Has civility on ASR declined recently?

[andyc56]

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite.

So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric.

I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts.

You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

This reminds me of the poem, "Owed to a Spell Chequer."

 

[Newman]

It has gotten more personal around here. One thing I would like to call out is when we get new members who’ve known nothing but the subjectivist sites, citing some dubious claim. I’ve seen them jumped on like they were stupid, and basically told, you’re not welcome here. I wish we could welcome everyone and be a little more mindful of easing them into a new way of thinking. A lot of us bought into the BS at some point, and we weren’t shamed into changing our views - we were shown.

We shouldn’t tolerate trolls or humor subjectivist partisans, but IMO we can be a little more patient and impersonal with the deprogramming. If they truly have curiosity about the science, they will stay and learn. ASR doesn’t need to be an exclusive objectivist treehouse. If ignorant people were barred from school, no one would ever get in.

On the whole, though, this place is far above every other site I know in civility. And I appreciate that.

Totally agree with what you are saying as far as you went, but you failed to cover how to handle those who resist 'deprogramming' and become actively hostile to the whole ASR thing. In effect, they came here with an agenda and are staying purely for the pleasure of executing it.

 

[Dogen]

Totally agree with what you are saying as far as you went, but you failed to cover how to handle those who resist 'deprogramming' and become actively hostile to the whole ASR thing. In effect, they came here with an agenda and are staying purely for the pleasure of executing it.

I thought I said it...”We shouldn’t tolerate trolls or humor subjectivist partisans”. I’d characterize anyone obnoxiously pushing any agenda, or being actively hostile, a troll. And they should be put on ignore or banned after a time. It would help if we would just stop engaging people who show no curiosity or willingness to learn. It’s so tempting to try to convert a tough case, but at some point it’s hopeless.

 

[Dogen]

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite.

So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric.

I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts.

You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

Brilliant! “...hole-hardedly” is worth the price of admission alone.

 

[Newman]

I thought I said it...”We shouldn’t tolerate trolls or humor subjectivist partisans”. I’d characterize anyone obnoxiously pushing any agenda, or being actively hostile, a troll. And they should be put on ignore or banned after a time. It would help if we would just stop engaging people who show no curiosity or willingness to learn. It’s so tempting to try to convert a tough case, but at some point it’s hopeless.

Ignoring seems to fail (effectively to encourage), and banning seems not to happen (what, just for having an opinion?).

That's why Hydrogen Audio has TOS8. Finally, something that works.

If TOS8 is not the ASR way, then "shouldn't tolerate" is mere hand-waving. We need something concrete.

 

[antcollinet]

Not feeding would work - you can't keep sealioning if no-one is responding. Problem is ASR is not a hive mind (despite the rumours), and there is always someone who keeps throwing the sprats.

 

[killdozzer]

Ignoring seems to fail (effectively to encourage), and banning seems not to happen (what, just for having an opinion?).

That's why Hydrogen Audio has TOS8. Finally, something that works.

If TOS8 is not the ASR way, then "shouldn't tolerate" is mere hand-waving. We need something concrete.

What is TOS8?

 

[antcollinet]

What is TOS8?

Hydrogenaudio Forum Terms Of Service

Hydrogenaudio Forum Terms Of Service

hydrogenaud.io

Seems a bit of a high bar to me.

 

[Doodski]

Hydrogenaudio Forum Terms Of Service

Hydrogenaudio Forum Terms Of Service

hydrogenaud.io

Seems a bit of a high bar to me.

Wowow.

TOS 5. All members that post to the Hydrogenaudio community must acknowledge and discuss only acceptable topics when starting a new thread. If posting to an already existing thread, they must continue in the vein of discussion that the thread has already manifested; if they wish to change topics, they must start a new thread.

I would fail miserably at that. It takes the spice out of the commentary.

 

[killdozzer]

Ignoring seems to fail (effectively to encourage), and banning seems not to happen (what, just for having an opinion?).

That's why Hydrogen Audio has TOS8. Finally, something that works.

If TOS8 is not the ASR way, then "shouldn't tolerate" is mere hand-waving. We need something concrete.

Hmmmm...
I think "in good spirit" should also be allowed to have some part in most online communities. Perhaps something like TOS8 should be a means you can resort to, but don't have to.

I'll try to provide an example. I will deliberately go for a very obvious and accepted non-means of support for arguments. Namely YouTube.
Imagine you and I are discussing sound characteristics and I'm trying to describe certain sound and for lack of knowledge what causes it and how it came to be, I post a video, like this one, for example:

And then I say that Jake Bugg deliberately went for these sound characteristics on his 21st century albums and that perhaps I want to make some of my music sound like that, I guess your answer wouldn't be "well, I can't tell you anything because it's a YouTube clip".

Sure, the sound is affected by both; it's an old sound and it's a YouTube video clip. However if you take my question in good spirit and don't assume I'm trying to set up a trap, you could clearly separate what is vintage about it and what is perhaps YouTube about it and give me an answer.

Sticking to TOS8 "All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims." - you could say, I don't know what you're talking about, YouTube is not the accepted objective support for what you're trying to ask.

A lot of good ol' fashioned hangin' out would go out the window as a collateral.

 

[DanielT]

Stringent threads that stick to the question are preferable. But then there is the question of how much deviations from the subject should be allowed? In itself, I'm not that sensitive to OT BUT others can be. In addition, so few deviations, observe a few, from the subject add spontaneity and creativity. It can also be a way to propel a thread forward, if it seems staggered. With that said it should still be stringency .... but .. You understand what I'm looking for?

However, a BIG problem with too much OT in one thread that it can cover several topics at the same time. The problem with that is that then only those who read that thread will see the side tracks. Imagine others who do not read that thread and then may miss out to get answers on something they have been thinking about.

 

[killdozzer]

Stringent threads that stick to the question are preferable. But then there is the question of how much deviations from the subject should be allowed? In itself, I'm not that sensitive to OT BUT others can be. In addition, so few deviations, observe a few, from the subject add spontaneity and creativity. It can also be a way to propel a thread forward, if it seems staggered. With that said it should still be stringency .... but .. You understand what I'm looking for?

However, a BIG problem with too much OT in one thread that it can cover several topics at the same time. The problem with that is that then only those who read that thread will see the side tracks. Imagine others who do not read that thread and then may miss out to get answers on something they have been thinking about.

I agree, but off topic is not a huge problem when it comes to manners and behaviour and one topic always springs from another. Since we're talking about complex systems it's almost impossible to have it any other way. Imagine asking: give me only magnet related answers to my question what's wrong with my speakers' sound. What if it isn't (and it rarely is) magnet related. So it goes on in search for the cause and opens numerous other topics.
But this is usually very simple to solve. A mod can just say that's for another thread, move it elsewhere and that's that.

 

[Doodski]

Stringent threads that stick to the question are preferable. But then there is the question of how much deviations from the subject should be allowed? In itself, I'm not that sensitive to OT BUT others can be. In addition, so few deviations, observe a few, from the subject add spontaneity and creativity. It can also be a way to propel a thread forward, if it seems staggered. With that said it should still be stringency .... but .. You understand what I'm looking for?

However, a BIG problem with too much OT in one thread that it can cover several topics at the same time. The problem with that is that then only those who read that thread will see the side tracks. Imagine others who do not read that thread and then may miss out to get answers on something they have been thinking about.

I think some OT is OK but the moderator should exercise the decision to tolerate or not so there is some spontaneity in life. Not hard rules.

 

[DanielT]

That with OT has been an eternal and livabde discussion on all sorts of forums I have been to. These are not natural laws we are talking about here. This is what those who decide on the forum's focus, policy, rules and so on choose it should be.Then take into account what Killdozzer wrote in the thread above. The complexity and how things can be connected. So what exactly is OT?

