A modest proposal
for the prevention of the unneccesary debate between objectivists and subjectivists being aburdon for the Moderators and for making them beneficial to Diyaudio
It is a melancholy sight to see thread after thread having to be censored and locked by the hard working moderators, because debate is percieved to be out of hand.
Clearly we have entrenched and fundamentally opposing viewpoints, which may be argued quite seriously scientifically by either side, or may degenerate into a pub brawl, however in neither case any purpose is served, as neither side will change it's views as the result of such debates, the arguments have been endlessly recycled and have not materially changed since the 1980's.
In order to re-direct the energies towards things more gainful for those that frequent DIYA I suggest the implementation of a "Tag" and "Vote" system that offers the following:
1) A thread starter (OP) may tag a thread as "subjectivist viewpoints unwelcome", as "objectivist viewpoints unwelcome" or leave it untagged, that is the thread is open to debate of any viewpoint.
2) Every reader of the thread should be allowed to vote ONCE (but may later change the vote) if a thread should remain at it's status, or be changed to a different status. There should be a quorum for post numbers and readers before such a democratic vote overrides the thread status set by the OP.
3) The rules should make "crossposting", that is posting subjectivist views to a thread marked as "subjectivist viewpoints unwelcome" or the opposite an offence that leads to deletion of posts and to being giving automatically a fixed number minus points.
I hope that the above measures will minimise the friction and need for moderation very much.
Ciao T
for the prevention of the unneccesary debate between objectivists and subjectivists being aburdon for the Moderators and for making them beneficial to Diyaudio
It is a melancholy sight to see thread after thread having to be censored and locked by the hard working moderators, because debate is percieved to be out of hand.
Clearly we have entrenched and fundamentally opposing viewpoints, which may be argued quite seriously scientifically by either side, or may degenerate into a pub brawl, however in neither case any purpose is served, as neither side will change it's views as the result of such debates, the arguments have been endlessly recycled and have not materially changed since the 1980's.
In order to re-direct the energies towards things more gainful for those that frequent DIYA I suggest the implementation of a "Tag" and "Vote" system that offers the following:
1) A thread starter (OP) may tag a thread as "subjectivist viewpoints unwelcome", as "objectivist viewpoints unwelcome" or leave it untagged, that is the thread is open to debate of any viewpoint.
2) Every reader of the thread should be allowed to vote ONCE (but may later change the vote) if a thread should remain at it's status, or be changed to a different status. There should be a quorum for post numbers and readers before such a democratic vote overrides the thread status set by the OP.
3) The rules should make "crossposting", that is posting subjectivist views to a thread marked as "subjectivist viewpoints unwelcome" or the opposite an offence that leads to deletion of posts and to being giving automatically a fixed number minus points.
I hope that the above measures will minimise the friction and need for moderation very much.
Ciao T
An interesting idea although personally I have to say I find the debates "interesting".
Do you think it would be workable ? Many would post regardless... and most of those that that do, do so in trying to further the arguments... which is what makes it interesting
It is the minority that just don't know when to stop that spoil it for the rest... I don't think the system would work tbh.
Do you think it would be workable ? Many would post regardless... and most of those that that do, do so in trying to further the arguments... which is what makes it interesting
It is the minority that just don't know when to stop that spoil it for the rest... I don't think the system would work tbh.
Johnathon Swift's "modest proposal"?
censorship of ideas is a bad idea - just follow the forum rules which have contained the probblem successfully to date
avoid the personal attacks
use the ignore button if you are too immature to respond to a particular poster's ideas rather than personality
censorship of ideas is a bad idea - just follow the forum rules which have contained the probblem successfully to date
avoid the personal attacks
use the ignore button if you are too immature to respond to a particular poster's ideas rather than personality
The problem is that some points of view need challenging, whether objectivist or subjectivist, and open discussion is the best way to do so, and as such, we like to encourage it. diyAudio will never be a forum where any point of view is sacred, and cannot be challenged.
Very occasionally, we will split a thread, such as the EnAble, but not simply because of argument. In that case we created another thread so that discussions on the practical implementations could be split from the theoretical debate.
