Christer,
I don't know... I should have been "binned" a time or two... sometimes I throw rocks instead of snowballs. I try to "lay low" and help newbies, most of the time.
I didn't follow the link, but I think what you might have seen was "the last straw".
My point is: we can all become antagonistic... we are PEOPLE... mostly, some of us are ALWAYS antagonistic.
I can think right now of 3 people that "stir the pot" but contribute nothing. Who have you been "locking horns" with all day?
The antagonistic people scare the ignorant and the new. It is satisfying, for me, to help a newbie fix a problem. It is about sharing and teaching (and learning)... many have an attitude, " I won't speak unless you speak my language".
I know a couple of the mods here on a very casual basis... they are good people... perhaps outspoken... but very bright... something I prize.
Relax,
I don't know... I should have been "binned" a time or two... sometimes I throw rocks instead of snowballs. I try to "lay low" and help newbies, most of the time.
I didn't follow the link, but I think what you might have seen was "the last straw".
My point is: we can all become antagonistic... we are PEOPLE... mostly, some of us are ALWAYS antagonistic.
I can think right now of 3 people that "stir the pot" but contribute nothing. Who have you been "locking horns" with all day?
The antagonistic people scare the ignorant and the new. It is satisfying, for me, to help a newbie fix a problem. It is about sharing and teaching (and learning)... many have an attitude, " I won't speak unless you speak my language".
I know a couple of the mods here on a very casual basis... they are good people... perhaps outspoken... but very bright... something I prize.
Relax,
I'm sorry, but that is absolutely untrue. Please reread Variac's statement in the link I gave you and in comments on this thread.
poobah said:
I agree. I am also surprised I have never ended up in the sin bin considering some of the quite inflamed discussions I've been involved in, and I am afraid I also mistake a rock for a snowball sometimes.
Yes, that is human nature. Some people can avoid ever being antagonistic, which is a nice virtue. However, most of us are sometimes, some more often than others, so we have to have some tolerance with this. Some people also have very bad social skills but are brigth EEs or whatever, and there should be a place for them too.
It was you who said it, not me. 😉
Agree. However, some/many of the ones with a difficult attitude are not mainly showing that attitute towards newbies, but towards people who have been around here for a while and already know about their attitude problems. That doesn't apply to all of them, of course, and some can risk scaring away people.
Sure, I also consider myself knowing many of a mods a bit from the forum and occasional email discussions, and share your opinion. I am sure they have acted with the best of intentions in this case, but even that can go wrong sometimes. I don't mean to complain, but just to figure out what actually happened and to bring this to the forum members attention.
Don't worry, I am relaxed. I just found that strange things had happened to the forum during the few months I was away, and wish the forum to stay the excellent place it is.
SY said:
I can't actually see anything in that post contradicting what I said, and I did get it from a former, now banned member, whom I do trust. On the other hand, I do trust you at least as much, so if you insist it didn't happen that way I don't really know what to believe. 😕
im sure the Moderators e-mailed a number of warnings before thay where banned.
personaly i think there doing a good job,i like a can post a idea and not get cut down for it.
i to have been here for a number of years, and i have seen no change still a lot of good members with good ideas.
cheers
😉
personaly i think there doing a good job,i like a can post a idea and not get cut down for it.
i to have been here for a number of years, and i have seen no change still a lot of good members with good ideas.
cheers
😉
karma said:
While I agree with you in general about the quality of moderation Karma I don't find "not get cut down" to be consistent. It depends on which side of the 'Horowitz & Hill' you live. Berating members as 'audiofools' and sellers as 'charlatans' is fair game and depressingly common.
Hi rdf,
While it may be common... it may be enlightening for those readers that can't decipher all the tech-speak... or worse yet the gobble-de-guk the charlatans spew that passes for tech speak.
The formula is fairly simple; make outlandish claims, offer no proof, and charge alot of money. There simply aren't nice words to describe liars and thieves. The lack of such nice words doesn't mean that liars and thieves don't exist.
Check out "empirical audio"... any words come to mind?
🙂
While it may be common... it may be enlightening for those readers that can't decipher all the tech-speak... or worse yet the gobble-de-guk the charlatans spew that passes for tech speak.
The formula is fairly simple; make outlandish claims, offer no proof, and charge alot of money. There simply aren't nice words to describe liars and thieves. The lack of such nice words doesn't mean that liars and thieves don't exist.
Check out "empirical audio"... any words come to mind?
