Re: Why has this discussion gone off topic?
Sure, I'll bite. Where I see the ethics issue come in is the case of commercial posters and the potential conflict of interest issues. Suppose a manufacturer of loudspeakers using design technique X were to come in and start up a bunch of threads about why design technique X is the best. That person would be using the forum as a propaganda tool, which I feel is unethical and violates the spirit of the forum. Fortunately this rarely happens. I'm not sure what the solution to this would be though. The moderators have a difficult job and I think they do it extremely well.
But I could be misinterpreting the intent of your post regarding how ethics fit in.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Sure, I'll bite. Where I see the ethics issue come in is the case of commercial posters and the potential conflict of interest issues. Suppose a manufacturer of loudspeakers using design technique X were to come in and start up a bunch of threads about why design technique X is the best. That person would be using the forum as a propaganda tool, which I feel is unethical and violates the spirit of the forum. Fortunately this rarely happens. I'm not sure what the solution to this would be though. The moderators have a difficult job and I think they do it extremely well.
But I could be misinterpreting the intent of your post regarding how ethics fit in.
Re: Why has this discussion gone off topic?
Repeated offenders, who act against the spirit of the forum, are being put under moderation. In this case each post of such an individual goes through moderator's censorship and is either accepted or placed into garbage bin, where it truly belongs.
This worked in a past, and some truly undesirable persons, left the forum by their own decision ( and don't post anymore).
Yet, such decisions are not easy, as although it may seem simple to just get rid of the offender, in many ways it acts as a double sided sword and affects the spirit of the forum from the other angle, where frredom of expression is not allowed. That's why the moderators are rather reluctant to place people under moderation and it's done as a last resort only. I don't recall if more than four such cases occured so far.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Repeated offenders, who act against the spirit of the forum, are being put under moderation. In this case each post of such an individual goes through moderator's censorship and is either accepted or placed into garbage bin, where it truly belongs.
This worked in a past, and some truly undesirable persons, left the forum by their own decision ( and don't post anymore).
Yet, such decisions are not easy, as although it may seem simple to just get rid of the offender, in many ways it acts as a double sided sword and affects the spirit of the forum from the other angle, where frredom of expression is not allowed. That's why the moderators are rather reluctant to place people under moderation and it's done as a last resort only. I don't recall if more than four such cases occured so far.
Steve Eddy said:
If you had followed my explanation closer, you would understand that it was not a "true" universal claim, but rather a tricky way to obtain others opinion (intended to confirm my false assumtion)
In other words it was a sort of provocation (although I wasn't completely sure about that at a time).
Re: Why has this discussion gone off topic?
Hi,
if directly reason for staring this thread is your discussion with positron about 6sn7 preamp I can say (IMHO) that you can very easy building this preamp, measuring them and prove (or not) your statements. Unethical is maybe suggestion someone to make something (your design?) without experimental, measurements and sonic results. Sometimes you came here like a best engineer on the World, what can be irritating and false.
Don't call then moderators for help, please.
Regards
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Hi,
if directly reason for staring this thread is your discussion with positron about 6sn7 preamp I can say (IMHO) that you can very easy building this preamp, measuring them and prove (or not) your statements. Unethical is maybe suggestion someone to make something (your design?) without experimental, measurements and sonic results. Sometimes you came here like a best engineer on the World, what can be irritating and false.
Don't call then moderators for help, please.
Regards
Observations
It would seem useful to examine the mechanisms that are commonly causing individuals to spiral out of control.
1. Often times, smart people with lots of knowledge appear so deeply tied to their postings that they are unable to see that there is discussion around issues, not personal attacks. The most knowledgeable guys are often the most hot-headed
2. Unnecessary headbutting - again resulting in postings becoming personal or are seen as personal.
I think these two items would count for about 80% of all "bad tone" arguments. Thus, one could add text to the new posting page along the lines of:
"All postings are by definition about issues. Before you submit, consider whether this posting can be seen as personal, derogatory, mocking or negative, and also reconsider if the post you are about to submit adds to the value of this forum or not".
Petter
It would seem useful to examine the mechanisms that are commonly causing individuals to spiral out of control.
1. Often times, smart people with lots of knowledge appear so deeply tied to their postings that they are unable to see that there is discussion around issues, not personal attacks. The most knowledgeable guys are often the most hot-headed
2. Unnecessary headbutting - again resulting in postings becoming personal or are seen as personal.
I think these two items would count for about 80% of all "bad tone" arguments. Thus, one could add text to the new posting page along the lines of:
"All postings are by definition about issues. Before you submit, consider whether this posting can be seen as personal, derogatory, mocking or negative, and also reconsider if the post you are about to submit adds to the value of this forum or not".