Then what is OT? Say a thread about sharing tips on making mussels in white wine. So are tips on oysters in white wine OT? Mussels in red wine? Suggest recipes for mussels with more lemon than than wine in the sauce? Suggestions for beef fillet and pepper sauce? Or in that thread tips on how to wash the car in the best way?

 

[Thunder22]

How about letting the moderators assign "red flags" to a user's public profile when they are being dicks. Maybe it's just a thumbs down or poop emoji. Maybe it's an actual little red flag icon. Then users can decide who to engage with, or whether or not it is worth their time.

 

[Newman]

I was more interested in dealing with subjectivistic sighted listening claims. Hence my reference to TOS8.

Not so much concerned with OT, hence I did not bring up TOS5. But since others want to discuss it, I think it is mischievous to quibble about “Oh, where would mods draw the line for ever-so-slightly OT diversions?” The OT issue is when speaker paint => car paint => racing car decals => all things racing car, all in 3 posts, then everyone who has slightest thing to say about racing cars chips in for 3 days.

That’s annoying, but not in the way that the clueless and argumentative arch-subjectivists — who think “I trust my ears” is the QED to end all QED’s, only challenged for supremacy by “we all hear differently” — can and do utterly undermine the fundamentals of what the scientific approach to preferred qualities of sound has to teach us. And hence undermine the core value that ASR can bring to the hifi hobby discussion.

That’s more than annoying: that’s corrosive and destructive and needs to be dealt with. IMHO.

cheers

 

[pozz]

It has gotten more personal around here. One thing I would like to call out is when we get new members who’ve known nothing but the subjectivist sites, citing some dubious claim. I’ve seen them jumped on like they were stupid, and basically told, you’re not welcome here. I wish we could welcome everyone and be a little more mindful of easing them into a new way of thinking. A lot of us bought into the BS at some point, and we weren’t shamed into changing our views - we were shown.

Worth repeating.

There's more than a few threads where members have shared their contrition: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...from-audiophile-snake-oil-facepalm-time.9950/

 

[JonfromCB]

Public forums are a reflection of our society. New and improved idiots are evolving faster than God can replace them with cognizant, rational, intellegent human beings. There is also an increasing number of idealists (this thread?) that feel the need to police, control and legislate the behavior and views of others. Good luck "legislating" the morality or behaviors of others in a society where lies and conspiricy theories are spewed from elected officials, cable and radio outlets and even worse, consistenty believed by more than 30% of the population who are more selfish, more socially isolated, less well read, and not smart enough to discern propaganda from facts. Fascism commeth, even faster than in the 1920s.

 

[ahofer]

What if the moderators could shunt all of the threads that open with strong subjectivist claims to their own part of the forum?

It is throwing a bit of a turd in the punch bowl to come over here and assert that you heard night and day differences after installing your cable risers. Not unlike going to Audiogon and challenging them to a blind test (now who would do that?). It is only reasonable to expect push back.

But I think people need to be a touch less sensitive. It’s the internet, people say stuff. If you don’t like the tone, say so. Direct engagement in good faith usually turns the temperature down pretty fast.

 

[Jimbob54]

What if the moderators could shunt all of the threads that open with strong subjectivist claims to their own part of the forum?

It is throwing a bit of a turd in the punch bowl to come over here and assert that you heard night and day differences after installing your cable risers. Not unlike going to Audiogon and challenging them to a blind test (now who would do that?). It is only reasonable to expect push back.

But I think people need to be a touch less sensitive. It’s the internet, people say stuff. If you don’t like the tone, say so. Direct engagement in good faith usually turns the temperature down pretty fast.

I find the tone of the original post, or at least the tone of that posters first reply to the first challenging post, dictates the rest of the exchange.

The person that accepts their opinions and uncontrolled observations are just that is fine. The one that mentions "cult" early out of the gate or the infallibility of ears is going to get a fair bit of robust challenge