Discussions, conversations, trolling and disruptions

[Xulonn]

when connected to a tough load not all amps sound the same.

Blumlein, your statement highlights the problem with many audio forum antagonists and trolls who appear to not understand the value of conditional statements.

Trolls, skeptics, critics and deniers, exist not only on audio forums, but at forums for many subjects, including those based on another major interest of mine - AGW/CC (anthropological global warming and related climate change). Complex and convoluted arguments, including mind-boggling Gish-gallops, are often employed to subvert obvious realities and often derail intelligent and productive discussions. The recent discussion here on "people are not measuring something that causes the obvious differences that I definitely hear in non-controlled, non-blind testing" appears to be to be a classic non-troll, Duning-Kruger situation rather than trolling.

True internet trolls are often very good at portraying themselves as victims of discrimination and abuse. while laughing at the rubes they sucked in. In their purest and most irritating styles, pure internet forum trolls are extraordinarily disruptive. Similarly, Duning-Kruger syndrome sufferers - who think they know something, but are totally wrong - often express the similar complaints of discrimination when their deficient arguments are disputed. Polite and whiny trolls and babblers can be difficult to deal with when they present themselves as victims of online bullying and abuse, because many of the intellectually honest participants are nice people who don't want to accidentally put-down someone who is possibly an innocent skeptic.

With reference to the above quote, of course not all "well-designed and manufactured" amplifiers with "no anomalies in their output" sound the same under all conditions, But if those two "conditions", it should be exceedingly rare for amplifiers to sound different driving "non-pathological" speakers. But trolls and disrupters ignore the essence of conditional statements, whether the conditions are implied or stated. Often this is a problem of ego (I'm right, and nothing will convince me otherwise), or perhaps they have a personality disorder that causes them to compulsively annoy and irritate others.

In an internet forum discussion, as it becomes obvious that a participant is either purposely trolling or just being pathologically stubborn in their unsupported stances, someone will call them out. Honest and "trying to be helpful" participants begin to realize that they are being played or dealing with unrealistic people who have no interest in reading the links provided and learning about the reality of the subject at hand (or they read the links and don't understand the information). Then the thread often degenerates until and unless a moderator steps in with their post-snipper or ban-hammer.

As a former audio forum moderator - nearly 20 years ago at three vacuum tube forums at AudioAsylum.com, I am acutely aware of the extreme difficulty of identifying a participants as a true troll, and the difficulty of encouraging lively and spirited conversation and discussion without having it degenerate and drive valued participants away.

 

[Tks]

Feel as if this would be better served as PM's or a Conversation you can start with other user accounts.

 

[amirm]

As soon as I post on heavily subjectivist forums defending my work here, I get called a troll. In reverse, I tend to not go by that designation of people who come here and dispute what we have to say.

 

[McFly]

Troll is just a nice word for idiot, and only used by forums majority residents when someone goes against their common beliefs. Its the perfect way to get under someones skin on the internet. Most trolls just need more wisdom.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Blumlein, your statement highlights the problem with many audio forum antagonists and trolls who appear to not understand the value of conditional statements.

Trolls, skeptics, critics and deniers, exist not only on audio forums, but at forums for many subjects, including those based on another major interest of mine - AGW/CC (anthropological global warming and related climate change). Complex and convoluted arguments, including mind-boggling Gish-gallops, are often employed to subvert obvious realities and often derail intelligent and productive discussions. The recent discussion here on "people are not measuring something that causes the obvious differences that I definitely hear in non-controlled, non-blind testing" appears to be to be a classic non-troll, Duning-Kruger situation rather than trolling.

True internet trolls are often very good at portraying themselves as victims of discrimination and abuse. while laughing at the rubes they sucked in. In their purest and most irritating styles, pure internet forum trolls are extraordinarily disruptive. Similarly, Duning-Kruger syndrome sufferers - who think they know something, but are totally wrong - often express the similar complaints of discrimination when their deficient arguments are disputed. Polite and whiny trolls and babblers can be difficult to deal with when they present themselves as victims of online bullying and abuse, because many of the intellectually honest participants are nice people who don't want to accidentally put-down someone who is possibly an innocent skeptic.

