Improving ASR as a member/moderator

[RickS]

I was being deliberately pejorative in my choice of the word dogma.

This, e.g., would not be a discussion.
First Poster: Reproduction of audio from digital media is fundamentally flawed by the loss of information between samples.
View attachment 516994
Second Poster: watch this video.
View attachment 516995


N.B. I am not saying that there's anything to discuss there!

On topic -- not sure if an expanded suggestions area would add value -- but it is testable.

Gotcha, my day started with a power outage and am a bit slow at this point.

 

[krabapple]

Thanks, but this looks like a clean slate forum using lessons learned from here.

Hah, no, Hydrogenaudio.org has been an audio forum online since 2001. And it is (in)famously subjectivism-free, thanks to:

TOS 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must - to the best of their ability - provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

The moderation approach is also applied here, but with our membership diversity, is rarely as simple as banning those who break rules. Some rules carry more serious consequences than others.

It's a matter of continuing to break a rule after having been warned. Why would that not be simple? Also simple, is 'binning' posts that break the rule (which HA does). (The posts don't disappear , they are simply put in a 'bin' thread holding TOS violations. )

What would happen is, some number of ASR posters would leave in a huff (and complain on other forums). Which already happens.

 

[RickS]

Hah, no, Hydrogenaudio.org has been an audio forum online since 2001. And it is (in)famously subjectivism-free, thanks to:

TOS 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must - to the best of their ability - provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.


It's a matter of continuing to break a rule after having been warned. Why would that not be simple? Also simple, is 'binning' posts that break the rule (which HA does). (The posts don't disappear , they are simply put in a 'bin' thread holding TOS violations. )

What would happen is, some number of ASR posters would leave in a huff (and complain on other forums). Which already happens.

Thanks, but am trying to keep this thread focused on ASR improvements. Unfortunately, when I open this up too much, it has become unwieldly.

If you want to discuss how ASR is managed, suggest you direct message or try another route (plenty of other threads). Thanks!

 

[krabapple]

Thanks, but am going trying to keep this thread focused on improvements. Unfortunately, when I open this up too much, it has become unwieldly.

If you want to discuss how ASR is managed, suggest you direct message or try another route (plenty other threads). Thanks!

Managing subjectivist posts more strictly a la HA.org would be an improvement for ASR. <--my contribution

 

[amirm]

Hah, no, Hydrogenaudio.org has been an audio forum online since 2001. And it is (in)famously subjectivism-free, thanks to:

TOS 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must - to the best of their ability - provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

As a recipient of that warning while I was posting there, we are not going to do that.

Those "graphs" and null tests are highly educational in addition to brining reliable data. This doesn't apply much to HA's charter of audio compression as there, perceptual logic rules, rending those graphs and null tests mostly invalid. Not so here.

We are also very different in that you can easily perform ABX tests for codecs. But not remotely so for audio hardware. Even the gear to do that is mostly unobtanium.

HA moderators also cross the line in the way they engage in heated arguments but then use their moderator powers to sanction the person they are arguing with.

Net, net, it is not a model for us to follow.

For all the rules suggested, I like you to think about whether you want me to be subjected in reverse as I go to other forums to entice them to follow science and engineering. As I do from time to time. Do you want them to have a rule to instantly label me as a troll and ban me? Because I don't believe in subjectivism the way they do?

My suggestion is to follow these rule:

1. Harmless subjectivists. These are folks who say in passing they listened to this and that and this one sounded better. No need to immediately demand proof, stop the thread flow and get a big argument started.

2. Devout subjectivists. These are folks who want to have a fight. They want to prove they are right. To some extent like me when I go to other forums. Send these folks to Master threads we have on these topics. If they continue, report them. I often see these reports and jump in and push back on the poster. To the extent they get belligerent, as they often do, then we show them the door.

3. Please don't suggest anything that requires us to read and police forum content. There is just no way we can do this. We are running on a very lightweight moderation system of poor Rick handling almost all of this. We can't get into deep discussions, figure out which is which to adjudicate. You all need to use good judgement.

4. Use a bit of humor. We used to use the phrase "Uh oh" when someone made a subjectivist claim. It was a fun way to stay here we go and most of the time, it served to reduce tension.

 

[krabapple]

As a recipient of that warning while I was posting there, we are not going to do that.

Those "graphs" and null tests are highly educational in addition to brining reliable data. This doesn't apply much to HA's charter of audio compression as there, perceptual logic rules, rending those graphs and null tests mostly invalid. Not so here.

I'm not parsing this very well but I think you're agreeing that HA 's DNA is lossy codecs, which explains the language of its TOS#8, but ASR's DNA is not that.

We are also very different in that you can easily perform ABX tests for codecs. But not remotely so for audio hardware. Even the gear to do that is mostly unobtanium.

HA moderators also cross the line in the way they engage in heated arguments but then use their moderator powers to sanction the person they are arguing with.

Net, net, it is not a model for us to follow.

I hardly expect ASR to adopt TOS#8 literally. I sure do think ASR would be better if it adopted something like it. Signal/noise, you know.

1. Harmless subjectivists. These are folks who say in passing they listened to this and that and this one sounded better. No need to immediately demand proof, stop the thread flow and get a big argument started.

But maybe a need to tell them, as moderators, in private if you like, hey, no, not here, thanks?

 

[Fahzz]

But maybe a need to tell them, as moderators, in private if you like, hey, no, not here, thanks?

There should be a forum section called Take it Outside or Time Out, where mods can send participants in "heated arguments" to beat themselves to death, without everybody having to watch. Of course those who want to watch are free to do so. No ban necessary.

 

[Mort]

There should be a forum section called Take it Outside or Time Out, where mods can send participants in "heated arguments" to beat themselves to death, without everybody having to watch. Of course those who want to watch are free to do so. No ban necessary.

Then the troll wins.

 

[amirm]

There should be a forum section called Take it Outside or Time Out, where mods can send participants in "heated arguments" to beat themselves to death, without everybody having to watch. Of course those who want to watch are free to do so. No ban necessary.

We created one of those when we first started. We called it Fight Club. Alas, people went after each other's throat, created hard feelings, folks quitting, etc.

 

[Everett T]

We created one of those when we first started. We called it Fight Club. Alas, people went after each other's throat, created hard feelings, folks quitting, etc.

Definitely makes things worse, and then more moderation is required as it spills over to others.

 

[Fahzz]

And Fight Club is a much better name!

 

[mhardy6647]

Prompted (or is it triggered? ) by @Fahzz's suggestion a few posts earlier: I have to say, in a universe perpendicular to the one ASR inhabits there's at least one site that manages the same issue, from the alternate perspective, reasonably successfully.

That forum has a subsection called The Cutting Edge that allows and encourages discussions of... you know... stuff like magical cables and tweaks, audiophile fuses, stuff like that... but does not allow counter-arguments from grumpy objectivists (so to speak) who just want to point out things like physics.

It's quite literally (well... almost literally ) the mirror-image of the circumstances we're currently considering in this thread (I think).
I am not sure I am suggesting it per se... but it seemed worthy of mention.

 

[Audionaut]

They want to prove they are right. To some extent like me when I go to other forums.

Uh Oh

 

[RickS]

While I was away (another home power outage and subsequent unreliable internet) see both good and bad happened here. As for the good, Amir’s post helped clarify the subjective rules proposal. Another is that this effort yielded more UI exposure for the FAQs! This should help in numerous ways. Thanks to all.

Still see some want to discuss how the rules are applied or other aspects that I did not intend for this thread. This is not bad as much as off (my intended) topic and will start another thread and give these comments their own home. Despite some hints in my part and others, those that persisted are taking a break from this thread. Will do some tidying up as part of the new thread.

 

[Rick63]

While I was away (another home power outage and subsequent unreliable internet) see both good and bad happened here. As for the good, Amir’s post helped clarify the subjective rules proposal. Another is that this effort yielded more UI exposure for the FAQs! This should help in numerous ways. Thanks to all.