We like lively, contentious threads. What we don't like is posters who attack personalities, rather than ideas, and that's when we get heavy.
Very occasionally, we will split a thread, such as the EnAble, but not simply because of argument. In that case we created another thread so that discussions on the practical implementations could be split from the theoretical debate.
We like lively, contentious threads. What we don't like is posters who attack personalities, rather than ideas, and that's when we get heavy.
Hi Thorsten, the biggest problem as I see it is that people can't have a debate without it degenerating into a fight. This is a purely a matter of restraint, or self control if you will.
It doesn't help that there are those who enjoy getting someone to lose their cool, and will do anything they can to provoke it, often cleverly and in subtle ways that not everyone will be able to pick up on.
If everyone paused before writing an immediate heated response when their buttons had been pushed, this would largely be a non-issue (the provokers get bored and move onto easier pastures). However human nature being what it is means that invariably there will be those of us who don't follow this basic rule (and even those of us that do will occasionally falter). I Also would recommend everyone try to analyse why a particular post gets their back up, working out why something makes you angry can be a powerful tool for your own self development
I do think your idea is an interesting one, and I commend you for thinking about it, but I think that in practice it will fall down, and may cause more conflict than it aims to avoid.
I actually made a somewhat similar suggestion a few years back, in an attempt to address this exact issue (when the tweakers sactuary went the way of the dodo), I suggested that perhaps there should be a hard core engineering forum where no subjectivists or newbies were allowed, but when the arguments against this idea were presented, I conceded that it was probably a bad idea.
Tony.
It doesn't help that there are those who enjoy getting someone to lose their cool, and will do anything they can to provoke it, often cleverly and in subtle ways that not everyone will be able to pick up on.
If everyone paused before writing an immediate heated response when their buttons had been pushed, this would largely be a non-issue (the provokers get bored and move onto easier pastures). However human nature being what it is means that invariably there will be those of us who don't follow this basic rule (and even those of us that do will occasionally falter). I Also would recommend everyone try to analyse why a particular post gets their back up, working out why something makes you angry can be a powerful tool for your own self development
I do think your idea is an interesting one, and I commend you for thinking about it, but I think that in practice it will fall down, and may cause more conflict than it aims to avoid.
I actually made a somewhat similar suggestion a few years back, in an attempt to address this exact issue (when the tweakers sactuary went the way of the dodo), I suggested that perhaps there should be a hard core engineering forum where no subjectivists or newbies were allowed, but when the arguments against this idea were presented, I conceded that it was probably a bad idea.
Tony.
A thoughtfull suggestion but it probably will not work. There will always be contentious and contrary people on a forum of this size. As unfortunate and unpleasant as it may be, moderators sign up for the thank-less task of bringing order when egos get the better of manners. I'm a member of one of the longest and richest threads/topics on this forum; the one about tweaking the Marantz CDP's. We NEVER have clashes or personality issues. Everything is conducted with good humour and aimability. Heaven's knows we are on the outer fringe and yet...food for thought?
Hi,
This may be debatable.
Please note that my Idea does not suggest a blanket censorship of ideas, but an option for starters and participants of a thread to say "we wish to have a discussion here from a particular set of pre-conceived views" while equally threads can be left (or indeed voted) "open" to all debate where the thread starter or a majority of thread readers desire it to be so.
Even if personal attacks do not happen or are moderated swiftly and evenly, we are still wasting megabytes, mega-minutes etc. the arguments are old, the ideas are old and there is no reconciliation of these two opposing views. So what is the point of debate, except degrading the S/N ratio.
I readily concede that any form of ghetto or idea censorship is a bad idea, hence my suggestion to allow a formal system that allows a simple and civilised way to hold discussion in a single space that can be entirely open or focused from a certain viewpoint, in a most base democratic way.
Ciao T
This may be debatable.
Please note that my Idea does not suggest a blanket censorship of ideas, but an option for starters and participants of a thread to say "we wish to have a discussion here from a particular set of pre-conceived views" while equally threads can be left (or indeed voted) "open" to all debate where the thread starter or a majority of thread readers desire it to be so.
