The same old newbie excuse
I don't think that anybody has trouble with newbies asking questions. There are plenty of people quite willing to offer them advice, even people that offer them misleading advice or answers that are just plain wrong. That's fine too, because someone comes along and corrects the misinformation or provides a little more focus with areas in areas of familiarity and experience for them personally. Nobody is an expert on all facets of audio, but it is pretty clear to most people after a while who is generalizing just to talk or is getting in way over their head about their own understanding of the advice they offer. Offering references, specifics, and attracting comments or further information from other informed members is usually a sign that they know what they are talking about and not just making conversation or trying to provoke an argument.
Part of the problem is that some of the knowledgeable people have gotten a lot of abuse for trying to raise the bar for the level of technical understanding and unfortunately are going to leave some people behind. Not everything posted will be within the grasp of all the members. It is not an attempt to be elitist or show disdain for newbies. In any endeavor there just going to be topics of discussion that are not going to be understood by everybody. I have been messing with audio for over 25 years and I still am learning new stuff.
I think a lot of the bad feelings arise when people, with commercial or ego agendas, want to come in and pretend to be on equal footing, or even claim to know better than somebody with 2 or 3 decades head start and some serious efforts at audio design in that time period. Some of the stuff that seems controversial and new is old hat for many here and has been know for well over a decade or more. Capacitors, resistors, and wire's influence on sonics, high speed diodes, mechanical resonance damping in electronic as well as speakers have been public knowledge for the serious audio nerds for well over a decade.
Many people seem to feel that they are entitled to the same credibility after a couple of years of experience as someone with ten times that amount. Yes, there is plenty of bad behavior but not that often from the expert to the newbie. the Trouble usually starts when some with an agenda comes along and gets into with someone who is genuinely trying to share the fruits of his education, experience and labor. When talking about civilized discourse and might be helpful to remember let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I seem to remember one of the advocates for civilized behavior here, being sin binned for calling me a terrorist. I have lost track of the number of things I have been sin binned for but never for try to escalate a silly forum dispute to such a level. It trivializes the suffering of those that have been the real victims of one of the major problems facing the world today and shows a remarkable lack of sensitivity even it was meant has joke. Come on folks, this is a passionate hobby but not something that effects world peace.
It pays to remember that this forum is for entertainment and education and that no ones well being (other than some very poor advice concerning safety around high voltages!) or career is on the line over any of this. If is not fun or useful to you any more it is probably in your best interest to stop reading the forum and go find something else that floats your boat. There is plenty of room for newbies and those who are fanatics yet. There is no need to run off the old pros to have something for all levels of experience here. If you are one the people that is partly responsible for running off our best resources be ready to get your lumps from those who resent their absence. I think everyone knows who some of the biggest repeat offenders responsible for the brain drain are, and many members are very unhappy with you.
I don't think that anybody has trouble with newbies asking questions. There are plenty of people quite willing to offer them advice, even people that offer them misleading advice or answers that are just plain wrong. That's fine too, because someone comes along and corrects the misinformation or provides a little more focus with areas in areas of familiarity and experience for them personally. Nobody is an expert on all facets of audio, but it is pretty clear to most people after a while who is generalizing just to talk or is getting in way over their head about their own understanding of the advice they offer. Offering references, specifics, and attracting comments or further information from other informed members is usually a sign that they know what they are talking about and not just making conversation or trying to provoke an argument.
Part of the problem is that some of the knowledgeable people have gotten a lot of abuse for trying to raise the bar for the level of technical understanding and unfortunately are going to leave some people behind. Not everything posted will be within the grasp of all the members. It is not an attempt to be elitist or show disdain for newbies. In any endeavor there just going to be topics of discussion that are not going to be understood by everybody. I have been messing with audio for over 25 years and I still am learning new stuff.
I think a lot of the bad feelings arise when people, with commercial or ego agendas, want to come in and pretend to be on equal footing, or even claim to know better than somebody with 2 or 3 decades head start and some serious efforts at audio design in that time period. Some of the stuff that seems controversial and new is old hat for many here and has been know for well over a decade or more. Capacitors, resistors, and wire's influence on sonics, high speed diodes, mechanical resonance damping in electronic as well as speakers have been public knowledge for the serious audio nerds for well over a decade.
