Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 9:29:40 GMT
Following recent events on the forum I do believe the mods might be slightly confused as to the definition of a Troll.
Wikipedia -
Do you (Martin) seriously believe DQ is a Troll. I believe that he merely disagreed with others views and queried their motives for posting. There are two individuals on here that certainly fit the above definition of a Troll and the fall out with DQ was as a result of him replying to a Trolling thread by one of those individuals. You might find some of DQs posts perplexing but that doesn't mean he was trying to disrupt the forum. So can you read into his mind to establish his motivation ? - I think not. Also being a lawyer DQ does in fact choose his words carefully and can sound rather legalistic at times. So yet again someone who replies to provocation by the Trolls is branded a Troll themselves and is booted. Now surely that is biased moderation whether intentional or not. Do you want a forum left with half a dozen mates who just agree with one another about everything? I do urge you to have a fresh start here and reinstate DQ and even Richard Dunn who I believe was provoked by at least one of the same group of Trolls. Make this the friendly forum in name just not in word.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 3, 2015 9:50:43 GMT
First of all, I wonder what you might consider what this means:
Secondly and perhaps most pertinently, I think you should read the new rule that we have instigated and consider it as a whole. What it says is rather different to how you seem to have interpreted it - ie, it does not simply say "Trolls will be banned"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 9:59:28 GMT
Firstly that comment of DQ was in jest and he knew his likely fate at that point. Also as I take it that as trolling is frowned upon there appears to be little action against other instances of trolling. I think that example suggests you have had a humour bypass Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Jun 3, 2015 10:37:35 GMT
From what I read on HFS (the hi-fi comic  ) they would like to mount some sort of "campaign" to get all their banned members reinstated.
Seems classicrock has kicked off. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 10:50:30 GMT
Ah the real trolls are coming out of the woodwork. You just could not resist Noddy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Jun 3, 2015 11:13:09 GMT
I was going to reply, but I won't.
Go to dash as todays lunchtime concert at Long Melford church is four saxophones and I don't want to be late.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 3, 2015 11:18:15 GMT
We have clearly stated we are not concerned what happens on other forums we have no control and we have asked for people to leave their baggage so no more talk about what being said elsewhere please.
As for DQ we have given DQ every opportunity and bent over backwards to accommodate him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Trolling.
Jun 3, 2015 11:20:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 11:20:23 GMT
From the recent posts that I saw, DQ didn't pick his words very carefully at all.
I didn't bother reading many of his posts though, so my judgement may be biased.
|
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Jun 3, 2015 11:25:00 GMT
I guess trolling is in the eye of the beholder; your 'trolling' is my 'asking pertinent questions'. On a forum, that's the moderators' judgement call.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 3, 2015 11:27:11 GMT
To refer to your quoted definition, then yes, we believe DQ was here to disrupt the forum and he was making a good job of it.
- a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people? - Yes. Do you really, seriously refute that he upset people here? Come on, open your eyes.
- posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion? - He knew what he was doing - exactly that. And he knew the effect he was having. He was warned and given an opportunity to stop but chose not to.
His positive contributions were very welcome and I enjoyed reading them but we had to take a value judgement as to whether his continued disruptive presence here was more important than the greater good of the forum. We decided that, on balance the negatives he brought to The Audio Standard far outweigh the positives.
As for humour bypasses, well the label of 'humour' is often used to disguise ill-intent and I read that comment as a slight on, and declaration of ill-intent against almost the entire membership of this forum. Consider what 'castles in the air' refers to, and why he considers dragons need slaying and then tell me DQ was not here with the intent of causing trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 3, 2015 12:42:31 GMT
Do you (Martin) seriously believe DQ is a Troll Yes. Next? I'm pretty sure that with all our combined posts about the matter we have explained very clearly what DQ did and why we gave him a warning at first and then finally were forced to suspend him. Are you acting as spokesman for HFS? I ask because I'm simply not interested in responding to a bunch of dysfunctional malcontents who, at the core, have been booted from most hi-fi forums at one time or another. Why do they think that has happened? Perhaps they would best utilise their energy in asking themselves that question. Don't bother me with it, we did our best to embrace them but they simply will not co-reside with other members without causing upset. We don't want them here any more. Is that sufficiently clear? You also seem to be under the illusion that this site is run by one individual (you've referenced me above). For the sake of clarity, there are three administrator/owners of TAS. Everything is decided democratically and DQ's expulsion was a unanimous decision. |
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Jun 3, 2015 12:50:40 GMT
Now that those who did not enjoy their interactions with DQ have had their wish granted.
