Thread Closure - Another Alternative

[PB2]

I notice that this thread was closed by the moderators:
Parallel driver interaction in a 4-way system.

I have to say that as I see it there were a few members who refused to contribute in a positive fashion, instead seeming to think that they knew beforehand how Glen's design would turn out. I'd like to suggest that rather than close the thread, allow the thread starter to politely ask people who's style or views clash with their own, to leave the discussion. I have seen this work well.

I was pleased to see Jack Hidley join in, something we don't see often and seems to indicate that there was at least some interesting activity in the thread.

Seems that if someone starts a thread asking for help and certain posters use the thread to interfere or harass, then the thread starter should be allowed to exclude such people. Any chance of reopening the thread and allowing Glen to exclude those he chooses?

Pete B.

[PeteMcK]

hmmm, for that to work, politeness and restraint would still need to be exhibited by ALL parties to the debate. That thread is a lesson in on-line psychology....
Technical people are notorious for bad communication, and it is clear that many do not take care to think about how their written words may be perceived in a different light by others...and others are quick to feel insulted, whether an insult is intended or not...forbearance, bros...

[Calvin]

Hi,

there are rules and there are moderators who made it their task to see that those rules are followed after. I think this system works very well here. I wouldn´t want it any other way.
Maybe technical people are not specially skilled in communication, but my impression is that they tend to talk clearly and clean, based on hard facts (lownoise ) There are many examples of tech-talk threads with very valuable information -and quite often with very differing opinions- where no moderation was ever needed.
On the other hand less technical skilled people seem to interprete things instead taking the information as it is.
The great problem with Glen´s thread is imho the missing clarity in his asking. This lead to many wild guesses instead of hard facted information. I can understand that there is frustration on both sides about how the thread developed. Glen´s, that he didn´t got the information he hoped to receive and the Answerer´s, that their effort was in vain. As thread starter to leave the own thread in the way Glen did displays low respect against those guys who positively tried to help. That is my impression and personal opinion and that´s what I find disturbing about the now closed thread.

jauu
Calvin

[BlueWizard]

Well we run the risk of offending both sides when we start discussing a thread that didn't go well.

On-line communication is very tricky, though it might not seem so. Offense can easily be taken where none was intended, and what seem like minor insignificant points by a poster can take on great significance to the reader.

But there are way of guarding against misunderstandings. One is to not take it too seriously. Another, is to be willing to correct misinterpretations; especially if you can be concise and short with that correction. Another is to accept when the conversation has stalled. You are not going to convince everybody to agree with you, so that is the first thing you have to let go of. Second, when you've made your point, and the opposition has made their point, then you've clarified your point, and the opposition has made its counter argument, and you go through this succession a few times, you need to realize that whether the other person got it or not, you just have to let it go. That's one of the hardest things to do, to just let it go.

Several times in that thread, Glen took offense at statements, but I think that was an emotional response that was not tempered by an understanding of Internet communication. On the Internet, you simply can't take it personal, unless it is an out-and-out personal attack. Even then, take it with a grain of salt.

Glen came in thinking one way, and was gradually persuaded to look at the problem from a different point a view. A change in perspective that he was glad to receive. But grew frustrated at the point that we all grow frustrated, and that is in picking a specific workable combination of speakers, and arranging them into a specific and workable design.

If you are not copying a known and proven design, then picking individual speakers and working them into a design is a long, frustrating, and complex process, especially when you bring a committee into the works. Everyone has different ideas on how to approach the problem, and that only adds to the frustration. I think, and just my opinion, that Glen just didn't realize that the frustration at the constant give and take, and range of designs and selections, was just normal.

People weren't contradicting him or trying to circumvent him, they were trying to help. But when you get a diverse committee of people trying to help, you get a long list of conflicting and diverse solutions to the problem. And that is enough to frustrate and anger anyone, but when this is going on on the Internet, and when this is going on relative to a speaker design, frustrating as it is, it is just the normal course of events.

I think what Glen failed to realize is that the frustration he was feeling was perfectly normal, and was the same frustration we were all feeling as we tried to nail down a complex and unique design. Of course, Glen is the one searching for answer, he is the one who is outlaying a BIG pile of money, and the one investing a huge block of labor, and someone who was eager to get started and therefore finished. So, it seems reasonable that his frustration level was a little higher than anyone else's.