Many people seem to feel that they are entitled to the same credibility after a couple of years of experience as someone with ten times that amount. Yes, there is plenty of bad behavior but not that often from the expert to the newbie. the Trouble usually starts when some with an agenda comes along and gets into with someone who is genuinely trying to share the fruits of his education, experience and labor. When talking about civilized discourse and might be helpful to remember let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I seem to remember one of the advocates for civilized behavior here, being sin binned for calling me a terrorist. I have lost track of the number of things I have been sin binned for but never for try to escalate a silly forum dispute to such a level. It trivializes the suffering of those that have been the real victims of one of the major problems facing the world today and shows a remarkable lack of sensitivity even it was meant has joke. Come on folks, this is a passionate hobby but not something that effects world peace.
It pays to remember that this forum is for entertainment and education and that no ones well being (other than some very poor advice concerning safety around high voltages!) or career is on the line over any of this. If is not fun or useful to you any more it is probably in your best interest to stop reading the forum and go find something else that floats your boat. There is plenty of room for newbies and those who are fanatics yet. There is no need to run off the old pros to have something for all levels of experience here. If you are one the people that is partly responsible for running off our best resources be ready to get your lumps from those who resent their absence. I think everyone knows who some of the biggest repeat offenders responsible for the brain drain are, and many members are very unhappy with you.
Believe.Or.Not:
In general, I see no code of ethics in this diyAudio forum.
There are many posts denying other's opinions.
I often find some reasons why:
- He is stupid, but he does not know it.
- He likes to make himself a super star here, without having quality for it.
- He likes to hide his ignorance, by loudly arguing s@@@@t.
- He hates professional experience worth his weight in gold.
Among others, the worst reason I find is:
- He likes to sell his products just insisting mine is the better (It doesn't matter they get large profit or not.). And, he thinks of himself smart in using tricks for this purpose, believing as all diyAudio members are fool.
Smell of s@@@@t is getting worse.
From whom...???
In general, I see no code of ethics in this diyAudio forum.
There are many posts denying other's opinions.
I often find some reasons why:
- He is stupid, but he does not know it.
- He likes to make himself a super star here, without having quality for it.
- He likes to hide his ignorance, by loudly arguing s@@@@t.
- He hates professional experience worth his weight in gold.
Among others, the worst reason I find is:
- He likes to sell his products just insisting mine is the better (It doesn't matter they get large profit or not.). And, he thinks of himself smart in using tricks for this purpose, believing as all diyAudio members are fool.
Smell of s@@@@t is getting worse.
From whom...???
Peter Daniel said:
Yes i did not word this well....let me clarify... by any thread i mean you and carlos are not allowed to post in any thread where the other is posting... this is because this ****ing contest has spread over the entire forum.
Starting now for PD... carlos seems to have understood, and his 48 hrs starts from the 1st post.
(Skin of teeth PD)
dave/planet10
Re: The same old newbie excuse
Bad feelings arise when someone assigns an ulterior motive or agenda to another in public. True egomaniacs and profiteers will out themselves. There is no need for anyone to "protect" the rest of us.
If you think you've got someone pegged, that's fine. Write it down in your book and move on.
MalichiConstant said:
Bad feelings arise when someone assigns an ulterior motive or agenda to another in public. True egomaniacs and profiteers will out themselves. There is no need for anyone to "protect" the rest of us.
If you think you've got someone pegged, that's fine. Write it down in your book and move on.
Re: The same old newbie excuse
Sometimes you just have to let the other person be wrong, even if it misleads others. People are responsible for their own fact checking.
Anyone learning about DIY electronics / audio using the internet as his sole source of information is asking to head next year's Darwin awards.
Remember the old saying about not believing everything your read? Just because it comes through a computer doesn't mean the info is "smartened up."
Try learning special relativity on the internet. There is 10 times more crackpot static out there than factual info.