With reference to the above quote, of course not all "well-designed and manufactured" amplifiers with "no anomalies in their output" sound the same under all conditions, But if those two "conditions", it should be exceedingly rare for amplifiers to sound different driving "non-pathological" speakers. But trolls and disrupters ignore the essence of conditional statements, whether the conditions are implied or stated. Often this is a problem of ego (I'm right, and nothing will convince me otherwise), or perhaps they have a personality disorder that causes them to compulsively annoy and irritate others.

In an internet forum discussion, as it becomes obvious that a participant is either purposely trolling or just being pathologically stubborn in their unsupported stances, someone will call them out. Honest and "trying to be helpful" participants begin to realize that they are being played or dealing with unrealistic people who have no interest in reading the links provided and learning about the reality of the subject at hand (or they read the links and don't understand the information). Then the thread often degenerates until and unless a moderator steps in with their post-snipper or ban-hammer.

As a former audio forum moderator - nearly 20 years ago at three vacuum tube forums at AudioAsylum.com, I am acutely aware of the extreme difficulty of identifying a participants as a true troll, and the difficulty of encouraging lively and spirited conversation and discussion without having it degenerate and drive valued participants away.

I'm not sure Xulonn if you are saying I contributed to some useless back and forth posting with my conditional statement. I am pretty sure that you know I wasn't trying to say all amps sound different with any speaker in use.

I've usually been called a troll, when I make conditional statements. Some say it is wishy washy, and others say I'm just trying to find a crack to create disagreement. That isn't what I have in mind most of the time. Sometimes it is to stir what I think could be an interesting discussion. Such was the case with a few of my posts in that Benchmark thread. Which isn't trolling. I certainly wasn't trying to create an argument with John Siau. I'm glad he posts here. And they aren't one off PR types of posts. They have substance and value. I don't want him to feel harassed by things I post.

 

[March Audio]

Blumlein, your statement highlights the problem with many audio forum antagonists and trolls who appear to not understand the value of conditional statements.

Trolls, skeptics, critics and deniers, exist not only on audio forums, but at forums for many subjects, including those based on another major interest of mine - AGW/CC (anthropological global warming and related climate change). Complex and convoluted arguments, including mind-boggling Gish-gallops, are often employed to subvert obvious realities and often derail intelligent and productive discussions. The recent discussion here on "people are not measuring something that causes the obvious differences that I definitely hear in non-controlled, non-blind testing" appears to be to be a classic non-troll, Duning-Kruger situation rather than trolling.

True internet trolls are often very good at portraying themselves as victims of discrimination and abuse. while laughing at the rubes they sucked in. In their purest and most irritating styles, pure internet forum trolls are extraordinarily disruptive. Similarly, Duning-Kruger syndrome sufferers - who think they know something, but are totally wrong - often express the similar complaints of discrimination when their deficient arguments are disputed. Polite and whiny trolls and babblers can be difficult to deal with when they present themselves as victims of online bullying and abuse, because many of the intellectually honest participants are nice people who don't want to accidentally put-down someone who is possibly an innocent skeptic.

With reference to the above quote, of course not all "well-designed and manufactured" amplifiers with "no anomalies in their output" sound the same under all conditions, But if those two "conditions", it should be exceedingly rare for amplifiers to sound different driving "non-pathological" speakers. But trolls and disrupters ignore the essence of conditional statements, whether the conditions are implied or stated. Often this is a problem of ego (I'm right, and nothing will convince me otherwise), or perhaps they have a personality disorder that causes them to compulsively annoy and irritate others.

In an internet forum discussion, as it becomes obvious that a participant is either purposely trolling or just being pathologically stubborn in their unsupported stances, someone will call them out. Honest and "trying to be helpful" participants begin to realize that they are being played or dealing with unrealistic people who have no interest in reading the links provided and learning about the reality of the subject at hand (or they read the links and don't understand the information). Then the thread often degenerates until and unless a moderator steps in with their post-snipper or ban-hammer.