Petter
Re: Re: Why has this discussion gone off topic?
Konnichiwa,
I am not calling for help.
I have however repeatedly seen previously discussion groups aquiring largish numbers of people who do not contribute anything positive and flatly refuse to do so when asked while all the while talking other peoples contributions down instead of providing a sensible, well reasoned argument supported by either their experience or sensible and realistic technical reasoning. And I have seen the results to groups/boards.
Whenever a complete moron with clearly lacking basic technical skills put's down my contribution without having either a well reasoned and defensible technical point or experience I will defend my point and continue to expose such posters. This usually quickly moves the discussion from technical points (which they cannot score lacking sufficent knowledge and experience to back up their "dislike") to the point where they become personally insulting (and I admit readily that on occasion I continue certain discussions PURELY to allow such people to catch themselves) and usually get moderated away or whatever. However, I rarely ever enjoy such exchanges and would prefer discussions to work without them.
I never claim to know everything, however what I do know I tend to know well enough to be able to defend it to almost any level. I am always happy to disagree on points of personal preference and taste as there are no absolutes in these, however past that I will argue to the end if I have the time to spare (which is rare enough).
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
moamps said:
I am not calling for help.
I have however repeatedly seen previously discussion groups aquiring largish numbers of people who do not contribute anything positive and flatly refuse to do so when asked while all the while talking other peoples contributions down instead of providing a sensible, well reasoned argument supported by either their experience or sensible and realistic technical reasoning. And I have seen the results to groups/boards.
Whenever a complete moron with clearly lacking basic technical skills put's down my contribution without having either a well reasoned and defensible technical point or experience I will defend my point and continue to expose such posters. This usually quickly moves the discussion from technical points (which they cannot score lacking sufficent knowledge and experience to back up their "dislike") to the point where they become personally insulting (and I admit readily that on occasion I continue certain discussions PURELY to allow such people to catch themselves) and usually get moderated away or whatever. However, I rarely ever enjoy such exchanges and would prefer discussions to work without them.
I never claim to know everything, however what I do know I tend to know well enough to be able to defend it to almost any level. I am always happy to disagree on points of personal preference and taste as there are no absolutes in these, however past that I will argue to the end if I have the time to spare (which is rare enough).
Sayonara
Originally posted by millwood
this only works in the US
Originally posted by Peter Daniel
I doubt, audioguru.
A lot of people in these board are into science.
The basical substance of building (diy) technical devices for audio reproduction is technical science, not religion or personal spinnings.
Ethics is substancial for scienctist as for ALL other people also. Also for north american politicians and so. For everyone.
I don´t demand a proof for each statement, i only expect it is not presented as truth but as personal belive or hypothesis.
In case a statements is presented as truth against proofs, and the poster is not willing to do diskussion about it, i leave it to him to expose himself to ridicule.
This counts for different resitor brand sound as well as for ethics, science and truth.
Not at last this thread shows, unfortunately, that more "moderation", or call it by its name, censorship, woul make things not better but worse.l
this only works in the US
Originally posted by Peter Daniel
I doubt, audioguru.
A lot of people in these board are into science.
The basical substance of building (diy) technical devices for audio reproduction is technical science, not religion or personal spinnings.
Ethics is substancial for scienctist as for ALL other people also. Also for north american politicians and so. For everyone.
I don´t demand a proof for each statement, i only expect it is not presented as truth but as personal belive or hypothesis.
In case a statements is presented as truth against proofs, and the poster is not willing to do diskussion about it, i leave it to him to expose himself to ridicule.
This counts for different resitor brand sound as well as for ethics, science and truth.
Not at last this thread shows, unfortunately, that more "moderation", or call it by its name, censorship, woul make things not better but worse.l
Konnichiwa,
I'm not sure if this is true.
Even if it was true however, moderation in certain areas would allow a more productive, focused envoironment, without certain people wasting others (and their own) time on what are in essence non-issues, as either the position is clear and obvious or of such a nature that "proof/disproof" are not possible to a level that does not leave truckloads of reasonable doubts.
Sayonara
till said:
I'm not sure if this is true.
Even if it was true however, moderation in certain areas would allow a more productive, focused envoironment, without certain people wasting others (and their own) time on what are in essence non-issues, as either the position is clear and obvious or of such a nature that "proof/disproof" are not possible to a level that does not leave truckloads of reasonable doubts.
Sayonara
Re: Re: Re: Why has this discussion gone off topic?
But who is to judge what is "positive" and what isn't? It is entirely possible, and very likely in my view, that one doesn't see anything "positive" because one fails to understand it. Is that the fault of the poster?