Coming back to this forum; this doesn't mean you can't present the facts as you know them and debate. The problem comes in when someone thinks that civil and courteous discourse can be abandoned because the other person is factually wrong.
MalichiConstant said:
Sometimes you just have to let the other person be wrong, even if it misleads others. People are responsible for their own fact checking.
Anyone learning about DIY electronics / audio using the internet as his sole source of information is asking to head next year's Darwin awards.
Remember the old saying about not believing everything your read? Just because it comes through a computer doesn't mean the info is "smartened up."
Try learning special relativity on the internet. There is 10 times more crackpot static out there than factual info.
Coming back to this forum; this doesn't mean you can't present the facts as you know them and debate. The problem comes in when someone thinks that civil and courteous discourse can be abandoned because the other person is factually wrong.
Re: DARTH INVADER....
Konnichiwa,
You don't need to. I started it because I noticed the S/N ratio becomming poorer and poorer. While the TRIGGER may have been the specific spat I was involved, I had been intending to write something to this effect for a long time prior to me starting the thread and I still retain my position that something needs doing.
I find it deeply disappointing that no-one even attemps to discuss the topic at hand, prefering instead to grind their various Axes.
I do not expect the moderators to fight my fights, I do that myself and if I may say so, quite well, thank you very much.
I did not start ANY argument either here or at AA with the particular individual, moreover, my point was from the begining neither targeted nor limited to that individual or any particular discussion and had you read the earlier part of this thread you would have noticed that.
[/B][/QUOTE]Sorry for rubbing your nose in it [/B][/QUOTE]
Rubbing it in WHAT? In baseless assertations and badmouthing of my charater? I feel nothing rubbing. The record stands for itself and I suggest to anyone to peruse this, instead of paying attention to character assasination from other quarters.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
fdegrove said:
You don't need to. I started it because I noticed the S/N ratio becomming poorer and poorer. While the TRIGGER may have been the specific spat I was involved, I had been intending to write something to this effect for a long time prior to me starting the thread and I still retain my position that something needs doing.
I find it deeply disappointing that no-one even attemps to discuss the topic at hand, prefering instead to grind their various Axes.
fdegrove said:
I do not expect the moderators to fight my fights, I do that myself and if I may say so, quite well, thank you very much.
fdegrove said:
I did not start ANY argument either here or at AA with the particular individual, moreover, my point was from the begining neither targeted nor limited to that individual or any particular discussion and had you read the earlier part of this thread you would have noticed that.
[/B][/QUOTE]Sorry for rubbing your nose in it [/B][/QUOTE]
Rubbing it in WHAT? In baseless assertations and badmouthing of my charater? I feel nothing rubbing. The record stands for itself and I suggest to anyone to peruse this, instead of paying attention to character assasination from other quarters.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang,
I believe you'll find that there are two problems in providing a code of ethics here.
1) Getting a code that people will agree to. There are some who will want to keep people who actually listen to their stereos from posting "subjectivist nonsense," for instance. Those who want to smash newbies--then act as though butter doesn't melt in their mouths--will want to keep their options open. What one person finds funny may be offensive to others; they will not see their posts as deserving of sanction because it's "humor." You get the idea. The only way that a code will come to pass is if a single person more-or-less imposes their views on others, otherwise, it will die in committee.
When I was moderator, my rule of thumb was that free speech was paramount as long as no one was being hurt/insulted/degraded/etc. The present moderators seem to feel that kicking someone in the teeth is okay, but cussin' is bad. I opted out, so it's their call. I just happen to disagree with their priorities. (Okay...there are more 13 year-olds around now than in the beginning when it was me, Geoff Moss, Mark Finnis, and a few others. I don't cuss as much as I used to. [It also has to do with my daughter, who is just learning to speak. Don't need to hear some of the things I say coming out of her.])
2) Assuming that a code of ethics could be created, it would still have to be enforced fairly, consistently, and on a daily basis. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Grey
I believe you'll find that there are two problems in providing a code of ethics here.