Even if personal attacks do not happen or are moderated swiftly and evenly, we are still wasting megabytes, mega-minutes etc. the arguments are old, the ideas are old and there is no reconciliation of these two opposing views. So what is the point of debate, except degrading the S/N ratio.
I readily concede that any form of ghetto or idea censorship is a bad idea, hence my suggestion to allow a formal system that allows a simple and civilised way to hold discussion in a single space that can be entirely open or focused from a certain viewpoint, in a most base democratic way.
Ciao T
Good point
I will debate something but if it appears intractable bow out. However the threads do sometimes go on and on and on.... The voting seems good at first glance, but I'd be concerned that if a group gets together they could disrupt by voting the opposite to the thread starter, and derailing the original intent. What's more, is that it would then be sanctioned because it was voted for "seemingly" democratically.
I thought that the thanks implemented with the new forum software was a good idea, but look what happened to that
anything that's implemented can unfortunately be abused. In the end, I think it all comes down to the fact that we are all individuals, and how we choose to behave makes or breaks the forum. I like to think that for the most part, we have a fantastic community here at diyAudio.
Tony.
It is healthy to be exposed to ideas with which we disagree - sometimes we may even learn something from each other! As a moderate objectivist myself I like the way that on this site complete nonsense (IMHO) will be robustly challenged, but hardline objectivists will also have their tidy beliefs tested.
Many of the problems would disappear if people remembered their manners, and attacked the issue rather than the person. Some of the problems would disappear if people stopped quoting gurus. Other problems would disappear if people either learnt some electronics, or admitted that they haven't - I would not tell a musician how to play his instrument, yet people who struggle with Ohm's law or simple algebra seem to want to argue about circuit design! Finally, it is a fact that the placebo effect is stronger than we imagine, and it is a fact that some people prefer distortion (nothing wrong with that, except when they vehemently deny it).
Keep it as it is.
Many of the problems would disappear if people remembered their manners, and attacked the issue rather than the person. Some of the problems would disappear if people stopped quoting gurus. Other problems would disappear if people either learnt some electronics, or admitted that they haven't - I would not tell a musician how to play his instrument, yet people who struggle with Ohm's law or simple algebra seem to want to argue about circuit design! Finally, it is a fact that the placebo effect is stronger than we imagine, and it is a fact that some people prefer distortion (nothing wrong with that, except when they vehemently deny it).
Keep it as it is.
Hi,
Clearly nothing has been learned (nor can be) or we would not still have the same 1980's debate going.
Clearly the so-called objectivists have utterly failed to make their point in a manner that is sufficiently convincing to make people abandon the evidence of their senses (or perhaps their illusions).
Meanwhile the so-called subjectivists have utterly failed to make the objectivists take note that theoretical concepts may be perhaps incomplete (or complete illusions).
The dilemma is mostly religious in nature. I cannot see a reconciliation of these viewpoints overall and further debate serves no point.
So I am suggesting "peaceful coexistence" of those viewpoints (without continued and continuous friction and conflict), with clearly defined areas of engagement instead, which may be avoided by those who wish to.
As a hardline militant extreme centrist sobjectivist I find the believes of the lunatic fringes of either side funny. To be honest, I prefer to not be excessively exposed to either side.
My core gripe would remain, we would still have more rounds around the same square with nothing more to show.
Let me be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, what ticks me off is NOT the lack of civility in debate, or even what some may perceive as at time haphazard moderation.
What I object to is the futility of a continuing debate from 30 Years ago with nothing new added. I would suggest there is stuff to be gotten on with instead.
Ciao T
Clearly nothing has been learned (nor can be) or we would not still have the same 1980's debate going.
Clearly the so-called objectivists have utterly failed to make their point in a manner that is sufficiently convincing to make people abandon the evidence of their senses (or perhaps their illusions).
Meanwhile the so-called subjectivists have utterly failed to make the objectivists take note that theoretical concepts may be perhaps incomplete (or complete illusions).
The dilemma is mostly religious in nature. I cannot see a reconciliation of these viewpoints overall and further debate serves no point.
