advertisement


Cyclic debates and moderation

Status
Not open for further replies.

dave

Plywood King
Tony,

What is an acceptable manner to express concern to you as a group regarding disruptions from a few bent on stopping discussions related to sharing subjective hifi experiences?

Would you rather us PM you as a group, post a thread in the off topic room or individually report posts which restart a circular argument?

regards,

dave
 
This is nonsense, what you are calling for is censorship because the POV expressed differs to your own.

I expected better from you Dave.

I'll make a note to report posts containing information and advice that is patently misleading twaddle in future.
 
Dave, I've tried to deal with some of it in the Naim NDX thread. FWIW I prefer PM contact as threads such as this often act as a negativity magnet and can exaggerate an issue.

I do realise the whole objectivist / subjectivist thing is becoming tedious in the extreme, though I'm absolutely determined not to editorialise / force the site into a given direction. It is simply not my place to do so and it is not what the site is for - this is a forum, not a blog, my own opinion on this subject is of no relevance to the whole and it is of no more value than anyone else's. I'd like to encourage a little more respect and tolerance for disparate opinions and less repetition, that's all.

It also needs pointing out that I miss more stuff in the audio room than anywhere else, so the report post function is useful. I tend to live in the music room, off topic and classic sections as that's where my main interests are. Often the first I notice about things in here is when a thread has got to 400-500 posts or whatever rather too fast, then I suspect something may be amiss so go and have a look! Please use the report post facility - all mods get an email so someone should get to see it even if there may be a few hours before any assessment or action.
 
This is nonsense, what you are calling for is censorship because the POV expressed differs to your own.

I expected better from you Dave.

Rob,

Censorship is exactly what I don't want.

See my reply to Tony in the NDS thread. "Loss" as I mentioned (and am concerned with) means all sides lose. I don't want that.

Btw, I can understand your confusion -hope this clarified!

best,

dave
 
Dave, I've tried to deal with some of it in the Naim NDX thread. FWIW I prefer PM contact as threads such as this often act as a negativity magnet and can exaggerate an issue.

I do realise the whole objectivist / subjectivist thing is becoming tedious in the extreme, though I'm absolutely determined not to editorialise / force the site into a given direction. It is simply not my place to do so and it is not what the site is for - this is a forum, not a blog, my own opinion on this subject is of no relevance to the whole and it is of no more value than anyone else's. I'd like to encourage a little more respect and tolerance for disparate opinions and less repetition, that's all.

It also needs pointing out that I miss more stuff in the audio room than anywhere else, so the report post function is useful. I tend to live in the music room, off topic and classic sections as that's where my main interests are. Often the first I notice about things in here is when a thread has got to 400-500 posts or whatever rather too fast, then I suspect something may be amiss so go and have a look! Please use the report post facility - all mods get an email so someone should get to see it even if there may be a few hours before any assessment or action.

Thanks for the consideration Tony. I've bolded your bit above which I feel is the only practical answer without one side suffering. I just hope all see it this way.
 
Dave, I've renamed the thread to 'cyclic debates and moderation' as I suspect that's what you had in mind - lets get a little more feedback and try to figure out a way of just turning it down a notch or two without locking anything down / breaking what's so good about the place. The last thing I want is a single agenda 'nodding dog' forum, but I do accept things are a little off the rails at present.
 
No worries...maybe tonight's chatter will wake a few up in the AM.

P.S. I don't want a nodding dog forum either but I also don't want to be called delusional or insulted for five pages when what I report can't be currently found in someone's text book.
 
One thing that's occurred to me is that the obj / sub thing is really a theoretical, conceptual or philosophical argument, whereas comments on particular kit is the opposite and is very specific and based upon direct personal experience of that actual product (or at least should be). The problems to my mind usually occur when the former bleeds into the latter, e.g. the NDX thread and folk looking for actual listening experiences are shouted down by those with a philosophical viewpoint alone. Perhaps we just need to find some manner to separate the two somehow without silencing either? Not as easy to do in practice as it sounds, it may not even be practical given the moderation demands, but there may be somewhere to draw a line in the sand somehow.
 
Rob,

Censorship is exactly what I don't want.

See my reply to Tony in the NDS thread. "Loss" as I mentioned (and am concerned with) means all sides lose. I don't want that.

Btw, I can understand your confusion -hope this clarified!

best,

dave

Dave, no confusion.

Not being able to state a POV for fear that it fouls some 'repetition' policy is censorship, precisely because the same topics naturally resurface and often the same responses are required.

The logical extension of this would not only silence the people you see as the bad guys, but if applied fairly would mean a poster could for example not repeat his opinion re the sound of stands, cables or any other category of equipment if it reveals a pattern.

Does it ever occur to you that some on the other side of the fence find it somewhat tedious to read the same old guff from certain posters that defies all logic and reason?

I wouldn't want to shut them up, but I might like to challenge the argument, and that I'd suggest is the best policy and infinitely preferable to censorship.
 
Dave, no confusion.

Not being able to state a POV for fear that it fouls some 'repetition' policy is censorship, precisely because the same topics naturally resurface and often the same responses are required.

The logical extension of this would not only silence the people you see as the bad guys, but if applied fairly would mean a poster could for example not repeat his opinion re the sound of stands, cables or any other category of equipment if it reveals a pattern.

