example, the information you provided was great. There was no snark, combativeness, imposition, confrontation, or belittling. You weren't seeking to save someone from themself or seeking to just be a disrupter. The OP clearly appreciated your answer as well. 

 

Sounds to me like you are deciding on what belongs in which forum based primarily on tone, Chris. If Mans' answer had no snark then it's ok for the general forum, but if not, then it belongs in the Objective one, is that right?

 

Let's just rename the Objective-Fi forum to "Time-out for misbehaving children".  Seems more descriptive. And yes, that was snark

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Don't you think it's obvious in most cases? Serious question. 

 

 

It's "obvious" in a different way to different people.

For some it's an "obvious" invitation to contribute constructively. Or to challenge conspiratorially. Both of which are socially and intellectually conducive.

To others it's an "obvious" opportunity to wind people up.

So yes it's obvious to just about all of us.

And a pity that "conducive" motives need to be protected, such that everyone can have a good shot at enjoying themselves.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Sounds to me like you are deciding on what belongs in which forum based primarily on tone, Chris. If Mans' answer had no snark then it's ok to for the general forum, but if not, then it belongs in Objective one, is that right?

 

Let's just rename the Objective-Fi forum to "Time-out for misbehaving children".  Seems more descriptive. And yes, that was snark

 

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your question as more of a comment expressing your distaste and disagreement with this move. I'd never implement such a system as described. 

 

 

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your question as more of a comment expressing your distaste and disagreement with this move. I'd never implement such a system as described. 

 

 

 

That's not it. I was following up on your answer to Mans, and it made little sense to me in the context of what you described. Sorry if I tried to use some humor to illustrate the point.

 

To restate: is it OK to have objectively-sourced information posted in the subjective area of the forum? Ever? Or can it be done but only without snark? Or only if the subjective audience doesn't mind the answer? And is it the whole audience, at least 10 readers, or any one who complains that triggers the move to Objective-Fi? When and how is the decision made that an answer doesn't qualify for the subjective part of the forum?

[Jim Sylva]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Or can it be done but only without snark? 

When is being snarky ever necessary?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Jim Sylva said:

When is being snarky ever necessary?

 

It's not a necessity, but an indulgence

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That's not it. I was following up on your answer to Mans, and it made little sense to me in the context of what you described. Sorry if I tried to use some humor to illustrate the point.

 

To restate: is it OK to have objectively-sourced information posted in the subjective area of the forum? Ever? Or can it be done but only without snark? Or only if the subjective audience doesn't mind the answer? And is it the whole audience, at least 10 readers, or any one who complains that triggers the move to Objective-Fi? When and how is the decision made that an answer doesn't qualify for the subjective part of the forum?

Hi Paul, this is where people are going to have to be comfortable with a little gray in their lives. Nothing is black and white. 

 

In a USB cable listening experience thread, even if someone was totally nice about it, the place isn't right to "show" people why they can't be hearing what they're reporting. 

[Jim Sylva]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's not a necessity, but an indulgence

 

I agree.

[Iving]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

To restate: is it OK to have objectively-sourced information posted in the subjective area of the forum? Ever? Or can it be done but only without snark? Or only if the subjective audience doesn't mind the answer? And is it the whole audience, at least 10 readers, or any one who complains that triggers the move to Objective-Fi? When and how is the decision made that an answer doesn't qualify for the subjective part of the forum?

 

These seem fair questions to me.

 

I am not any authority here. But my suggestion would be to imagine being at the dinner table with your in-laws - knowing CC is standing by as doorman/bouncer. Think of the presence of the in-laws not so much a stifle, but an opportunity to *really* impress.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you like  snark, combativeness, imposition, confrontation, or belittling, then you may be disappointment with this change.

Then invite Alex. Actually, no invitation is necessary. He shows up whether you like it or not.

[Summit]

The fundamental issue here isn't between subjectivist and objectivists IMO. It’s the trolling and repeated unwanted comments that are ruining many interesting discussions and threads. The disagreement flag is another thing that I think do more damage than good.   

[Allan F]

55 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I agree.

Perhaps there just needs to be a better way for those starting threads to indicate what kinds of opinions they welcome.

 

Get real! As you very well know, there have been numerous threads where the OP has clearly indicated that naysayers and their off topic opinions are not welcome, only to find the thread hijacked by objectivists who could not control themselves in their zeal to "save" the OP and like minded souls from themselves.

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Paul, this is where people are going to have to be comfortable with a little gray in their lives. Nothing is black and white. 

 

In a USB cable listening experience thread, even if someone was totally nice about it, the place isn't right to "show" people why they can't be hearing what they're reporting. 

 

Hi Chris,

 

That's makes sense, but I'm still missing something. How is this any different than what was already in place?

 

It was already the case that the owner of the thread could declare it as subjective-only. And, if someone misbehaved on such a thread, the owner could remove their posts. Others could complain to you and also get these posts moved/removed.

 

With the change, I'm still unclear as to what and where I can post, since it is, as you say, a gray area. And if I have to worry about offending someone's sensibilities by sharing my knowledge and experience (without snark) then I'd rather go elsewhere. I can always count on at least one person to disagree with everything I post, even though he's on my ignore list

 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Allan F said:

 

Get real! As you very well know, there have been numerous threads where the OP has clearly indicated that naysayers are not welcome, only to find the thread hijacked by objectivists who could not control themselves in their zeal to save the OP and like minded souls from themselves.