1) Getting a code that people will agree to. There are some who will want to keep people who actually listen to their stereos from posting "subjectivist nonsense," for instance. Those who want to smash newbies--then act as though butter doesn't melt in their mouths--will want to keep their options open. What one person finds funny may be offensive to others; they will not see their posts as deserving of sanction because it's "humor." You get the idea. The only way that a code will come to pass is if a single person more-or-less imposes their views on others, otherwise, it will die in committee.
When I was moderator, my rule of thumb was that free speech was paramount as long as no one was being hurt/insulted/degraded/etc. The present moderators seem to feel that kicking someone in the teeth is okay, but cussin' is bad. I opted out, so it's their call. I just happen to disagree with their priorities. (Okay...there are more 13 year-olds around now than in the beginning when it was me, Geoff Moss, Mark Finnis, and a few others. I don't cuss as much as I used to. [It also has to do with my daughter, who is just learning to speak. Don't need to hear some of the things I say coming out of her.])
2) Assuming that a code of ethics could be created, it would still have to be enforced fairly, consistently, and on a daily basis. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Grey
Konnichiwa,
Only two. That's easier than I thought ;-)
Hmmm. I prefer the KISS principle. A code of ethics can be very short, sweet and usefull. Take the ten commandments (clearly a code of ethics), which can be really reduced to one single commandment, as it contains IMPLIED all the others. And surely no-one would stand up and fundamentally disagree that it would be desirable that EVERYONE where to behave according to the ten commandments?
I would think that neither of the suggested behaviours is congruent with the free exchange of ideas.
The problem of "noobs" getting into seriously deep discussion could be solved with a "by application & appointment only" forum, where the OM's can talk shop seriously without silly interruptions, read only to others. Prior to yahoo lousing up their services I had a more less workable split like that in my own discussion groups.
If respect and common purpose prevail anyone posting will if in doubt refrain from being overtly humorous....
I very much agree with your sentiments. I do believe in the old maxime that freedom is always that of the one who disagrees with you. But I do expect such disagreement and the discussion to be strictly according to Hoyle.
Yes, there is the skinny. Yet, without a basis to moderate no enforcement can be justified. I'll go with the principle found in much scripture that the laws and penalties (be they in the al Quran, Hebrew or Christian greek scriptures and others) where written not to be obeyed and rigidly enforced, but to give a standard and to illustrate what was wrong. In this days and age laws and their enforcement seem to have lost completely the didiactic dimension.
Let's see what comes from this, hopefully some good.
Sayonara
GRollins said:
Only two. That's easier than I thought ;-)
GRollins said:
Hmmm. I prefer the KISS principle. A code of ethics can be very short, sweet and usefull. Take the ten commandments (clearly a code of ethics), which can be really reduced to one single commandment, as it contains IMPLIED all the others. And surely no-one would stand up and fundamentally disagree that it would be desirable that EVERYONE where to behave according to the ten commandments?
GRollins said:
I would think that neither of the suggested behaviours is congruent with the free exchange of ideas.
The problem of "noobs" getting into seriously deep discussion could be solved with a "by application & appointment only" forum, where the OM's can talk shop seriously without silly interruptions, read only to others. Prior to yahoo lousing up their services I had a more less workable split like that in my own discussion groups.
GRollins said:
If respect and common purpose prevail anyone posting will if in doubt refrain from being overtly humorous....
GRollins said:
I very much agree with your sentiments. I do believe in the old maxime that freedom is always that of the one who disagrees with you. But I do expect such disagreement and the discussion to be strictly according to Hoyle.
GRollins said:
Yes, there is the skinny. Yet, without a basis to moderate no enforcement can be justified. I'll go with the principle found in much scripture that the laws and penalties (be they in the al Quran, Hebrew or Christian greek scriptures and others) where written not to be obeyed and rigidly enforced, but to give a standard and to illustrate what was wrong. In this days and age laws and their enforcement seem to have lost completely the didiactic dimension.
Let's see what comes from this, hopefully some good.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Why this preoccupation with someone earning money from what they learn?
