|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 16, 2014 6:05:14 GMT
They are usually obvious ,as after you have read them the majority of people go WTF !!!?
But yes is was slightly tongue in cheek , but repetition of the same point in the same thread I am promoting as a genius idea . There is a certain green and white forum whose 48 page threads would be reduced to 6 if that rule was followed . 
On a serious note , there is an articulated position which seeks to view disagreement as unnecessary conflict and wish to promote an online bonhomie in which they can say what they like without fear of disagreement . If there is one thing Hifi needs and a hifi forum it is disagreement . |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 16, 2014 6:22:08 GMT
I think the moderation on this forum has been excellent. The intent behind it is excellent (a light touch - polite explanation of the issue causing the moderation - and no bannings) I think the orange banner is a poor idea for reasons stated by others. It encourages attention seeking behaviour as well. And it has not been explained. Does the system generate the percentage automatically based on the number of moderators interventions required or is there some qualitative element? I think moderation should consider the extent to which any individual systematically and either deliberately or carelessly ignores the few sensible rules this forum has. I think that moderation should extend to a consideration of any post made on any matter which might have a safety implication, where the nature of the post is one of a statement of fact from a position of apparant certainty (ie not prefaced by "I understand" or "to the best of my knowledge" or "based on this technical explanation I will provide so that you may verify this for yourself"). But generally I am sure nearly everyone applauds the "new spirit" shown on this forum (where's the bloody hand-clap smiley when you want it?)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 6:37:14 GMT
I think the moderation on this forum has been excellent. The intent behind it is excellent (a light touch - polite explanation of the issue causing the moderation - and no bannings) I think the orange banner is a poor idea for reasons stated by others. It encourages attention seeking behaviour as well. And it has not been explained. Does the system generate the percentage automatically based on the number of moderators interventions required or is there some qualitative element? I think moderation should consider the extent to which any individual systematically and either deliberately or carelessly ignores the few sensible rules this forum has. I think that moderation should extend to a consideration of any post made on any matter which might have a safety implication, where the nature of the post is one of a statement of fact from a position of apparant certainty (ie not prefaced by "I understand" or "to the best of my knowledge" or "based on this technical explanation I will provide so that you may verify this for yourself"). But generally I am sure nearly everyone applauds the "new spirit" shown on this forum (where's the bloody hand-clap smiley when you want it?) I couldn't agree more. This thread has been interesting because people disagree and have been allowed to express their opinions. Some people are never going to agree, it's pointless to think they will. Censorship kills forums. I think censorship is appropriate in the following circumstances: - when the content of personal emails or pms is copy and pasted - highly aggressive personal insults - posts that are potentially dangerous to people's safety (e.g. recommending experimenting with the mains or posting people's personal addresses) - spamming threads with advertising The warning banner is just a red rag to a bull and doesn't really help. Please don't ban people or invent over complicated forum rules about what you can and and can't say, that's what has put me off other forums. I want to hear what Doc and Pinkie and Marco have to say, if they are banned then I won't bother coming here. I can go elsewhere for censorship, this is currently the only forum that allows free expression. No doubt this topic will run for a while, then people will get bored and move on to something else. If people find members' posts intolerable, then they should put them on ignore for a while and get on with their lives. Lawrence |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 16, 2014 7:49:45 GMT
Please don't ban people or invent over complicated forum rules about what you can and and can't say, that's what has put me off other forums. I want to hear what Doc and Pinkie and Marco have to say, if they are banned then I won't bother coming here. I can go elsewhere for censorship, this is currently the only forum that allows free expression. Lawrence I agree - this is THE ONLY forum. I agree with nodrog that there is thread cleansing on HFS whenever the forum owner is uncomfortable about his views being questioned. And the levels of "control" on the other main forums are I think accepted by most posters on this thread as a given. There is a level playing field here, and that will allow factual errors by any poster to be challenged, and possibly lead to appropriate moderation - particularly where there is a serious safety issue.  |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 16, 2014 7:52:52 GMT
The accusation of biased moderation is interesting.
However, there are some 'circumstances' that can not be ignored:
It should come as no surprise that someone's words might be scrutinised more closely than others when said person has stated on their own forum that they have an avowed intention to "stick one as far up (another member)as I can before I'm banned". How would any forum administrator deal with that knowledge?
When their first thread - their very first post - on this forum is couched in terms of "Here I am, what are you going to do about it?" and then later goes on to insult two members in clear breach of our few rules, how should we deal with that? Of course, we will look more closely at what they say, and actually, it dilutes our ability to spend time reading what others are saying.
When they then go on to state in their own forum that they are enjoying breaking the rules because "It's like winding up the teachers at school", they can expect to receive a little closer attention than other members.
I don't see that sort of behaviour from any other member here - please point it out if I'm mistaken.