I wonder what the replacement focus of dissatisfaction will be. This thread will reach a point of not much to be said on the subject or even get locked. Will forum wide harmony be the new order?
I am reflecting on my interaction with the member who enjoys creating and showing flashing images and was disinclined to stop even though they can be harmful to others. There isn't a"nice" way to point out they should reconsider if they do not consider in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 3, 2015 12:54:54 GMT
I certainly hope so, Alan.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 3, 2015 13:02:35 GMT
I find flashing avatars irritating too Alan, but not so much as to make a fuss about it. However, you've made your point and thank you for doing so.
Because of your comment I've gone to the trouble of seeking out a piece of software which allows you to switch off GIF images. We have installed it and I think that's a reasonable compromise. I'm a bit surprised that you don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jun 3, 2015 13:17:13 GMT
From the recent posts that I saw, DQ didn't pick his words very carefully at all. I didn't bother reading many of his posts though, so my judgement may be biased. For an alleged solicitor Dubiously Qualified was astonishingly sloppy. The "I use a PA for my real legal work" cop-out doesn't ring true. Solicitors I know are exceptionally pedantic and careful. I fell out with a girl I had previously dated, and who was also a client, and sole practitioner solicitor (employment law) when she asked me to form a limited company for her (which she had been on and off planning for about 2 years). She asked me to do it when I was away on holiday for a month in France - but insisted it had to be done immediately. (Name changed to protect the guilty) Ms Huxman asked me to form "Huxmans Solicitors" over the phone. The company formation agent I relayed this to duly formed "Huxmans solicitors". Ms Huxman had intended "Huxman's solicitors" and went off on one (several) about my incompetence and what a disaster it was whilst I was on holiday, although we rectified it with a company name change within 4 hours of the complaint. I thought about hiring Stephen Fry as counsel for the defenc e - but opted for dumping her as a client (the only client I sent a formal "disengagement letter" to!!) Our Dubiously Qualified with his atrocious typo's, and in particular the regular use of "of" for "have" is from a different mould of solicitor. Like probably not one! |
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Jun 3, 2015 13:25:30 GMT
Isn't it considered bad form to slag off a banned person, who has no right of reply?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 3, 2015 13:37:33 GMT
It's bad form to slag anyone off, whether they're banned or not, so I won't allow this thread to turn into an excuse to dance on graves.
So please Richard, that's enough. And the same goes for anyone else who has similar ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jun 3, 2015 14:30:42 GMT
Thought I was just commenting (humorously) on the alleged "super precision" of DQ's posts as claimed by the OP in post 1 and referred to by Wonky. Does that count as slagging off?  Edit; and whilst I entirely agree with Martin T's sentiments, surely referring to the happy gang at HFS as "Dysfunctional malcontents" comes under the slagging off heading? Are you being a little too sensitive? |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 3, 2015 14:39:25 GMT
Just trying to nip things in the bud Richard.
Even after his banning, DQ gets the benefit of our famously 'biased' moderation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 15:53:26 GMT
For what it's worth I am not a spokesman for HFS. My view is DQ was not here to disrupt but I know has little time for certain aspects of expensive hi-fi accessories which tends to put him up against some people's views. The Don Quixote statement was a reference to a tag he was given on another forum - and read up about the Character if you want to understand what he was referring to. Sometimes DQ does talk rather in riddles to most people. His bad grammar I put down to communicating most of the time via smart phone while likely doing something else. That is by the way - my opinion is that the comments I read on here were not deliberate trolling aimed at general disruption. I constantly see worse examples of this sort of thing. Because he is a prominent member of HFS I believe it was always assumed he was here to disrupt. Just don't believe mods ignore comments on that forum.
|
|
) they would like to mount some sort of "campaign" to get all their banned members reinstated.
