Moderating

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#681
anatech said:
That's one thing we are discussing.
Click to expand...

If the differences are unclear enough to be subject to discussion, why were the preliminary actions different? Notice that it was the same moderator taking action in both cases. I didn't mention it before because I thought it was unimportant - surely you guys have moderating guidelines that cause all of you to moderate consistently.

Anyway, the moderator must have thought the two situations were different. What were the differences that caused him to act differently in each case? He must have had something in mind.
 
#686
SY said:
Jeff, if you want to email the moderator in question to ask, feel free to do so. As hs been mentioned, we are discussing appropriate action.
Click to expand...

This text belongs here in this thread:

"I don't understand the difficulty. If I recall correctly there are multiple examples of allowing "group buys" to occur against the wishes of those who first introduced an idea to the forum. There are several examples of DIYAudio authorising such controversial "group buys" initiated by the very person who now finds his latest "group buy" halted and the subject of this discussion."

"Are we seeing a policy reversal? Preliminary actions seem to indicate so."

I want a public explanation for the contradictory actions taken in the two cases. At least have the courtesy to publicly tell me I'm not going to get one. It's unclear whether this delay is due to the inherent difficulties of the situation or a hope that I'll forget about it.
 
#689
With regards to circuits popularized on the forum by other individuals:

None of such circuits should be a subject to commercial offers ON THIS FORUM without a consent from a person who popularized such circuit.

It can be marketed in any other place or venue, but advertising on a forum, where it originated, should be first subject to aproval from a person who came up with it first and MADE IT BIG.

We have moderators here, and they should enforce it.

It has nothing to do with public domain info, it is simply a curtesy to fellow forum members and as such should be respected. After all, there are other more important things in life than making money no matter what.

I'm here in support of Carlos' claim.

PS: I was also in support of Pedja's claim when time was still right, but nobody listened to me then either.
 
#690
Hi Peter,
None of such circuits should be a subject to commercial offers ON THIS FORUM without a concent from a person who popularized such circuit.
Click to expand...
I personally agree with you on that. It certainly is not an unfair position to take.

I am not commenting on any claims by members at this time.

-Chris
 
#692
Peter Daniel said:
PS: I was also in support of Pedja's claim when time was still right, but nobody listened to me then either.
Click to expand...
Example:
I have designed a headphone amp using TPA6120, one of the first here also. Do you mean that every other person must ask me about permission to use this IC according to the datasheet?

If Pedja looks into the datasheet of LM338 and make a schematic of it, does this mean that for instance digi01 have to ask Pedja to use a LM338 according to it's datasheet?

Let's face it: How many here have pubslished rocket science? I think we have to find the level of things.
 
#693
peranders said:
Example:
I have designed a headphone amp using TPA6120, one of the first here also. Do you mean that every other person must ask me about permission to use this IC according to the datasheet?
Click to expand...

I have done it too, and it was before you. You were discussing the heatsinking of the chip, I had already tested it.
Although, I didn't use it as on the datasheet, as you did.
I didn't publish it, it was not really worth it, you can keep it for yourself.

peranders said:
If Pedja looks into the datasheet of LM338 and make a schematic of it, does this mean that for instance digi01 have to ask Pedja to use a LM338 according to it's datasheet?
Click to expand...

As much as I look at the datasheet, I don't see the use of the LM338 for the two voltage rails, and much less the hint that it could be used for the PSU of a (chip)amp.
Sometimes it's the simplest ideas that can work. Nothing really novel, but caused some surprize and sensation here.
It was Pedja who introduced it, and the reason some people (and then there was many of them) started building it.
When I started testing the LM338 I didn't know but Pedja had already done it.
I didn't like it at all, when I first tried it on the amp.
Then Pedja gave me a small but very important hint: use a very small cap on the output of the LM338.
Obviously he knew what he was talking about, he had been there, tested that, concluded that.
Do you get it? :dodgy:
 
#695
Variac said:
Peter:
Has our member Nelson Pass given permission for his Aleph to be used by you as a profit making enterprise?
Click to expand...

I think you need to ask him about it directly. $20 for two gold plated boards with clear mask, shipping included, was at that time considered as fair price.

It surely wasn't started as profit making enterprise, as first run of 50 boards was costing me much more initially, taking into account setup fees and time spent on finalizing the layout. I just didn't know the demand for those will continue for so long.