So I am suggesting "peaceful coexistence" of those viewpoints (without continued and continuous friction and conflict), with clearly defined areas of engagement instead, which may be avoided by those who wish to.
As a hardline militant extreme centrist sobjectivist I find the believes of the lunatic fringes of either side funny. To be honest, I prefer to not be excessively exposed to either side.
My core gripe would remain, we would still have more rounds around the same square with nothing more to show.
Let me be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, what ticks me off is NOT the lack of civility in debate, or even what some may perceive as at time haphazard moderation.
What I object to is the futility of a continuing debate from 30 Years ago with nothing new added. I would suggest there is stuff to be gotten on with instead.
Ciao T
Thorsten - your general idea is a good one. The actual implementation, to be honest, I cannot see working. My reason is that all of the pointless bickering you see is down to personalities. As long as the personality types stay the same on either side, then so will the endless arguments.
I do believe that the extreme views on either side are in the vast minority - most people are willing to try something, if it works then there;s a result. The thing I haven't seen much of here is the "flavour of the month" phenomenon - "OMG, I just go this super [insert item here] from ebay and it just slays every other [said item] I've ever tried". For that we are thankful!
Sy is partly correct - for the vast majority it is a false dichotomy. However, for those on opposing sides, it is very real. What often happens is that arguments follow the proponents from one thread to another. The unfortunate result is that the actual item being discussed is buried in the rubbish. Personally, when I see an "angry" thread like that, I just stay the hell away from it. Lifes too short, and there are too many other DIY things to do....
I am a moderate subjectivist. I am not blind to the placebo effect, but in the end if it sounds better to these ears, with my set of preconceived ideas and state of mind, then I'm happy.
Fran
I do believe that the extreme views on either side are in the vast minority - most people are willing to try something, if it works then there;s a result. The thing I haven't seen much of here is the "flavour of the month" phenomenon - "OMG, I just go this super [insert item here] from ebay and it just slays every other [said item] I've ever tried". For that we are thankful!
Sy is partly correct - for the vast majority it is a false dichotomy. However, for those on opposing sides, it is very real. What often happens is that arguments follow the proponents from one thread to another. The unfortunate result is that the actual item being discussed is buried in the rubbish. Personally, when I see an "angry" thread like that, I just stay the hell away from it. Lifes too short, and there are too many other DIY things to do....
I am a moderate subjectivist. I am not blind to the placebo effect, but in the end if it sounds better to these ears, with my set of preconceived ideas and state of mind, then I'm happy.
Fran
I might be wrong in this & have a one-sided view of it but mostly what I see happening in this forum are suggestions or ideas being stifled by a)people insisting on measurements & evidence b)people protecting the "gullible" from trying the concept. I believe this is a form of censorship & like Fran said, when he sees this sort of thread, he stays away. I wonder how many valuable insights or suggestions are missed because people like Fran stay away or are afraid to post their view.
When there is co-operation on a thread there can often be a fast development of ideas/devices that would not be possible or as fast as when individuals work on their own. i would cite this thread as a great example of what collaboration & participation can achieve. And there are other great examples.
It also seems to me that the threads that work like this gain an participative air to them & the ones who try to introduce dissent are challenged with wise words like " But your suggestion, however valid, could be put more sociably, more as participant, less as judge...."
I agree with the intent of Thorsten's initiative but like others, don't see it working. I wonder if we could work together, in a spirit of co-operation, to suggest a possible solution & better scheme or is this a doomed initiative?
Maybe a way of trying something more democratic? i.e trying to get some consensus from the silent majority about posts - a kind of like it/dislike it/hate it poll against each post - this would give direct feedback to posters about their post & it's acceptability - this is probably what is missing from most communications via internet - we don't have the normal feedback mechanisms that we use in face-to-face communication. This probably isn't possible with the current forum software or maybe it is? I don't know.
I know I've been guilty of posts that would fall into this camp & have been responsible for veins of discussion that went on too long. I reckon this would have made me stop & think!