Being baited and "I didn't start it" are excuses that I stopped hearing from my daughter about ten years ago and I'm surprised to hear them coming from a grown man! There is no excuse for insult, it's a very simple rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 16, 2014 8:00:14 GMT
I think the orange banner is a poor idea for reasons stated by others. It encourages attention seeking behaviour as well. And it has not been explained. Does the system generate the percentage automatically based on the number of moderators interventions required or is there some qualitative element? Again noted - thanks. It's not as scientific as that I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 16, 2014 8:10:39 GMT
The warning banner is just a red rag to a bull and doesn't really help. Please don't ban people or invent over complicated forum rules about what you can and and can't say, that's what has put me off other forums. I want to hear what Doc and Pinkie and Marco have to say, if they are banned then I won't bother coming here. I can go elsewhere for censorship, this is currently the only forum that allows free expression. Again your opinion on the warning system is noted - thanks.
It is our intention to continue freedom of expression as much as we can, and your bullets on the likely exceptions cover it well. Censorship cannot be eliminated, but as far as we can go we do not wish to censor posts and we have (despite some suggestions otherwise) absolutely no agenda. Banning would be an exceptional act, and only utilised if the forum were at risk of being brought into disrepute. We will never ban someone because we don't like them.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242 
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 8:33:07 GMT
I too got up early and re-read all this. Last evening I decided I would be sensible and just stay out of the argument. Fanning the flames is never a good idea but sometimes ignoring the whole thing becomes just too difficult. I regret to say that the image that constantly comes to mind is that of Not the 9 o'clock news and John McEnroe. A character who thinks that thumbing his nose behind teacher's back and calling them names constitutes grown up behaviour when it clearly should be left in the playground. Yomanze might have phrased it differently than I would but the sentiment seems entirely appropriate. There is a suggestion on the thread offered as evidence that I am 'stalking' Mr Dunn. I'm afraid that both that and expectation that we are to read something into the fact that members over there support Mr Dunn's behaviour is beyond humour. If he seriously thinks that the whole world is against him or even that a few people have an agenda to to try and bait him then some quiet reflection is in order. When it comes to moderation, I can only use an example from my own experience of posting on his forum. Anything I might post there that was disagreed with just disappeared under the heading of 'thread cleaning'. (Sorry if that is old baggage) Accusations here of biased moderation joins comments above in the bin. I am tiring of his constant campaigning, diatribe, childishness and inability to see himself as the root cause of his own problems. I am disappointed in a way that I feel the need to say this given my previous comments about building bridges, but such things are a two way street. If Mr Dunn would at least make some attempt to moderate his usual aggressive stance, there may perhaps be a chance of at least tolerance if not a meeting of minds. +1, especially the bit in bold. It's Richard's total lack of introspection (ability to look in the mirror and 'examine one's self' - no, not like that, lol), that is a big part of the problem, as he frequently accuses others of committing the same type of behaviour that he's guilty of himself! However, either he just doesn't see it, or perhaps more likely, he doesn't want to see it...The fact is, whether your reasons are justified or not (and most of the time I don't consider Richard's reasons for his antagonistic behaviour are in any way justified), you cannot set out to vilify people, and create huge conflict in the process, without some kind of backlash; nor can you expect to share the same webspace elsewhere as the people you have attacked (or others who are sympathetic to their plight) and expect to be treated the same as everyone else, as if nothing has happened! Such thinking is naive in the extreme. The reality is that you create baggage, which then follows you around like a bad smell - and it takes a lot of effort to clear the stench and be given a fresh start... I admit that in the past I've been no saint (there are things I deeply regret doing), and I have behaved badly on forums and been rightly banned for it. Therefore, I know what carrying such baggage is about, and so can readily identify it in others! In that respect, Richard has several suitcases full. Only when he can curb his innate abrasiveness and aggression, and treat people with civility [and I'm talking specifically here about in normal conversations about hi-fi, with those he has no 'history' with], will his (often excellent and insightful views on audio) be recognised and remembered more than his belligerence. As for the moderating so far on TAS, I believe that the team have done a good job, in often very difficult circumstances. I admire Martin's tenacity in sticking to his vision of how he thinks things should be done, but time will tell if he can keep up with continually trying to moderate the behaviour of those who have no respect for anyone else or desire to change. Marco. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 16, 2014 8:42:22 GMT
... I admit that in the past I've been no saint (there are things I deeply regret doing), and I have behaved badly on forums and been rightly banned for it. Marco. OK - that'll do for me as a basis for a fresh start between us. Not saying we are going to see eye to eye or be friends, but I had genuine personal reasons why I had an issue with some of your very public baggage, and I will take that as an appropriate public apology for it. I too have done things I deeply regret and had to apologise for them. I have just been fortunate not to do them on public forums and therefore needed to apologise in public. Edit - I probably in turn ought to apologise for a bit of public name calling. One day I'll grow up  |
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 8:44:53 GMT
