MODERATORS ATTN. (and others) -- Posters Ethics and Moderation

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

I would suggest a new topic for general discussion.

This group of Boards exists to share ideas, experiences and the like, thus adding to the general store of knowledge and helping the DIY Community.

From this it would seem a reasonable conclusion that desired postings are of a type that actually add something, or ask for clarifications.

It would seem to me that posts by people who NEVER share anything and instead only criticise other peoples posts and do so often using specious arguments violate the (as of yet unstated) ethical code for this groups of boards.

I would suggest to the moderators to formulate an extended ethical code and suggest this for vote by the Board Users, for adoption as general "code of behaviour" for the Moderators to utilise.

This would then give a handle to combat unethical behaviour that currently is tolerated as it does not violate the written code of conduct, but which is clearly against the spirit of sharing and community embodied in this group of boards.

Comments please.

Sayonara

[tiroth]

While I am thoroughly disgusted with a number of people who would seem to fall into that category, I don't think this is a job for moderation. We've had trouble in the past when moderators were asked to moderate people's opinions, as opposed to (false) facts or crude language/attacks.

[SY]

My comments here are as a member, not as a moderator nor as spokesman for the moderators.

In a real sense, forums like this are communities. Communities are composed of all sorts of people with all sorts of ideas and views, all sorts of styles, and all sorts of interests. As with all communities, the basic mores and culture are not generally enforced from above, but are a result of the interaction of the members. People don't refrain from loudly passing gas at restaurants because they're afraid a cop is going to arrest them, they refrain from it because it is something that will cause their fellows to think poorly of them and, eventually, to shun them.

Criticism is either on point or not. If it's on point and the target continues to ignore it, discount it, make fun of it, and in general not deal with it, the target will eventually be ignored at worst, and in general not be taken seriously at best. Contrariwise, if the critic's comments are repeatedly not pertinent and poorly thought through, the critic will not be taken seriously and will eventually be ignored and lose interest- or go and learn something.

There are nutcakes who continue to get up on soapboxes and denounce the Queen of England for heroin smuggling. As long as they attract a crowd and get attention (whether positive or negative), they will continue to do so. At the point where no one pays them attention, they generally climb off their little box, go home, and tend to their stamp collections.

There are people whose posts I personally find interminally dull, far too long, pompous, and ill-informed. I don't argue with them, I ignore them. You are free to do the same.

[millwood]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
This group of Boards exists to share ideas, experiences and the like, thus adding to the general store of knowledge and helping the DIY Community.

From this it would seem a reasonable conclusion that desired postings are of a type that actually add something, or ask for clarifications.
Sayonara

adding to the general store of knowledge also means subtracting from it mis-information. There is no assurance that anyone posted here is true, and quite frankly the signal to noise ratio isn't that great. So if all we can do is to agree to anything and everything posted here then this forum will end us as nothing but garbage dump, which I assume isn't the intended purpose of its creator(s).

so to me it would seem a reasonable conclusion that to the extend that we were to impose an "ethic code" (why would it be called "ethic code", BTW?), it would be vital that we impose the same "ethic code" on anyone and everyone posting here in affirmative fashion: demand proof / back-up for anything statements posted here so that there is no mis-information.

If you think the egyptian maple case adds to the sound of an amp, you better back it up with solid scientific proof, and subject yourself to peer reviews before posting to this forum.

That way, you eliminate the addition of mis-information to this forum, a neccessary condition if you are to eliminate the subtraction of mis-information caused by the imposing the "ethic code".

[Peter Daniel]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang

This group of Boards exists to share ideas, experiences and the like, thus adding to the general store of knowledge and helping the DIY Community.

From this it would seem a reasonable conclusion that desired postings are of a type that actually add something, or ask for clarifications.

It would seem to me that posts by people who NEVER share anything and instead only criticise other peoples posts and do so often using specious arguments violate the (as of yet unstated) ethical code for this groups of boards.

That is also my view. As a member, I'm here to learn new ways and utilize them in my projects. I'm not looking for proofs and I don't give them out. My personal observations are "good enough" for me. I also like to share my experiences and whatever I learned so far. People are free to use that (and accept) in any way they want, no obligations here. This gives me sort of satisfaction and a feeling that I'm contributing to something bigger, something that is beyond this forum (one could called it New Age Audiophile awarness).

I find people who demand a proof and who question everything (without even trying to conduct their own experiments) as parasites and distraction to everybody who is more serious about audio (and this forum), and frequents this place not only for entertainment purposes but rather treat it as a part of everyday life.

This is my personal view, and as a moderator I have to find a middle way, where my actions seem fair to everybody. There were few cases when interesting discussion was interrupted by doubters and proof seekers. My usual intervention in those cases is to immediatly create a new threrad, where doubters can pursue their quest for obtaining proof, yet leave the original thread untouched by their demands and free for discussion of the original subject.

[millwood]

I think it interesting that people would call those with different point of views "unethical", which I remember the churches did a lot many many years ago. and I thought we had long passed that.

what I would consider unethical is a) selling personal experience as nothing but personal experience; and b) selling knowing false statements.

If I tried to tell you that my neutrino shields made a RadioShack boombox sound like a Parasound amp, that would be unethical. and if you challenged and disagreed with me on that, it would NOT be unethical.

The point? we have diverse experience and reasonable people can differ. We would just have to agree to disagree and move on.

[till]

people who demand a proof and who question everything

this are very important and basic parts of science. Without proof and doubt there would be no progress and no truth. Its not unetical.

It is unetical to present something as truth and insist on this "truth" without being able on bring a proof or at least a hypothesis.

[sam9]

The main purpose of such a forum is information exchance. Freindly of topic digressions ocurr and are distracting at worst but not really harmful.

On the other hand when disagreements become personal and insults and invesctive replace reasonable differences of opinion the value and purpose of the site is harmed. These instances have been rare but it appears to me that in the case of of few negative instances the motive is to engender attention from the rest of us. To counter this I try simply not to respond to the offending posts since ignoring the offender ios usually the most painful of all possible rebukes.

[leadbelly]

Originally posted by Peter Daniel


Why not ignore those who "shall not be challenged", just like we ignore those who are allowed to disagree? The signal to noise ratio would be much better and there wouldn't be any reason for threads like this one here.

Exactly.

And I think the signal to noise ratio is extremely high for an open internet forum on hard matter like designs. It simply blows the doors off of any other forums of any other of my hobbies.

On soft matter like theory, the SNR can get pretty low. I admit I have completely lost the patience to follow the long threads debating theory. But I don't think it can be fixed by a soft-censorship, which is what a detailed code of ethics would amount to IMO.

[SY]

Originally posted by sam9

On the other hand when disagreements become personal and insults and invesctive replace reasonable differences of opinion the value and purpose of the site is harmed. These instances have been rare but it appears to me that in the case of of few negative instances the motive is to engender attention from the rest of us. To counter this I try simply not to respond to the offending posts since ignoring the offender ios usually the most painful of all possible rebukes.

Omigod, a grown-up!