Or maybe we should have a 3rd class of posters who have the rights to designate what's positive and what isn't,
I take exception to that. first of all, you are assuming your "contribution" is sound. That's isn't a given.
2ndly, aren't we entitled to our opinion? didn't someone say earlier that it is OK to state opinion without proof? To say that "your design sucks" is pretty much the same to say "i can hear that resistor sound" - they are all my opnion or experience.
or maybe we should have a fourth class of posters whose designs are designated to be universally sound regardless,
And quite frankly by calling others "morons" reflects poorly on you and pushes the discussion in the negative direction - that I would call "unethical".
Kuei Yang Wang said:
But who is to judge what is "positive" and what isn't? It is entirely possible, and very likely in my view, that one doesn't see anything "positive" because one fails to understand it. Is that the fault of the poster?
Or maybe we should have a 3rd class of posters who have the rights to designate what's positive and what isn't,
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I take exception to that. first of all, you are assuming your "contribution" is sound. That's isn't a given.
2ndly, aren't we entitled to our opinion? didn't someone say earlier that it is OK to state opinion without proof? To say that "your design sucks" is pretty much the same to say "i can hear that resistor sound" - they are all my opnion or experience.
or maybe we should have a fourth class of posters whose designs are designated to be universally sound regardless,
And quite frankly by calling others "morons" reflects poorly on you and pushes the discussion in the negative direction - that I would call "unethical".
Interesting thread.
On controversial opinions:
Heresy should be encouraged, even in whimsy. As someone remarked, we are not defending the position of the Church in the Middle Ages, and political correctness, the bane of any community, stifles debate. World progress depends on unreasonable, innovative men, and we'd better be listening when they speak. A reasonable level of proof, however, is advisable to move debate along. And remember that innovation is often greeted by derision; the act of speaking out takes courage.
On tiresome requests for 'proof' or 'definition':
If you are paying for the advice, proof is mandatory. If the advice is offered free, then no strings are attached, you can freely ignore it, and if you wish to examine the claims YOU should build the bloody thing, instead of arguing maniacally on some obscure point of PSpice or semantics. Such posts, comprised mainly of 'But how do you know...' and 'But can you be sure this is REALLY what it sounds like', are noise. They are an irksome request for more information, and a tacit admission that the questioner is unwilling to do the hard yards. One naturally questions the dedication. If you build it, you get all the engineering problems in your lap, and you even - gasp - have the chance to listen to the damn thing, and actually *know* what it sounds like.
On criticism without substance:
See above, and be assured this quickly becomes very personal and nasty. In a few hours we have a train wreck, everyone is ogling the blood and gore, and the original technical point is forgotten. I call this 'semantic cleansing'. There is no choice but to walk away, something I find myself doing a lot these days as I haven't the time or the stomach to bother.
On giving information freely:
Some altruists here take great pleasure in offering very useful, well sorted information to the community. My thanks, my profuse thanks, to these people, of whom NP, Thorsten, Charles, Christer, Peranders, Fred, and others too numerous to mention are the stars. Others offer nothing, either because they have none, or choose not to. That's fine. A large number are somewhere in between these groups, and many of them choose to disguise some of their pearls for a variety of personal and commercial reasons. That's cool; to each his own. No-one has any right to demand such information on the forum, where the eyes of the DIY world are upon it, and to ignore the commercial, public domain issues is naive. Remember, anything posted here is public domain, and patent application is thereby null and void. I would no sooner ask the finer points of Charles Hansen's zero feedback amplifier than fly to the moon.
My point is this: information is offered entirely at the discretion of the poster. No-one else has the right to pressure that individual for more, or cast aspersions when that person withdraws, demurs, or otherwise fails to deliver more. Everyone's perception of IP, business, marketing, trade secrets, etc, is different, and for those not in the audio business, a few moments thought is all that is needed.
Cheers,
Hugh
On 'proof'
On controversial opinions:
Heresy should be encouraged, even in whimsy. As someone remarked, we are not defending the position of the Church in the Middle Ages, and political correctness, the bane of any community, stifles debate. World progress depends on unreasonable, innovative men, and we'd better be listening when they speak. A reasonable level of proof, however, is advisable to move debate along. And remember that innovation is often greeted by derision; the act of speaking out takes courage.