Does it ever occur to you that some on the other side of the fence find it somewhat tedious to read the same old guff from certain posters that defies all logic and reason?

I wouldn't want to shut them up, but I might like to challenge the argument, and that I'd suggest is the best policy and infinitely preferable to censorship.

Rob,

Does it ever occur to you that some on the other side of the fence find it somewhat tedious to read the same old guff from certain posters that defies what some of us experience for decades despite what's been published?

Has it ever occurred to you that denying our experience by hedging our bets that a few guys in lab coats might have got it right could be unhealthy when our senses report the same experience under real world conditions vs a test limited or possibly flawed in a lab? Which reaction is now illogical? Who's the skeptic in this case? ;-)

regards,

dave
 
One thing that's occurred to me is that the obj / sub thing is really a theoretical, conceptual or philosophical argument, whereas comments on particular kit is the opposite and is very specific and based upon direct personal experience of that actual product (or at least should be). The problems to my mind usually occur when the former bleeds into the latter, e.g. the NDX thread and folk looking for actual listening experiences are shouted down by those with a philosophical viewpoint alone. Perhaps we just need to find some manner to separate the two somehow? Not as easy to do in practice as it sounds, it may not even be possible given the moderation demands, but there may be somewhere to draw a line in the sand somehow.

TBH I've not noticed any issue.
The general forum position has moved a little in recent months and I've noticed a few more of the lab rat types joining which has probably driven that. It's probably put a few noses out of joint but these things find their own equilibrium.

Divorcing the theoretical from the actual is going to be interesting - good luck with that one :)

Not sure how you can without tying yourselfl in knots. If the forum limited commentary on products folk have actuated heard the post rate would collapse, and of course there are general principles which apply universally to equipment.
It would be a moderation nightmare IMO.

I'd do nothing, other than remove threads calling for censorship.
The whole thing can be resolved with the words 'if a poster has concerns over a post, report it'.
 
Rob,

Does it ever occur to you that some on the other side of the fence find it somewhat tedious to read the same old guff from certain posters that defies what some of us experience for decades despite what's been published?

Has it ever occurred to you that denying our experience by hedging our bets that a few guys in lab coats might have got it right could be unhealthy when our senses report the same experience under real world conditions vs something limited or contrived in a lab? Which reaction is now illogical?

regards,

dave

On the first point, yes obviously it does bother some, quite inderstandably.
To which I repeat that argument is the best form of response, not calling for some 'anything goes without challenge' charter.

Your second point is fictitious.
 
I agree fully except the bit about why a few noses are out of joint. We need an objective approach but it can occur in a civil manner. You don't need to insult folks when they don't agree with you. Just move on.

Hell, I've been just as guilty but only when pushed into a corner defending myself over insults...it gets old man.
 
Your second point is fictitious.

I accept that you don't believe SS devices can't exhibit audible distortions from microphonics since it hasn't been documented but I'll live with my delusion somehow - some way.
 
What insults?

Name calling and bullying would be a straightforward AUP breach - just report the post.
I certainly see a bit of aggression and sarcasm at times but nothing major, and it comes from all angles.

If by insult you mean challenging what someone reports they heard, sorry no, that's opinion.
 
I accept that you don't believe SS devices can't exhibit audible distortions from microphonics since it hasn't been documented but I'll live with my delusion somehow - some way.

Not what I meant.
Simply that if listening tests containedl a little rigour the results might carry more weight as posts on an open forum where presumably posts are meant to inform and influence others.
Nobody is arguing that you have to construct a lab or digest the entire physics section of the local library to voice an opinion.
 
What insults?

Name calling and bullying would be a straightforward AUP breach - just report the post.
I certainly see a bit of aggression and sarcasm at times but nothing major, and it comes from all angles.

If by insult you mean challenging what someone reports they heard, sorry no, that's opinion.

Well sometimes on both sides it turns into "you're not allowed an opinion" rather than "I think you're wrong".

The words mental illness and delusional get thrown around occasionally which is a bit much.

But in general I think the rigorous debates\discussion on PFM are what make it interesting and worth visiting (be it the music, audio, off topic rooms etc.)
 
What insults?

Name calling and bullying would be a straightforward AUP breach - just report the post.
I certainly see a bit of aggression and sarcasm at times but nothing major, and it comes from all angles.

If by insult you mean challenging what someone reports they heard, sorry no, that's opinion.

Let's try this from another angle Rob,

At what point do you believe an "objectivist" should leave what's clearly a subjective thread? After his first post stating an objection (with his reasons) and when there's no response (assuming he hasn't said anything belligerent provoking a response of course.)

Don't you believe the thread's majority have the right to discuss a matter in a peaceful, uninterrupted manner regardless of how you or I feel about the worthiness of the subject? (Especially when they've made it clear with silence or with replies that they are not interested in our opinion?)

regards,

dave
 
Well sometimes on both sides it turns into "you're not allowed an opinion" rather than "I think you're wrong".

The words mental illness and delusional get thrown around occasionally which is a bit much.

But in general I think the rigorous debates\discussion on PFM are what make it interesting and worth visiting (be it the music, audio, off topic rooms etc.)

If anyone makes accusation of mental illness the post should be reported and I'm certain the mods here would take action.

Opining that someone is deluded is a little different. Best avoided but certainly not a hanging offence.

I agree with you that the balance here is about right, on which note, goodnight :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top