When there is co-operation on a thread there can often be a fast development of ideas/devices that would not be possible or as fast as when individuals work on their own. i would cite this thread as a great example of what collaboration & participation can achieve. And there are other great examples.
It also seems to me that the threads that work like this gain an participative air to them & the ones who try to introduce dissent are challenged with wise words like " But your suggestion, however valid, could be put more sociably, more as participant, less as judge...."
I agree with the intent of Thorsten's initiative but like others, don't see it working. I wonder if we could work together, in a spirit of co-operation, to suggest a possible solution & better scheme or is this a doomed initiative?
Maybe a way of trying something more democratic? i.e trying to get some consensus from the silent majority about posts - a kind of like it/dislike it/hate it poll against each post - this would give direct feedback to posters about their post & it's acceptability - this is probably what is missing from most communications via internet - we don't have the normal feedback mechanisms that we use in face-to-face communication. This probably isn't possible with the current forum software or maybe it is? I don't know.
I know I've been guilty of posts that would fall into this camp & have been responsible for veins of discussion that went on too long. I reckon this would have made me stop & think!
When I first appeared on this forum I was scared off by people (fortunately I forget who they are, and have deliberately not tried to find out) who thought I was daft to use an ECC83 (for anything) and even dafter to try to design anything by using datasheets and a calculator. I decided that this forum was not for me and went elsewhere for some time. So it is not just the subjectivists who feel "censored". When I came back later I found that my initial experience was not typical.
If someone popped up and said that sound was improved by placing a special gold-plated can of baked beans (only $1500 each) on each item of equipment, then some people would feel it was helpful to point out that this is unlikely to be true. (Others might insist that the only way to find out is to try it, and to reject it out of hand is hopelessly narrow-minded.) Some objectivist pressure (not "censorship") reduces the frequency of this sort of thing. On the other hand, pressure from the other side rightly discourages people from saying things like "if I can't/won't/don't measure it then nobody else can hear it".
If someone popped up and said that sound was improved by placing a special gold-plated can of baked beans (only $1500 each) on each item of equipment, then some people would feel it was helpful to point out that this is unlikely to be true. (Others might insist that the only way to find out is to try it, and to reject it out of hand is hopelessly narrow-minded.) Some objectivist pressure (not "censorship") reduces the frequency of this sort of thing. On the other hand, pressure from the other side rightly discourages people from saying things like "if I can't/won't/don't measure it then nobody else can hear it".
This was partially the idea of the thanks feature, but it was abused and dropped (though the abuse may have been a demonstration of the flaws rather than malicious, I'm not really sure). I participate on another forum (not so much lately) that had a rating of F- to A+ for posts. It ended up causing so much grief that it got changed to A+ only. Even that is now considered for removal because it is seen as a back patting between an elite group who give each other A+ for just about anything.
It is possible to rate an entire thread, and this is done and for the most part I think it works ok.
Tony.
I really appreciate this forum for its openness and varied viewpoints from ALL.
Maybe the arguments will not be settled, but I enjoy them and most often come away with a new or better understanding. Every time I am forced to re-think an issue I gain a insight or appreciation for some new subtlety.
I suspect the main participants in these battles generally leave angry but many of the followers gain or finally have surfaced a new idea. I'm truly amazed at how ideas are slowly developed in our minds and often need some push from a very different point of view to become conscious.
I'd much prefer the existing open format for seeding of good thoughts either technical or philosophical. My take is, if you don't insist on being 100% right, both sides can and do contribute to making DIY Audio more enjoyable for all.
Thanks
-Antonio
Maybe the arguments will not be settled, but I enjoy them and most often come away with a new or better understanding. Every time I am forced to re-think an issue I gain a insight or appreciation for some new subtlety.
I suspect the main participants in these battles generally leave angry but many of the followers gain or finally have surfaced a new idea. I'm truly amazed at how ideas are slowly developed in our minds and often need some push from a very different point of view to become conscious.
I'd much prefer the existing open format for seeding of good thoughts either technical or philosophical. My take is, if you don't insist on being 100% right, both sides can and do contribute to making DIY Audio more enjoyable for all.
Thanks
-Antonio
- Status
- Not open for further replies.