Many forums exists, web-based and print-based that discuss audio technology. I have been reading anything from AE & Audio to MJ and obscure German magazines, plus newsgroups and boards. I have learned a lot there, in most cases I do not even remember where I learned what (some of it goes almost 30 Years back by now). Surely, if I learn something not only can I use this, but I should use it, be it in a commercial application or not.
An example could be that prior to me mentioning the LM6172 in modifications I have been unaware of it being ever used in commercial audio gear. Since then it has very surprisingly popped up a few times and where the LM6172 was not used similar Op-Amp's crop up. Should the commercial designers refrain (or be restrained) from using them because they where "discovered" by hobbyists?
The principle is basic, if you have an Idea you feel is "new", you can patent it and thus gain the tools to stop others from exploiting it commercially, assuming your patent is defensible against counter claims of obviousness and does not clash with prior art.
Prior art is a sticky one, you can usually find a functionally equivalent circuit somewhere and you must be VERY clear why yours is "new". An example I just noticed - the Pass "Super Symmetric" patent describes a circuit which was implemented with Valves by Harman Kardon in their Citation II Amplifier. Clearly the prior art search by both claimant and examiner failed to show this prior art (or they failed to note relation), nevertheless it exists and thus in effect invalidates the patent, despite the patent being granted.
Anyway, if you feel your idea is new but you may not wish to exploit it immediatly and/or you do not wish to pay for a patent can be somewhat protected by placing it in the public domain (pulishing it) which at the very least prevents others from patenting it.
So I fail to see any issue with the ethics of "passive readers". If they learn from reading and implement what they learned, more power to them.
It seems too many people fail to look beyond the $$ sign when it comes to ethics and seem to feel that anyone making any money behaves unethical. I do sincerely hope such people are not so hypocritical as to hold a job, be on welfare or beg for money, but that they only eat what they themselves grow and produce all they consume themselves....
Sayonara
Mark25 said:
Why this preoccupation with someone earning money from what they learn?
Many forums exists, web-based and print-based that discuss audio technology. I have been reading anything from AE & Audio to MJ and obscure German magazines, plus newsgroups and boards. I have learned a lot there, in most cases I do not even remember where I learned what (some of it goes almost 30 Years back by now). Surely, if I learn something not only can I use this, but I should use it, be it in a commercial application or not.
An example could be that prior to me mentioning the LM6172 in modifications I have been unaware of it being ever used in commercial audio gear. Since then it has very surprisingly popped up a few times and where the LM6172 was not used similar Op-Amp's crop up. Should the commercial designers refrain (or be restrained) from using them because they where "discovered" by hobbyists?
The principle is basic, if you have an Idea you feel is "new", you can patent it and thus gain the tools to stop others from exploiting it commercially, assuming your patent is defensible against counter claims of obviousness and does not clash with prior art.
Prior art is a sticky one, you can usually find a functionally equivalent circuit somewhere and you must be VERY clear why yours is "new". An example I just noticed - the Pass "Super Symmetric" patent describes a circuit which was implemented with Valves by Harman Kardon in their Citation II Amplifier. Clearly the prior art search by both claimant and examiner failed to show this prior art (or they failed to note relation), nevertheless it exists and thus in effect invalidates the patent, despite the patent being granted.
Anyway, if you feel your idea is new but you may not wish to exploit it immediatly and/or you do not wish to pay for a patent can be somewhat protected by placing it in the public domain (pulishing it) which at the very least prevents others from patenting it.
So I fail to see any issue with the ethics of "passive readers". If they learn from reading and implement what they learned, more power to them.
It seems too many people fail to look beyond the $$ sign when it comes to ethics and seem to feel that anyone making any money behaves unethical. I do sincerely hope such people are not so hypocritical as to hold a job, be on welfare or beg for money, but that they only eat what they themselves grow and produce all they consume themselves....