But for the record, I contacted Mr. Pass personally before I even started ordering the boards, he also received one set of the boards for inspection.
 
#696
SY said:
The former. It's complicated.
Click to expand...

OK, it's now been several days. How complicated can it be? So people don't forget original query:

Please explain why these very recent (and very similar) complaints about copying intellectual property were handled so differently:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...&threadid=78483

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...&threadid=78288

In the first case, the complaintant was sent to Texas for his efforts. In the second, the complaintant succeeded in having the thread closed and a second thread removed. I've got nothing against either complaintant, but the moderating seems arbitrary and unfair. A cynical person might believe that the second complaintant was treated differently because he is a paying advertiser on this site.
 
#697
carlosfm said:
He accused me for not making PCBs, go figure... and it's not the first time.

Oh yeah, only he makes 'professional' looking PCBs full of smd components...:clown:
No, even more incredible, only he makes 'real' PCBs...
Click to expand...
Carlos, you know perfectly well what I mean. When you do pcb's at home you can't simply do some things, for instance drilling 0.3 mm holes very tight or plate the holes.

You know also perfectly well that I'm not the only one here that have made "manufactured" boards.
 
#698
:captain:

Jeff,

You will have your answer insofar as I can answer it. I cannot and will not answer all demands, but in the past you have generally been thoughtful in your posts and I want to treat you in a like manner in the hope that it will also be useful to other members. All the mods have discussed this situation and I believe we are in general agreement.

Your first post caught us at an unusual time- the transition from one chief mod to another, SY has been wanting to pass
on the "captain's hat" for quite a while as he has many business activities and trips taking his time now and in the near future. I have accepted the position as Chief Mod.

Your argument that the two posts demonstrate different treatment of two members is correct in my opinion, and that is the point. People are treated differently here depending on their history. People that constantly post endless argumentitive posts or attack members here as they are encouraged to on another site, are given different treatment than those who post helpful information, occasionally make thoughtful comments regarding the site management, and generally observe the decorum we demand here. It has nothing to do with whether someone sells on the site.

We feel that when arguments prevail in a thread, it is destructive in a similar way that the mentioning of group buys too often in a thread or excessive comments complaining about the "objectivity or "subjectivity" of a thread are disruptive in that they destroy the bandwidth of information about DIY audio. Members have to pick through threads to find useful information which makes being here less informative and less fun.

This place is intended to be fun, while also being a source of some of the best information possible about making audio gear. A constant air of bickering in bad faith by a small number of members has a corrosive effect on the overall tone of this place. When people are purposefully trying to disrupt our forums, their opinions are given very little consideration and they are usually put under moderation, and eventually banned.

Different websites have different cultures and philosophies, and one can only expect them to change in small ways. If someone finds that they disagree in fundamental ways with the moderation and philosophy of an established site, then the logical thing to do is find or start a different site and leave the previous site to those that like its approach.

In my opinion it is obvious there can't be a fixed set of rules that are implimented identically in all situations. Otherwise there would be cases where members with a negative agenda could constantly argue about the rules in minute detail while ignoring their intent. We are always careful to warn members whom we feel are violating the rules- often privately, so that any disciplinary action we are required to take is never a surprise if they are at all receptive to our comments.

Our intention is that sales be confined to the Group Buy forum, to the Bazaar and private small quantity sales to the Trading Post. They should not be discussed excessively in general threads. No one is forced to participate in or subsidize a group buy. We just supply a place where discussions and arrangements can take place. Regulation is only necessary to the extent that we can try to prevent out-and-out fraud or incompetance when we feel it will affect the outcome or when we feel that sales notices are placed in the wrong catagory. Otherwise, this is a voluntary transaction entered into by people on a voluntary basis. The forum is analogous to the bulletin board at your local supermarket where people put up
"for sale" and "lost pet" ads.

I will cut some of posts in this thread and responses to them because they meet the criteria above of constant complaining and arguing. Some people have been warned many times but seem unable to comply with our requests. There will be consequences as mentioned above.

I hope this was helpful, but I don't have the time to enter into discussions regarding these points,


Variac
 
#699
Variac said:
You will have your answer insofar as I can answer it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the reply, but unfortunately it contains no clear answer.

Does this mean that the suspended group buy (the closed thread) will be reinstated? There is nothing about it that breaks any rules that I can see. If it is not to be reinstated, what has changed? This person has been allowed to run many group buys before. Why is this one different?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom