Jump to content
The Computer Audiophile

Article: Audiophile Style State of the Union

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.


Disclaimer! I have not in the past, I do not now, and I am not likely ever to stream music from the internet.

System: here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 


Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's not a necessity, but an indulgence :)

 

I agree.


Jim

 

Harlan Howard's definition of a great country song: "Three chords and the truth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Disclaimer! I have not in the past, I do not now, and I am not likely ever to stream music from the internet.

System: here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%

 


Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...