Sayonara
GRollins said:
I agree with all your points here. I think carlosfm v. PD should have been clamped down on far earlier, as they were clearly over the line in my opinion. I also see a lack of consistency in the mods since their number has increased, but that is a practical reality in my mind and is part and parcel of the higher bandwidth.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I'm not getting your point, maybe you could spell out exactly what code of ethics you propose and how it would deal with your original debacle and the Fred v. PD v. carlosfm embarassment?
I disagree with your opinion on what to do about newbies (and I think you missed Grey's point). I think setting up some elite forums would harm the character of this board. I don't think the newbie intrusions are significantly downgrading the theoretical discussions, and in fact my favourite threads are some of the many dual-purpose threads where someone is asking for a detailed schematic and hand-holding to build a prototype ASAP and the "gurus" are debating circuit topology.
Konnichiwa,
I am not sure what "original debacle" you refer to. You mean me correcting the wrong math and factually wrong statements of a clearly electronically and socially challenged person unwilling to share but happy to bash anything not from him? I think the rest is obvious.
As for Carlos & Peter, isn't it obvious? I doubt that either one would have gone to that length that caused that particular spat.
Maybe. It is notable however that more and more question come up that are covered in the archives and/or could be answered by anyone of moderate intelligence who has reasonably studied electronics (and I'm not talking EE Degrees here, just a most basic book).
It is also a bit annoying how some relative newbies with no understanding of the matter decide to take existing design, hack them up and cut/paste them together anywhichway without understanding what they are doing get cheesed off and abusive if someone tells them - it ain't work like that - go and study first, plus practice on building proven designs. And there are those who get abusive if they do not receive promt attention and free advise and design consultancy for exactly their partiular piece of desire.
I do not expect to be fawned upon (on the contrary, flatering remarks to me if you want something are likely to get you nowhere fast) and to be applied to as the grand oracle or grand pobah, but I damn well expect people to do their homework. Now IF you have done your homeworkj and have sensible leading question I do what little I can to help fill some of the blaks and help you to think through the rest.
Point taken. Any better suggestions? Maybe a "usefullness feedback" to peoples posts (one vote per board memeber) and only people and a limit on opening new threads (and a more strict "on topic" enforcement) by peoples feedback, all strictly democratic and all? I don't have in principle the feeling that we need separation here, but I appreciate such concerns previously voiced by others....
Sayonara
leadbelly said:
I am not sure what "original debacle" you refer to. You mean me correcting the wrong math and factually wrong statements of a clearly electronically and socially challenged person unwilling to share but happy to bash anything not from him? I think the rest is obvious.
As for Carlos & Peter, isn't it obvious? I doubt that either one would have gone to that length that caused that particular spat.
leadbelly said:
Maybe. It is notable however that more and more question come up that are covered in the archives and/or could be answered by anyone of moderate intelligence who has reasonably studied electronics (and I'm not talking EE Degrees here, just a most basic book).
It is also a bit annoying how some relative newbies with no understanding of the matter decide to take existing design, hack them up and cut/paste them together anywhichway without understanding what they are doing get cheesed off and abusive if someone tells them - it ain't work like that - go and study first, plus practice on building proven designs. And there are those who get abusive if they do not receive promt attention and free advise and design consultancy for exactly their partiular piece of desire.
I do not expect to be fawned upon (on the contrary, flatering remarks to me if you want something are likely to get you nowhere fast) and to be applied to as the grand oracle or grand pobah, but I damn well expect people to do their homework. Now IF you have done your homeworkj and have sensible leading question I do what little I can to help fill some of the blaks and help you to think through the rest.
leadbelly said:
Point taken. Any better suggestions? Maybe a "usefullness feedback" to peoples posts (one vote per board memeber) and only people and a limit on opening new threads (and a more strict "on topic" enforcement) by peoples feedback, all strictly democratic and all? I don't have in principle the feeling that we need separation here, but I appreciate such concerns previously voiced by others....
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
The usefullness feedback has been mentioned before and is a good idea, but some serious work to implement.
Mods have been given instruction to get more aggressive in splitting off off-topic posts in threads. If anyone has a thread they are particularilty interested in and can supply us with a list of off-topic post numbers in it, tat would be very helpful in cleaning up some threads.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.