|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 15, 2014 16:55:26 GMT
Taking a deep breath, I thought it's about time that we allow open discussion of our moderation of The Audio Standard here in this thread. Contrary to some opinions, we are not strange beings sat in ivory towers, just ordinary guys with day jobs.
Speaking personally, I am well aware that starting and maintaining a hi-fi and music forum is likely to give me a combination of both pleasure and headaches, the trick being to get the balance well into the pleasure area. I'm also very aware that people are different, and providing one place specifically designed to mix different personalities together is bound to create both friendships and fireworks.
Here is my take on the issues we face:
- Discussions in text are not the same as face-to-face discussions; we cannot see body language or facial expressions for a start
- Sense of humour is expressed very differently by each member
- There are very different personalities and we have to get to know them slowly by osmosis, knowing only their 'handle', their avatar and their writings
- Some people have a different personality behind the keyboard compared with real life
- People can have good days, bad days and everything in between
- Music creates an emotional response and we are discussing emotional responses almost always whether it be hardware or the music itself
- Levels of acceptability of belligerence vary dramatically between individuals
So I'll open it up to the floor. I'm not looking for praise but I am looking for reasoned arguments supporting your point of view. Please avoid ad hominem. If this is successful, we will be partially guided by what is said here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eduardo Wobblechops on Jul 15, 2014 17:02:02 GMT
I agree some people are very different behind a keyboard, I seriously doubt most would be brave enough to be the same face to face. For me, people should act the same as they would face to face. Simples.
|
|
|
|
Post by kember on Jul 15, 2014 17:07:12 GMT
Martin,
My 2p worth.
I guess you are finding your feet in the same way as everybody else as a new forum gains its feel. But a good start, I think.
FWIW, the mods seem to have acted reasonably from what I have seen and to be commendably open in sharing their thinking for why they have taken the decisions they have.
I also think it is an excellent idea to leave religion and politics at the door - a couple of other forums seem to attract bad behaviour because of the debates there and most of the debates, I guess, are of limited interest to a community devoted to music and kit.
Thanks
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 15, 2014 17:16:01 GMT
I agree some people are very different behind a keyboard, I seriously doubt most would be brave enough to be the same face to face. For me, people should act the same as they would face to face. Simples. I do! |
|
hobnob
Rank: Soloist
Posts: 27 
|
Post by hobnob on Jul 15, 2014 17:19:46 GMT
I really like the "light touch" of the moderation. The earlier thread called (I think) "I'm stupid" would have been pulled anywhere else. Instead people concerned were able to get somewhere through continued dialogue.
Sometimes it's too easy to fall out, go off in a strop or stop communicating and blame everyone else. Encouraging people to talk through differences whilst trying to keep things civil is far better I feel.