None the less, if he didn't know before, he should now know that situation frustrated, confusing, and conflicted is just another day at the office.

Hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. If so, then please forgive me.

Steve/bluewizard

[sreten]

Hi,

FWIW when the thread starter spends half his time complaining
about the replies he is getting - and half of the time wrongly -
or pointlessly - what do you expect ?

IMHO PB2's interpretation of what was was going on is simply wrong,
that is "there were a few members who refused to contribute in a
positive fashion" is not correct, being perceived that way is no fun.

As BW alludes to, that thread was becoming particularly humourless.

PB2's alternative ? (thread title), not the thing you want for a forum.
Pointless "harassment" and "interference" is usually roundly
condemned by all and AFAICT dealt with under forum rules.

/sreten.

[SY]

One is to not take it too seriously.

That is the single most important thing, IMO.

Always remember, we're not trying to find a cure for cancer, we're building hifi equipment.

[PB2]

I agree completely that audio, especially on the internet should not be taken too seriously. What I did not want here in this thread, was to get into another ******* contest with people guessing if what I suggested will work. SY, how about putting my suggestion to the test, let's say just in Glen's thread. If Glen asks someone to drop out of the thread, and they don't then the mods put the offender in the sin bin. There are always going to be people who clash, and it is better to simply stop the interaction and let the contributions that are constructive continue.

Pete B.

[SY]

a) It's not my call.
b) It's not easy to implement in the software and the mods just don't have time to constantly police all the relevant threads if it goes beyond a single one.
c) I just am uncomfortable with the idea of restricting who can post where.

[ShinOBIWAN]

Originally posted by PB2
SY, how about putting my suggestion to the test, let's say just in Glen's thread. If Glen asks someone to drop out of the thread, and they don't then the mods put the offender in the sin bin.

I'm strongly against this.

Glen, as we've seen, can dish out the dirt as well as anyone else. Having almost free reign over who can and can't participate in his thread isn't going to well IMO.

Just let that thread die. Glen can start another if he's interested in doing so.

PS. Its interesting to see that these types of threads are started not by the, ahem, 'injured party' but someone else championing for them.

[BlueWizard]

I think I have to side with ShinOBIWAN, at least to some extent.

Glen took offense to several people all of whom were generally trying to help, and in apparent non-offensive posts, did help. So, how can those people be asked to leave, when they are genuinely contributing?

Do we simply keep asking people to leave until we have narrowed it down to a list of people who are in complete agreement with our point of view? How is that productive? You don't learn from the people who agree with you, you learn from the people who disagree. In debating with those who disagree, you either solidify your own position, or you see if from a new angle and modify your position accordingly. In either case, the result is productive.

But if all you are left with is a group of people who smile and nod in agreement, there can be no debate, no analysis, not counter methods of accomplishing the same thing. That's not productive.

Again, speaker designing is a frustrating process, partly because there are so many ways to accomplish a task. Glen had very unusual requirements, and some thought he was taking the wrong approach in seeming to create a extremely low impedance speaker simply because he had an amp that could handle it. Some thought he should concentrate on fidelity, and forget about the consumption of raw current. A point of view that he eventually adopted to some degree. So, again, disagreement was productive to the ultimate goal.

Some people tried to solve his problem in the context in which he laid it out. Others, thought the underlying concept was flawed and tried to adjust that part of it. That produces conflicting designs, which can be frustrating for someone trying to narrow it down rather than expand the options wider.

I think Glen could have taken less offense and responded more diplomatically.

The thread was clearly taking a uncomfortable and non-productive turn. Perhaps it was best to stop it, give Glen time to digest what had been said, and if he felt the need to come back with a new post in which his new goals and new purpose are more clearly defined; that's up to him.

I suspect it is always a tough call on the part of the moderators, who I suspect have real and demanding lives outside the forum, and as such don't have countless hours to ponder and debate the merits of a thread that has taking a turn in a bad direction. At some point, for both civility and efficiency, it's most expedient to simply shut it down, give people time to cool off and think, then allow it to start again with cooler and wiser heads.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bluewizard