🙂
RDF, we actually have a mix of approaches in the mod team, but the one thing we have in common is a refusal to accept things as given, we all have the need to want to know "Why?". I see that as being quite healthy myself.
poobah, knowing your wicked sense or humour I can't tell if you're serious or demonstrating the behaviour for the sake of irony. I suspect the latter because you really can't seriously be arguing it's to 'save the children', or that name calling is enlightening.
pinkmouse, I'm not suggesting anyone take anything on their word. The greater part of what gives this forum value are the experts eager to debate any point. This is about consistently enforcing civility and courtesy. The irony is ad hominem characterizations, misrepresentations, and second-guessing motives aren't in the spirit of scientific inquiry and weren't part of any engineering course I attended (though the same can't be said of the professors.) At best they only polarize the forum and chase away members, often those with far more experience and knowledge of audio than the detractors.
pinkmouse, I'm not suggesting anyone take anything on their word. The greater part of what gives this forum value are the experts eager to debate any point. This is about consistently enforcing civility and courtesy. The irony is ad hominem characterizations, misrepresentations, and second-guessing motives aren't in the spirit of scientific inquiry and weren't part of any engineering course I attended (though the same can't be said of the professors.) At best they only polarize the forum and chase away members, often those with far more experience and knowledge of audio than the detractors.
karma said:
Well, that is the question. SY claims they did it that way. The banned member I have been talking to, and who told me about what had happend, insists it did not happen that way. I trust both of them and have never had any reason to believe either of them is a liar, so this is a bit puzzling.
Don't get me wrong. I see no major changes in the forum. But what did immediately strike me when I came back after some time off was that quite a number of well-known members seemed not to be around anymore. In that sense I perceive a difference, and if it happened in the way I was told, there obviously has been a major change in moderator policy. Now, that being said, if it stays at this it will not mean any big difference to the forum in the long run, since members come and go anyway over the years, but it certainly has caused an unexpected transient in the flow of the forum.
poobah said:
I couldn't agree more. While I think those who believe in various exotic and questionable things should be allowed to voice their opinion too, they must accept to have their opinions challenged by those of us who prefer to have at least som explanation as to why it could be expected to work. And I fully agree it is important to have a discussion about those issues since many member have poor knowledge of EE and physics and very little ability to judge by themselves what is reasonable and not. That said, one should always keep at least a slightly open mind for the possibility that there are phenomenae we still don't quite understand or that we dismiss by carelessly using oversimplified theory to refute them.
Christer said:
I think you're missing the point. These things could be questioned just as effectively without the sarcasm and thinly veiled insults that are allowed to pass by moderators.
"If you believe xxx, you are an idiot." Whether this statement runs afoul of the moderation depends primarily on what "xxx" is. I can find many examples of this, though they'll be more subtle in most cases.
jeff mai said:
OK, there I agree fully with you. However, don't forget that sarcasms are not seldom used by the "believers" too.
Christer,
I don't know this for fact... I have no direct knowledge at all. But I'll bet the mods had a round table meeting and thought hard before giving anyone the boot.
rdf, we can just disagree I guess... humorous or not... that was exactly what I meant to say. I just don't think there is anything wrong with calling somethone hawking $1500 power cords a charlatan... is there a better word? I don't do politically correct... because it is wrong, it has become a real sad issue for all of us.
🙂
I don't know this for fact... I have no direct knowledge at all. But I'll bet the mods had a round table meeting and thought hard before giving anyone the boot.
rdf, we can just disagree I guess... humorous or not... that was exactly what I meant to say. I just don't think there is anything wrong with calling somethone hawking $1500 power cords a charlatan... is there a better word? I don't do politically correct... because it is wrong, it has become a real sad issue for all of us.
🙂
Christer said:
Yes, but they are more frequently the subject of moderator action.
And you've provided a perfect example of the type of subtle sarcasm I refer to - "believers."
jeff mai said:
Sorry, it was in no way meant as sarcasm, I just needed to call them something. If you think that X works, but cannot explain why it works and cannot provide a proof that it works, then I think it is fair to say that you believe in it. It is no more strange than religion. Religious people cannot prove that god exists (althoug a few claim they can) but they believe in god. Most of them even have the opinion that religion is about belief.
To play the devils advocate, I could of course just as well claim that also we who are inclined to trust scientific theories are also believers. We believe in science and the scientific approach.
poobah said:
Sure, I have no doubt about that. I am sure they had lengthy and difficult discussions, and most certainly not all mods agreed upon the decisions taken. However, the point was primarily about how this decision was then implemented, if my source is right, which is now contradicted by SY.
Would it have been better if he said nutcase, or whacko?
How about judgementally challenged?
Logically deprived?
How about judgementally challenged?
Logically deprived?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.