As a former audio forum moderator - nearly 20 years ago at three vacuum tube forums at AudioAsylum.com, I am acutely aware of the extreme difficulty of identifying a participants as a true troll, and the difficulty of encouraging lively and spirited conversation and discussion without having it degenerate and drive valued participants away.

I'm not sure I understand why you are quoting Blumlein post. I see nothing contentious in it.

The predominant issues I see in this forum is when subjectivists start making unverifiable / unsupported claims. This just doesn't wash on a science based forum.
Even that is not an issue in itself, it's when they adamantly refuse to accept the scientic evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

If doesnt take long to identify this type of individual and I just won't spend time arguing with them anymore. I simply hit ignore.

 

[Xulonn]

I'm not sure Xulonn if you are saying I contributed to some useless back and forth posting with my conditional statement. I am pretty sure that you know I wasn't trying to say all amps sound different with any speaker in use.

LOL! I gues I didn't make my purpose clear. I totally agree with your statement, and used it as a starting point for a new discussion about trolling, "conditional statements," and the difficulty of identifying true trolls. I posted it as a new thred so as to not hijack the thread where your post triggered my train of thought. This thread is absolutely not directed at you, but rather it was posted to segue off to a different but related subject..

 

[Xulonn]

If doesn't take long to identify this type of individual and I just won't spend time arguing with them anymore. I simply hit ignore.

I am fascinated with the darker side of human nature and the psychology of internet ettiquette. Sometimes I will play with trolls just to explore their motives and boundaries, and sometimes I just post a snarky image to express my opinion about their motives. Other times I follow troll-dominated threads simly because I am fascinated with the dynamics of the interactions and the inability of some otherwise normal contributors, who unlike you, cannot tear themselves away from trying to be logical with someone who is playing them.

 

[SIY]

"Conditional statement" is an alternate way of saying "speaking more precisely." This is especially important in the presence of a disproportionate number of eristic types.

 

[March Audio]

I an fascinated with the darker side of human nature and the psychology of internet ettiquette. Sometimes I will play with trolls just to explore their motives and boundaries, and sometimes I just post a snarky image to express my opinion about their motives. Other times I follow troll-dominated threads simly because I am fascinated with the dynamics of the interactions and the inability of some otherwise normal contributors, who unlike you, cannot tear themselves away from trying to be logical with someone who is playing them.

I confess I used to get into pointless arguments, its taken me a long time to learn to disengage. It really is the best and quickest way to shut those individuals down. You just accept they are hopelessly ignorant and unwilling to learn. Nothing to be gained from engaging, just move on .

 

[March Audio]

"Conditional statement" is an alternate way of saying "speaking more precisely." This is especially important in the presence of a disproportionate number of eristic types.

Ooh, I learned a new word today

 

[JJB70]

"Conditional statement" is an alternate way of saying "speaking more precisely." This is especially important in the presence of a disproportionate number of eristic types.

I am an engineer, and my current role is in regulatory policy and acting as a consultative observer to an international regulatory body. One of the biggest problems I have is that the bureaucrats representing governments only want simple binary (sound byte) answers to complex questions. When I offer an honest opinion on a technical issue invariably someone will whinge about typical engineers refusing to answer a simple question with a simple answer blah blah blah because unless you understand certain qualifications then it is very easy to take information completely out of context and end up in a world of sh#t.

 

[Soniclife]

I am an engineer, and my current role is in regulatory policy and acting as a consultative observer to an international regulatory body. One of the biggest problems I have is that the bureaucrats representing governments only want simple binary (sound byte) answers to complex questions. When I offer an honest opinion on a technical issue invariably someone will whinge about typical engineers refusing to answer a simple question with a simple answer blah blah blah because unless you understand certain qualifications then it is very easy to take information completely out of context and end up in a world of sh#t.

You need this on at t-shirt.

 

[pozz]

I'll just say that ASR, more than other forums, has to be generous with its knowledge and its patience. I don't know of another place where experts in the field are as easily accessible. A certain amount of responsibility comes with that position and that role.

 

[edechamps]

As soon as I post on heavily subjectivist forums defending my work here, I get called a troll. In reverse, I tend to not go by that designation of people who come here and dispute what we have to say.