One thing I've often found frustrating on forums is the odd person who only turns up to stir and provoke. They usually get off Scott free whilst others get banned or at least fall out with each other. I'm against banning, but I'd be very grateful to see the mods tackle anyone whose posts repeatedly attempt to annoy or stir up ill feeling. Exposing such behaviour might even encourage them to contribute positively instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 15, 2014 17:20:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 15, 2014 17:24:59 GMT
The moderation has been increasingly biased as far as I am concerned. We have been discussing it at HFS. I'd like to hear your reasons for thinking that we're biased, Richard. Against or towards whom? Could you give some response here please as it would provide continuity for the ongoing discussion in this thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 17:28:31 GMT
I've been impressed with the number of people who have signed up so quickly. Hopefully, this shows that you have the feel of the forum to their liking. As far as moderation goes, there hasn't been a great deal to do as yet thankfully but what there has been seems to me to be balanced and well considered. It can't be easy getting the balance right between allowing free expression and stopping anything that goes beyond what most would consider reasonable behaviour. I might well have been more heavy handed but then I'm clearly not as clear thinking as you lot. Mind you that could be called into question considering your decision to start this forum  A great start then and I appreciate you throwing this open to us but cannot think of any real criticism at this stage. Definitely agree with a complete ban on politics and religion, I just can't be done with telling people they are wrong and I'm right all the time - no smiley required!!!! Ho ho, wadya mean different senses of humour? I assume this thread will be kept open so as things crop up, we will still be able to contribute. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 15, 2014 17:33:46 GMT
I assume this thread will be kept open so as things crop up, we will still be able to contribute. That is the aim. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 15, 2014 17:48:59 GMT
The moderation has been increasingly biased as far as I am concerned. We have been discussing it at HFS. I'd like to hear your reasons for thinking that we're biased, Richard. Against or towards whom? Could you give some response here please as it would provide continuity for the ongoing discussion in this thread. Because the people who have initiated conflict have got off scot free, the people who have been stalking me across the forum have got off scot free and the only person to be moderated to any extent has been me, and if you read HFS everyone there agrees with me about it, so it is not my delusion. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 15, 2014 17:53:09 GMT
Do you mean the people who have said things that have caused you to over-react and insult them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 15, 2014 17:57:06 GMT
I've been impressed with the number of people who have signed up so quickly. Hopefully, this shows that you have the feel of the forum to their liking. As far as moderation goes, there hasn't been a great deal to do as yet thankfully but what there has been seems to me to be balanced and well considered. It can't be easy getting the balance right between allowing free expression and stopping anything that goes beyond what most would consider reasonable behaviour. I might well have been more heavy handed but then I'm clearly not as clear thinking as you lot. Mind you that could be called into question considering your decision to start this forum A great start then and I appreciate you throwing this open to us but cannot think of any real criticism at this stage. Definitely agree with a complete ban on politics and religion, I just can't be done with telling people they are wrong and I'm right all the time - no smiley required!!!! Ho ho, wadya mean different senses of humour? I assume this thread will be kept open so as things crop up, we will still be able to contribute. Far more likely to reflect how many members have become pissed off with AoS and its owner. Plus more than a few from HFS who have been victimised across the forums for just being members at HFS and they have been allowed to be members here. PFM runs an active policy of removing HFS members from it membership, to a lesser extent so has Wigwam and AoS. This is all due to our forum room "Elsewhere on the Web" as these egotist owners cannot stand others talking about them or criticism of their forum so they operate a cartel by not allowing other forums to be discussed. At the moment I see no such joining of the cartel here, but they will try to bully you into it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 15, 2014 17:58:37 GMT
Do you mean the people who have said things that have caused you to over-react and insult them? No those said things have been insults, but because they are aimed at me they have been allowed to stand. = biased moderation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 18:12:56 GMT
Do you mean the people who have said things that have caused you to over-react and insult them? I believe the term is called baiting. When you are aware of the nature of the beast it is very easy to illicit a response for malicious reasons.... I also believe this has been pointed out a number of times. with our continued awareness as a society I now believe the bear is perceived as the victim...history moderates if nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 15, 2014 18:30:03 GMT
I think it's been very fair and reasonable so far. But there will be tantrums and tears, it's building up already as we can see from this thread - but it will settle down after a while - after, I suspect, some very heavy moderation indeed. Call it immoderate moderation  , but necessary nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Jul 15, 2014 19:05:21 GMT
I followed the link supplied to his forum, and was flattered that they found it necessary to talk about me.
Moderation Lets call people by their names or initials
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 15, 2014 19:09:28 GMT
And here we have another one in Jerry intervening who has an ulterior motive. I am surprised this has been his first contribution. People with agendas are joining in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eduardo Wobblechops on Jul 15, 2014 19:27:07 GMT
I take it you include yourself in that statement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 15, 2014 19:41:33 GMT
How'd you get one of those 50% orange things?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eduardo Wobblechops on Jul 15, 2014 19:42:53 GMT
Drink half a can of Tango.
|
|
, but necessary nonetheless.