 

If we're going to cherry pick evidence, counselor, there are also "subjectivist" threads that are amazingly free of "objectivist" intrusions. 

[mansr]

The implication here is that only the awful, terrible "objectivists" ever misbehave. The nice, friendly subjectivists are only trying to help when they are repeatedly rude, belittling, and condescending, even after being told to go away.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

With the change, I'm still unclear as to what and where I can post,

It's quite clear to me now. We're only allowed to speak at the kids' table.

[Allan F]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's quite clear to me now. We're only allowed to speak at the kids' table.

 

Why is it so difficult for you to understand the fundamental difference between threads that seek information and/or different points of view and which encourage the participation of all interested parties, and those that are intended to share experiences without the unwanted intervention of people telling them that their experiences are imaginary and/or contrary to the laws of physics?

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Hi Chris,

 

That's makes sense, but I'm still missing something. How is this any different than what was already in place?

 

It was already the case that the owner of the thread could declare it as subjective-only. And, if someone misbehaved on such a thread, the owner could remove their posts. Others could complain to you and also get these posts moved/removed.

 

With the change, I'm still unclear as to what and where I can post, since it is, as you say, a gray area. And if I have to worry about offending someone's sensibilities by sharing my knowledge and experience (without snark) then I'd rather go elsewhere. I can always count on at least one person to disagree with everything I post, even though he's on my ignore list

 

 

The difference now is that the interjections or fundamental disagreements now have their own sub-forum and there's a sub-forum for people to start objective conversations in a place free from, as some call them, anti-vaxxer style comments. 

 

We tried giving the OP the ability to police threads with limited success. We tried telling people to create their own threads if they disagreed with something their comments would be seen as a thread-crap. There's no silver bullet. Now, we can move comments and threads into a place where everyone knows they are allowed. 

 

If you're unclear where to post you have the option of asking me (probably time consuming for both of us), doing your best to select the right spot, or just giving up on the new rules and going elsewhere. Seems to me the risk / reward of the middle option isn't too terrible and will likely help us all get to a happy medium. That said, if the change is a bridge too far, I understand. 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

The implication here is that only the awful, terrible "objectivists" ever misbehave. The nice, friendly subjectivists are only trying to help when they are repeatedly rude, belittling, and condescending, even after being told to go away.

 

Not at all. Perhaps you missed all my examples of SandyK's inappropriate posts and the fact that this now gives you a place free from his snark and anger. There are many threads with "objectivist" OPs who have mod rights to the thread. They wanted this just to remove his posts. 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's quite clear to me now. We're only allowed to speak at the kids' table.

 

If objective information and science is what you consider the kids table, it's a table I'd be happy to sit at. 

[rickca]

3 hours ago, austinpop said:

My hope is that it allows us to persuade our friends who’ve left AS due to the negativity - we all know someone like that - to come back and participate and contribute again.

I'm one of the guys who was very close to abandoning AS.  I don't mind people who think I'm delusional and like to poke fun at me in a good natured way.  It's the mean spirited endless confrontational posts that derail threads that I find objectionable.  So to me, it isn't really a subjective vs objective thing.  It's about the vibe.

 

I hope this tones down the unnecessary rhetoric.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not at all. Perhaps you missed all my examples of SandyK's inappropriate posts and the fact that this now gives you a place free from his snark and anger. There are many threads with "objectivist" OPs who have mod rights to the thread. They wanted this just to remove his posts.

So why isn't he the one being banished to a separate area?

 

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If objective information and science is what you consider the kids table

You're the one who created it.

[audiobomber]

IME, objectivists and subjectivists don't often share an audio site. When they do, there is often a page reserved for one or the other, as Chris is proposing.

 

I like to hear opinions from both camps, which happens on this site, and I hope will continue. I like to hear all points of view, and especially personal experiences, just don't beat a dead horse or berate others who disagree. IMO< it's not content that needs controlling, it's attitude and tone.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

So why isn't he the one being banished to a separate area?

You look at it as banished, I look at it as being given your own space. As I said in the article, audio is inherently a subjective pursuit. The vast majority of comments are subjective, unless one is at Hydrogen Audio.

 

I'm going by the analytics as well. The tail shouldn't wag the dog. 

[Norton]

If this is simply notice that “objectivist” incursions into  threads which are clearly about subjective experience (e.g. “what’s the best sounding USB cable you have heard”) will be moved, that seems fair enough, as does moderating other off topic or antagonistic contributions.

 

But if this means that threads which have an objective thrust from the outset (e.g.”what’s the best measuring DAC”) can only be started  in the one subforum, or if objectivist responses to a neutral thread (e.g. “is there a difference between USB cables”) are also moved, that seems unfair to me.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but what’s good about this forum is the breadth of opinions and approaches.  I certainly think more critically about audio choices now because of objectivist contributions (at their best).

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Norton said:

If this is simply notice that “objectivist” incursions into  threads which are clearly about subjective experience (e.g. “what’s the best sounding USB cable you have heard”) will be moved, that seems fair enough, as does moderating other off topic or antagonistic contributions.

 

But if this means that threads which have an objective thrust from the outset (e.g.”what’s the best measuring DAC”) can only be started  in the one subforum, or if objectivist responses to a neutral thread (e.g. “is there a difference between USB cables”) are also moved, that seems unfair to me.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but what’s good about this forum is the breadth of opinions and approaches.  I certainly think more critically about audio choices now because of objectivist contributions (at their best).

 

I'm with you 100%