On tiresome requests for 'proof' or 'definition':
If you are paying for the advice, proof is mandatory. If the advice is offered free, then no strings are attached, you can freely ignore it, and if you wish to examine the claims YOU should build the bloody thing, instead of arguing maniacally on some obscure point of PSpice or semantics. Such posts, comprised mainly of 'But how do you know...' and 'But can you be sure this is REALLY what it sounds like', are noise. They are an irksome request for more information, and a tacit admission that the questioner is unwilling to do the hard yards. One naturally questions the dedication. If you build it, you get all the engineering problems in your lap, and you even - gasp - have the chance to listen to the damn thing, and actually *know* what it sounds like.
On criticism without substance:
See above, and be assured this quickly becomes very personal and nasty. In a few hours we have a train wreck, everyone is ogling the blood and gore, and the original technical point is forgotten. I call this 'semantic cleansing'. There is no choice but to walk away, something I find myself doing a lot these days as I haven't the time or the stomach to bother.
On giving information freely:
Some altruists here take great pleasure in offering very useful, well sorted information to the community. My thanks, my profuse thanks, to these people, of whom NP, Thorsten, Charles, Christer, Peranders, Fred, and others too numerous to mention are the stars. Others offer nothing, either because they have none, or choose not to. That's fine. A large number are somewhere in between these groups, and many of them choose to disguise some of their pearls for a variety of personal and commercial reasons. That's cool; to each his own. No-one has any right to demand such information on the forum, where the eyes of the DIY world are upon it, and to ignore the commercial, public domain issues is naive. Remember, anything posted here is public domain, and patent application is thereby null and void. I would no sooner ask the finer points of Charles Hansen's zero feedback amplifier than fly to the moon.
My point is this: information is offered entirely at the discretion of the poster. No-one else has the right to pressure that individual for more, or cast aspersions when that person withdraws, demurs, or otherwise fails to deliver more. Everyone's perception of IP, business, marketing, trade secrets, etc, is different, and for those not in the audio business, a few moments thought is all that is needed.
Cheers,
Hugh
On 'proof'
AKSA said:
Fair enough.
On the other side of the coin, tho., one shouldn't expect others take it for granted and don't challenge. It is OK that one may not wish to defend one's position and answer to the "proofers". But if one is to take that position, s/he also loses the rights to demand others' approval.
it is a two-way street.
Kuei Yang Wang,
Once upon a time I was the moderator here. I tried, within the limits imposed on me, to go in somewhat the direction you are proposing. The moderator thing got old for a number of reasons and I retired from the position. Now there are numerous moderators--with more options available to them than I had--but their views on how to run the site differ from mine.
Oh, well.
All,
Discussions about this sort of thing nearly always develop at least a "side order" of talk about subjective vs. objective viewpoints because the "objective" people want to silence those who do not agree to their soi-disant 'scientific' viewpoint. I have two comments:
1) Scientific discoveries often begin with observations of things that were unanticipated...and frequently fly in the face of accepted wisdom. Witness the discovery of penicillin. Something unanticipated happened and an entirely new way of combatting infection came to light.
2) People who claim that "it's impossible" expose a serious lack of knowledge of the history of audio.
To those who are already cracking their knuckles in preparation for a scathing reply, let me provide two examples.
--Audibility of passive components. Serious listeners had been saying for years that caps sounded different. Others scoffed. Then along came groundbreaking realizations about the importance of dissipation factor, etc. and it was objectively proved that caps had an audible effect on music.
--Audibility of absolute phase. Same thing. No proof! No proof! The screams were persistent. If there's no proof, then it can't be real. So it was with great amusement that I read in Doug Self's book (an arch-conservative if ever there were one--he probably lulls himself to sleep at night reciting his mantra,"If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist...") that...er...well...um...confound it, it's been proven that absolute phase is audible. One can only imagine what it cost him, in terms of pride, to write those words. On the other hand, my hat is off to the man for having the courage to do so.
There's a funny thing that happens once something is proved objectively. Erstwhile disbelievers take it for granted that it's so. Does that mean that the proof made it so? Were caps not audible prior to the publication of the report on distortion mechanisms...then suddenly audible afterwards? No. They were audible all along. It was due to those pesky people who kept insisting that they were audible that the tests were even made. It's foolish to pretend that as of some arbitrary date, we know everything there is to know and that anyone who makes a new claim is automatically a charlatan or deluded.
Does this mean that one should immediately take each and every claim as truth? Of course not! But don't assume that they're wrong, either.
I remember a few years ago when there was a flap about plugging in a clock that somehow did something to the AC power that made an entire system sound better. Did they actually work? I dunno. Never heard one. Can't see how they would, at least on the face of it. But that doesn't mean it ain't so. It just means that I have no opinion either way. For me to climb on a soapbox and proclaim that they couldn't make a difference would be silly. In the meantime, I'm neutral on the subject.
