|
|
Post by dvh on Jul 16, 2014 10:59:01 GMT
Fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 16, 2014 11:00:57 GMT
I don't know who 'Dennis' is.
Dennis is DQ's real first name  Marco. And I thought It was the name of one of my children  |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 16, 2014 11:01:38 GMT
Martin THIS is an example of what I meant about reality being rewritten, and it will go on and on post after post, yet you allow it and remove any poat I make to argue my case and counter it = censorship and biased moderation. I believe that I asked a similar question, Richard, in order to establish whether you behave differently in person compared with online. I can confirm that Richard Dunn is indeed (or was a few years ago) quite different to his online persona.
The very genuine (not fake at all) bonhomie that I previously evoked on this thread is due, following an enjoyable online series of conversations and dealings, to an invitation from RD for me to visit him at his home. I accepted and we spent a very pleasant afternoon together talking and listening to music. We even joked about me expecting him to be a crabbed grey haired old geezer with a chip on his shoulder, or similar, which he very definitely was not.
A very different experience indeed to what some here may have anticipated from his online behaviour.
That is the relationship I would be very happy to return to, and have asked Richard if he would accept that.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 16, 2014 11:02:55 GMT
WARNING: Normal Forum rules have been resumed
Ok, sadly it seems that my request for analysis and quality feedback of our moderation has been lost in some rather nasty warring and attacks. I have removed a quantity of posts.
There will be no further personal attacks. Any post which does not respond to the opening post will be deleted. Sorry folks, but a period of cooling down is now required. I simply couldn't be less interested in the animosity between factions shown here, I would much rather get back to discussions of hi-fi and music.
Thank you to those who have contributed positively, we will report back when decision(s) have been made. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 16, 2014 11:07:09 GMT
MODERATION: Richard, there comes a point when I'm just tired of the circular arguments. Two people extended peace offerings to you today and I don't recall seeing you acknowledge them. We have received some very good quality feedback from some members and I appreciate that input. As for the other stuff, it all appears to be baggage from other forums and I find myself saying again: WE COULDN'T CARE LESS AND DON'T WANT IT BROUGHT TO TAS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 11:09:30 GMT
Frankly it annoys me if people come on here and apologise for past behaviour and then revert back to that behaviour (note no names mentioned).
The moderation on here has been generally very fair but I think the behaviour of some people has been tolerated a little too long. Provocateurs should be dealt with as severely as those who react badly. Agree we should stick to hi-fi in forum discussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 16, 2014 11:10:42 GMT
MODERATION: now you have crossed the line by deliberately spamming the forum with unpleasantness, after I have asked you to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 16, 2014 11:15:42 GMT
Edit - humour in post lost due to moderation |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 16, 2014 11:16:51 GMT
Is there an age threshold on members . facebook its 13 . Seems we may need it No age threshold, although ProBoards probably have one. I'll ask. |
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242 
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 11:17:36 GMT
MODERATION: no more, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 16, 2014 11:19:19 GMT
MODERATION: now you have crossed the line by deliberately spamming the forum with unpleasantness, after I have asked you to stop. Once again biased moderation, it is not my unpleasantness it is Marco's, and you refuse to publish it yet allow him to attack me at will. I have asked you to stop that but you refuse. So who moderates you! |
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jul 16, 2014 11:19:42 GMT
Just to lay this one to rest, I've just checked at HFS (where I am an admin) and can see that Steve Toy's account was deactivated for one week only back in October 2013. As far as I can see there has been no moderation or administration activity on his account since them
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jul 16, 2014 11:21:50 GMT
MODERATION: there is no useful feedback in this post. |
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 11:22:50 GMT
MODERATION: there is no useful feedback in this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 16, 2014 11:23:33 GMT
MODERATION: there is no useful feedback in this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 16, 2014 11:24:10 GMT
MODERATION: there is no useful feedback in this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jul 16, 2014 11:29:06 GMT
Just to lay this one to rest, I've just checked at HFS (where I am an admin) and can see that Steve Toy's account was deactivated for one week only back in October 2013. As far as I can see there has been no moderation or administration activity on his account since them As I said, he joined under another name to wind up 'the Doc', and was promptly banned for dishing out the same treatement 'the Doc' continually does to others. Right, my canard a l'orange awaits!! Marco. I really don't wish to get embroiled in the slug-fest, but you said "Steve Toy" was banned. He is not. Apparently an account deliberately set up to wind someone up was banned. I don't see any problem with that. I'm sure that if I set up a fake account on any forum with the specific intention of "winding up" the owner I'd be banned, and deservedly so. If you can't say whatever you want to someone's face, in your own persona, then perhaps you really shouldn't be saying it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 16, 2014 11:31:38 GMT
MODERATION: there is no useful feedback in this post.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 16, 2014 11:32:26 GMT
MODERATION: there is no useful feedback in this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by kember on Jul 16, 2014 11:37:31 GMT
Getting back on topic...
There is a lot of stuff here regarding ad hominem. The moderators might want to think through where the line should lie.
Whatever posters say here it is not self-evident that ad hominem itself is necessarily bad, nor that it should be banned per se.
Ad hominem arguments are not always wrong, and in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words. I think it is legitimate, if relevant, to draw attention to either a person's words or conduct - what they say and do. What does not seem respectable is to attack their arguments for who they are.
I'd therefore suggest that mods continue doing what they are doing and crack down on abusive ad hominem which usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy and does nothing to advance an argument.
BTW, verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem under any definition I've seen. But IMO it is unnecessary and should be left outside the forum.
Peter
|
|