Still see some want to discuss how the rules are applied or other aspects that I did not intend for this thread. This is not bad as much as off (my intended) topic and will start another thread and give these comments their own home. Despite some hints in my part and other, those that persisted are taking a break from this thread. Will do some tidying up as part of the new thread.

From one Rick to another, thank you for your time and effort!

Oh, and my last initial is S too (if that's where you get the S in your username).

 

[RexrothPigeon]

3. Please don't suggest anything that requires us to read and police forum content. There is just no way we can do this. We are running on a very lightweight moderation system of poor Rick handling almost all of this. We can't get into deep discussions, figure out which is which to adjudicate. You all need to use good judgement.

This means the forum needs more moderators.

 

[krabapple]

That forum has a subsection called The Cutting Edge that allows and encourages discussions of... you know... stuff like magical cables and tweaks, audiophile fuses, stuff like that... but does not allow counter-arguments from grumpy objectivists (so to speak) who just want to point out things like physics.

It's quite literally (well... almost literally ) the mirror-image of the circumstances we're currently considering in this thread (I think).
I am not sure I am suggesting it per se... but it seemed worthy of mention.

By no means the only one, though. There are multiple audio sites that forbid science-based objections to subjectivist claims.

 

[respice finem]

This means the forum needs more moderators.

This, or, a smarter like system - or rather a like/dislike one. Alerting a moderator if the like/dislike ratio is "gross", or hiding the majorly disliked post automatically. Seems to work well with some sites, example:

NASA officials sidestepped questions on Artemis II risks—there's a reason why

This ought to make for some good reading," NASA's mission management team chair said.

arstechnica.com

 

[OCA]

As a recipient of that warning while I was posting there, we are not going to do that.

Those "graphs" and null tests are highly educational in addition to brining reliable data. This doesn't apply much to HA's charter of audio compression as there, perceptual logic rules, rending those graphs and null tests mostly invalid. Not so here.

We are also very different in that you can easily perform ABX tests for codecs. But not remotely so for audio hardware. Even the gear to do that is mostly unobtanium.

HA moderators also cross the line in the way they engage in heated arguments but then use their moderator powers to sanction the person they are arguing with.

Net, net, it is not a model for us to follow.

For all the rules suggested, I like you to think about whether you want me to be subjected in reverse as I go to other forums to entice them to follow science and engineering. As I do from time to time. Do you want them to have a rule to instantly label me as a troll and ban me? Because I don't believe in subjectivism the way they do?

My suggestion is to follow these rule:

1. Harmless subjectivists. These are folks who say in passing they listened to this and that and this one sounded better. No need to immediately demand proof, stop the thread flow and get a big argument started.

2. Devout subjectivists. These are folks who want to have a fight. They want to prove they are right. To some extent like me when I go to other forums. Send these folks to Master threads we have on these topics. If they continue, report them. I often see these reports and jump in and push back on the poster. To the extent they get belligerent, as they often do, then we show them the door.

3. Please don't suggest anything that requires us to read and police forum content. There is just no way we can do this. We are running on a very lightweight moderation system of poor Rick handling almost all of this. We can't get into deep discussions, figure out which is which to adjudicate. You all need to use good judgement.

4. Use a bit of humor. We used to use the phrase "Uh oh" when someone made a subjectivist claim. It was a fun way to stay here we go and most of the time, it served to reduce tension.

GitHub - google/zimtohrli

Contribute to google/zimtohrli development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[RickS]

Have had some feedback over time regarding how deletions were being handled. For simple or first time offenses, had moved towards deleting with comment. This has seemed to work for the most part but some complained about the lack of context. So to improve am moving back to using warnings with one difference. In the past, warnings have generally been issued and replies were not allowed. With some newer rules, members may have missed so will allow some feedback in select instances AND no warning points will be allotted.

With the goal of continuous improvement including more courteous moderation, am hoping this new approach will be a better compromise. We have also updated the standard warnings to be more specific and professional. The plan is to give sufficient context while providing more productive moderating in support of ASR membership growth.