There's "disputing" and "disputing", though. Of the contrarian people on this forum, I can distinguish two types: people who are genuinely curious and are open to opposing arguments, and people who just want to be right, most likely to post-rationalize their views or their purchasing decisions.

The former will often be curious, explain the rationale behind their position providing alternative perspectives, read the references provided, voice reasonable concerns (if any), might perhaps try to find evidence for their position that is of similar or higher quality to the evidence that is being presented to them (e.g. blind tests), and generally try to be productive. When I read their posts, I might not necessarily agree with them, but I will often find them interesting and they might give me pause. (One recent example of that is @John_Siau's claim that crossover distortion in a typical AB amplifier is audible.) Such posts are likely to affect my Bayesian priors about the truth of a given proposition, and, if more evidence emerges, might even shift them completely.

As to the people in the latter category, well... all they do is degrade the signal to noise ratio of the discussion, spread misinformation, and waste people's time by triggering emotional responses. Speaking from recent experience on this forum, these people will typically refuse to read provided references, only respond to posts that put forth weak arguments (because that makes for easy shots), and when they do respond to strong arguments, they often strawman them or disregard the principle of charity by interpreting them in ways that are grossly exaggerated. One typical example of such bad faith is attempting to refute an argument by pointing out that it doesn't apply perfectly in 100% of cases (which people never claimed in the first place), using that as a pretence to dismiss the entire argument (black and white thinking). They will refuse to even admit the possibility that they might be wrong, even when backed into a corner and buried under mountains of evidence. They will sometimes put forth absolutely wild, baseless, technically absurd propositions and then ask us to refute them, as opposed to them providing evidence for their extraordinary claims in the first place. (Such claims are rarely refuted because few people like to spend their time debunking obviously bogus claims.) Speaking of evidence, they often believe that sighted tests, marketing materials, price-based arguments ("if it's expensive then it must be good") or arguments from popularity constitute valid evidence, making it practically impossible to have a coherent discussion. They might go so far as to use ad hominem attacks, such as implying that other participants have poor hearing or bad equipment, which is especially hilarious when the statements they're responding to are backed by double-blind tests done in laboratory conditions with multiple trained participants.

Probably one of the best examples of the above, which was extremely frustrating and drove several people (including myself) mad, is the infamous Audiojim thread. @Thomas savage even ended up banning him for it. That being said, I don't think the thread itself was a waste of time - it provided lots of learning opportunities, especially for observers not directly involved in the discussion. But clearly I would preferred having that discussion in ways that are a tad less nerve-wracking.

I don't know what the moderation standard should be in such cases. I could definitely cite an example of one member (who I won't name publicly) who literally spends all his time (and I mean almost every single post) on this forum spreading extraordinary, extremely bogus claims without providing a single shred of evidence, and has been repeatedly called out for it. It's not clear to me why Audiojim got banned but not him. Although one could argue that he's less disruptive because his claims are so obviously bonkers that people rarely engage with him anyway, so the Ignore feature is usually sufficient.

 

[Xulonn]

This is especially important in the presence of a disproportionate number of eristic types.

Does that make me an "eristicrat"?

 

[SIY]

Does that make me an "eristicrat"?

I've seen that movie!

 

[captain paranoia]

As to the people in the latter category, well..

There are far fewer of those here than there are on other audio forums, thankfully. This place is an oasis of sanity by comparison...

 

[Cosmik]

I presume that the scientists currently being portrayed in the series Chernobyl - the ones who are pursuing the idea that the reactor core exploded even though it is impossible for that to happen would appear to be classic 'trolls'..? And Richard Feynman seemed to fit the description pretty well when he pursued the cause of the Challenger disaster..?

NASA officials said that the chance of failure of the shuttle was about 1 in 100,000; Feynman found that this number was actually closer to 1 in 100.

I notice that NASA are regarded as authorities on AGW...

 

[fulffy512]

The issue is that so many can't handle there opinions being challenged or that people disagree. Reddit is very hostile if dare say something that the sub agrees with.