The accusation of biased moderation is interesting. However, there are some 'circumstances' that can not be ignored: It should come as no surprise that someone's words might be scrutinised more closely than others when said person has stated on their own forum that they have an avowed intention to "stick one as far up (another member)as I can before I'm banned". How would any forum administrator deal with that knowledge? When their first thread - their very first post - on this forum is couched in terms of "Here I am, what are you going to do about it?" and then later goes on to insult two members in clear breach of our few rules, how should we deal with that? Of course, we will look more closely at what they say, and actually, it dilutes our ability to spend time reading what others are saying. When they then go on to state in their own forum that they are enjoying breaking the rules because "It's like winding up the teachers at school", they can expect to receive a little closer attention than other members. Quite. It's the attitude, when being a member of a specific forum, of: 'I can say whatever I like elsewhere about that forum, or those who run it or are members of it, and pay no price for those actions when I return to said forum as a contributor', that I find utterly incredible. Of course you will be judged on your remarks elsewhere! To think such remarks will be miraculously ignored, as if they never happened, and thus you'll be treated normally when returning to the forum, where your insults have been aimed at, is deluded in the extreme. Marco. |
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 8:51:54 GMT
... I admit that in the past I've been no saint (there are things I deeply regret doing), and I have behaved badly on forums and been rightly banned for it. Marco. OK - that'll do for me as a basis for a fresh start between us. Not saying we are going to see eye to eye or be friends, but I had genuine personal reasons why I had an issue with some of your very public baggage, and I will take that as an appropriate public apology for it. I too have done things I deeply regret and had to apologise for them. I have just been fortunate not to do them on public forums and therefore needed to apologise in public. Edit - I probably in turn ought to apologise for a bit of public name calling. One day I'll grow up Sounds good to me, Pinkster. And in light of that, I see no reason why your ban from AoS shouldn't be lifted (after consulting with the rest of the mods), presuming of course that you would want to return? Marco. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 16, 2014 8:57:47 GMT
Good outcome guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 16, 2014 9:06:20 GMT
Okay. Seems to be a bit of dunn bashing here by people he as upset . I will say most of the criticisms take RD'S vociferous posts out of context as if it just came out of nowhere . Additionally , you may not like the way he says it , but just focus on what he says . He is right nearly as often as I am .  Most of the shit about hi fi and forums has been highlighted by him in what was initially a one man crusade against the crap . Much of it is now forum orthodoxy .
Additionally , unlike most of us , he doesn't play at hifi , it is his livelihood and as been his life .
I do find myself laughing at the past five or six posts as this forum exists because of AOS and its moderation not H/S .
Additionally , having spent six posts attacking him how do you suppose he will respond 
And FFS please spare me the fake bonhomie and reconciliations.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 9:08:48 GMT
Life's too short, Martin, for fall-outs to be permanent However, I need to know if Pinkie wants to come back, so I can then approach the mod team with it. In that respect, though, I don't foresee any problems. So what's it to be, Pinkie?  Marco. |
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Jul 16, 2014 9:10:25 GMT
Unfortunately some people are just attention whores, and they're not much bothered whether the attention they get is in the form of flattery or insult, or, in forums terms, multiple warnings followed by a ban. I'm not sure there's an answer to this problem, I'm just glad I'm not a moderator!
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 16, 2014 9:12:28 GMT
Additionally , having spent six posts attacking him how do you suppose he will respond And FFS please spare me the fake bonhomie I'm hoping he will see the bridges being built here.
Why the sarcasm? Both of those gestures seem genuine to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 16, 2014 9:16:47 GMT
Martin , I can and do only go off what people have written and what I have read .
And you will be telling me next the Israeli's are merely retaliating.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 9:19:02 GMT
Additionally , you may not like the way he says it , but just focus on what he says...
Is it too much bother for him to act civilly in the first place? Does the man have any manners? Perhaps if he addressed people politely, instead of subjecting them to unprovoked rudeness, they'd be more able to focus on WHAT he has said rather than HOW he has said it? Richard says that he treats people on forums the same as he does in real life. Well, if that's the case, I'd expect him to be continually walking about with a black eye, as if I spoke to people, face to face, the way he apparently considers is acceptable, I'd fully expect to be given a regular slap!  Marco. |
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Jul 16, 2014 9:26:13 GMT
I've just spent a while catching up on what's been said since I went to bed.
To be perfectly honest, I can't see Richard changing his ways, it just is HIM.
So, you have to accept HIM as he is, or (as banning is not an option) persuade every other member to like his ways. 
One of the reasons (or the main reason) why Audio Talk is such a happy forum is that most of us have met up, and know each other quite well. This is at the bi-annual fests we have. I've not met Richard so I only know him from what he writes.
Richard complains that some (me included) have an agenda against him, but he clearly has an agenda (as he himself has stated) which he seems determined to continue with. Is that not the baggage which we have been requested to leave behind ?
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 9:28:18 GMT
Additionally , having spent six posts attacking him how do you suppose he will respond And FFS please spare me the fake bonhomie Both of those gestures seem genuine to me. On my part it certainly is. Trouble is, Martin, some folk use forums solely for their own 'entertainment purposes', perhaps to escape from the demands of a stressful job or difficult home life, and so if the content doesn't fulfil their social needs (i.e. for them there is no 'entertainment value'), they don't like it, and so will do what they can to inject the 'fun factor' they crave. In that respect, I guess that the existence of bonhomie isn't particularly entertaining.... Isn't that right, Dennis? Marco. |
|
Most of the shit about hi fi and forums has been highlighted by him in what was initially a one man crusade against the crap . Much of it is now forum orthodoxy . 
