Call for Professional Conduct/Language (Please Read)

[amirm]

Well that looks a step in the right direction and perhaps there is a glimmer of hope for the forum. Perhaps you should also consider working out and writing down the rules so everybody can know and accept why action was taken against a post. Recall how you felt when your posts were put in Hydrogen Audio's equivalent of "fight club" but with the offense not quite lining up with the reason given. Would you have felt differently if more accurate reasoning was given?

No, I would not have felt differently. I "know" why they did what they did. The moderators used the rules to silence points of view about audio they personally did not like. That was the reason and no amount of hiding behind forum rules would make it better.

 

[amirm]

I concur. What is your real name?
Not interested in spin/excuses, your actual name please, no covert "SoundandMotion", thanks.

He doesn't have to give you his real name. Again, posts need to be focused on technical topics than individuals AJ.

 

[amirm]

I applaud the call for civility and good behavior. Amir stated it as he wants it, and it’s his baby, but I’d like to also suggest:

Covert name-calling. Of course we all know calling someone “stupid” is name-calling, but many seem to have redefined words, without informing Merriam Webster. For example, some here rather blatantly use “audiophile” and “subjectivist” to mean “delusional idiot”, but Merriam Webster says it means “a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction”. I think that means all of us! Calling someone, or their post, “audiophile” seems rather ambiguous or redundant. Maybe another description… or no description, just an information-rich counter-point.

Show respect, even when you don’t have it or feel it; fake it. We learned as kids “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say it at all”. Well we’re adults and we may not always be nice, but if you are unable to make a point with respect, maybe you can wait until you can.

Amnesty. Many here come with grudges or feuds from other forums. Maybe here we can start with a clean slate. Address what has been posted here, not what you’ve been fighting about elsewhere.

… just some thoughts… my 2¢

I am not in favor of derogatory use of labels on people or camps either so well said on that front. We are not here to war with any camp or people. We are here to have fun and talk about technical matters.

 

[h.g.]

The moderators used the rules to silence points of view about audio they personally did not like.

Not sure about the POV and personally but broadly yes they did not want your posts and they shifted them to their "fight club" to show it. It is their forum and their rules. It is no different to, say, a cable forum such as the one on audio asylum which requires posters to believe in the sound of cables and posts that question that will be deleted. It works well and enables people that like cables to chat about them without getting provoked.

That was the reason and no amount of hiding behind forum rules would make it better.

The rules are not there to hide behind but to stand in front of and point at to show what is in and what is out. Your posts looked out to me subject to a bit of guessing given the missing context. It is also likely that they looked out to all the other regular posters on the forum which is perhaps the most important thing about an explicit set of rules.

 

[amirm]

The rules are not there to hide behind but to stand in front of and point at to show what is in and what is out. Your posts looked out to me subject to a bit of guessing given the missing context. It is also likely that they looked out to all the other regular posters on the forum which is perhaps the most important thing about an explicit set of rules.

Rules can be abused and abuse they did. That is what I call hiding behind the rules. Either a forum is in favor of audio science or it is not. HA clearly picks and chooses what part of audio science they like, what part they rather not see. In this case, having a peer reviewed, published double blind listening test that showed detection of high-resolution audio versus CD rate, was not something they wanted to see on record. So they fought it tooth and nail and in the process soiled their brand with respect to being on the side of audio science.