Grey
Once upon a time I was the moderator here. I tried, within the limits imposed on me, to go in somewhat the direction you are proposing. The moderator thing got old for a number of reasons and I retired from the position. Now there are numerous moderators--with more options available to them than I had--but their views on how to run the site differ from mine.
Oh, well.
All,
Discussions about this sort of thing nearly always develop at least a "side order" of talk about subjective vs. objective viewpoints because the "objective" people want to silence those who do not agree to their soi-disant 'scientific' viewpoint. I have two comments:
1) Scientific discoveries often begin with observations of things that were unanticipated...and frequently fly in the face of accepted wisdom. Witness the discovery of penicillin. Something unanticipated happened and an entirely new way of combatting infection came to light.
2) People who claim that "it's impossible" expose a serious lack of knowledge of the history of audio.
To those who are already cracking their knuckles in preparation for a scathing reply, let me provide two examples.
--Audibility of passive components. Serious listeners had been saying for years that caps sounded different. Others scoffed. Then along came groundbreaking realizations about the importance of dissipation factor, etc. and it was objectively proved that caps had an audible effect on music.
--Audibility of absolute phase. Same thing. No proof! No proof! The screams were persistent. If there's no proof, then it can't be real. So it was with great amusement that I read in Doug Self's book (an arch-conservative if ever there were one--he probably lulls himself to sleep at night reciting his mantra,"If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist...") that...er...well...um...confound it, it's been proven that absolute phase is audible. One can only imagine what it cost him, in terms of pride, to write those words. On the other hand, my hat is off to the man for having the courage to do so.
There's a funny thing that happens once something is proved objectively. Erstwhile disbelievers take it for granted that it's so. Does that mean that the proof made it so? Were caps not audible prior to the publication of the report on distortion mechanisms...then suddenly audible afterwards? No. They were audible all along. It was due to those pesky people who kept insisting that they were audible that the tests were even made. It's foolish to pretend that as of some arbitrary date, we know everything there is to know and that anyone who makes a new claim is automatically a charlatan or deluded.
Does this mean that one should immediately take each and every claim as truth? Of course not! But don't assume that they're wrong, either.
I remember a few years ago when there was a flap about plugging in a clock that somehow did something to the AC power that made an entire system sound better. Did they actually work? I dunno. Never heard one. Can't see how they would, at least on the face of it. But that doesn't mean it ain't so. It just means that I have no opinion either way. For me to climb on a soapbox and proclaim that they couldn't make a difference would be silly. In the meantime, I'm neutral on the subject.
Grey
Millwood, you wrote this:
Interesting. Are you suggesting the reason people post pearls of wisdom is to seek, yea to demand, approbation?
That's an extremely narrow view. What about the joy of discovery? The desire to share? The thrill of talking it over with friends, regardless of outcome?
One further point. If this forum were a scientific journal, or a academic gathering, or engineering team, I'd agree that it's a two way street. In the context of this forum, however, I don't agree at all. I don't see any such obligation to fully explain and elucidate interesting posts in this forum; I see it as the obligation of the reader to take it further, perhaps communicate privately with the poster for more information. This is a forum, not a patent application or IEEE journal.
Grey, I think I agree with almost all you've written. Indeed, I've always enjoyed your arms length, highly literate posts.
Cheers,
Hugh
Interesting. Are you suggesting the reason people post pearls of wisdom is to seek, yea to demand, approbation?
That's an extremely narrow view. What about the joy of discovery? The desire to share? The thrill of talking it over with friends, regardless of outcome?
One further point. If this forum were a scientific journal, or a academic gathering, or engineering team, I'd agree that it's a two way street. In the context of this forum, however, I don't agree at all. I don't see any such obligation to fully explain and elucidate interesting posts in this forum; I see it as the obligation of the reader to take it further, perhaps communicate privately with the poster for more information. This is a forum, not a patent application or IEEE journal.
Grey, I think I agree with almost all you've written. Indeed, I've always enjoyed your arms length, highly literate posts.
Cheers,
Hugh
so we could agree everyone is allowed to post his peronal experience and opinion, CDP with green LED under 23,9 degree sound best, and anyone else is allowed to post, i think this is not true, proof it or i doubt, this seems to me snakeoil, and we all should live with these both kinds of postings without censorship.
I too agree with Gray. It is the perception or observation of an event or phenomenon that come first. All the members of the forum have the ability to perceive, yet few have the time, ability, or means to carry out the analysis necessary to provide the proof. The pressure to do so, I feel is one of the biggest deterrents to members wanting to posts observations on the forum. It amounts to censorship by intimidation.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.