So long, too bad about your nice idea.

[Opus111]

Nonsense is already part of the forum. It is not opposed at the moment.

I do beg to differ

 

[March Audio]

I do beg to differ

...in the sense it is allowed to perpetuate regardless of people continuing to post it or object to it.

 

[TBone]

" the effort required to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude greater than is required to produce it. "

I certainly understand your frustration, and pov regarding Fight Club.

At this crossroad, I'd personally like to thank you for your well-read/whitty/civil contributions to date, and especially your assistance.

Thx again, and luv your Avatar.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I certainly understand your frustration, and pov regarding Fight Club.

At this crossroad, I'd personally like to thank you for your well-read/whitty/civil contributions to date, and especially your assistance.

Thx again, and luv your Avatar.

Thank you for the compliments. I'll see how OP moderation works out.

I know I am not looking for a forum with complete unanimity on issues. That would be boring and no fun. Even bonafide experts in a field aren't in 100% agreement. That however is different than actions attempting to derail a discussion or insisting on repeating an un-supportable position requiring repeated refutation or letting it stand unrefuted. So I wouldn't delete a post of disagreement. If there are posts that become pedantic debate of semantics or sentence structure that cluttered up a thread uselessly then it would get zapped. I might also in the OP attempt to provided a desired scope of area to be discussed to focus things usefully.

 

[h.g.]

Nonsense is already part of the forum. It is not opposed at the moment.

The proportion of nonsense on this site seems to be growing but it is usually opposed by the arguing, sniping, circular arguments,... you do not seem to like. Allowing the chap posting nonsense to remove all the "that is wrong because" posts is going to hamstring and discourage rational people and support and encourage the posters of audiophile nonsense. It will be the other way round in threads started by rational people but in a race to see who can start and maintain the most threads audiophile nonsense is going to win every time as can be seen on every audiophile forum in existence.

If you want a forum with rational discussion I cannot see how you can give audiophile nonsense an even break. There is simply too much of it and the people pushing it do not engage and resolve disagreements in a rational manner.

That would create an unacceptable moderation workload for Amir. Rules have not prevented any other forum I have seen suffering from the problems.

If Amir doesn't want to defend what he is trying to create then he will suffer the consequences.

I doubt it will be easy to come up with a good set but rules allow everybody that is on board to pull in the same direction. It enables everybody to see if a post is in or out which we cannot at present and provides the basis for moderation. Hydrogen Audio has a set of rules that successfully limits the amount of audiophile nonsense but it also causes some other problems. I would not suggest a direct copy.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I personally don't have a problem with off-topic. Thread drift is natural if you're having a real conversation, and I hope we want to do that here. What I have a problem with, and I doubt I'm alone, is that there are people here who don't want to discus what we can learn from the science of audio. They want to discuss what the science of audio does not teach us, speculate on what the science of audio might someday teach us, then use the unknown to "support" what they hear, but cannot measure.

It's not exactly "I hear it, it's true." but it is just a thinly-vieled substitute for it. They are not here to have the kinds of discussions this place was created for, they are here to try to discredit them. They're here to challenge the very premise of this community. It's trolling, it's not very subtle, and most of us know who they are. Any and all rules or sanctions that do not address them directly will not be effective in changing their behavior, but will radically change ours. Boot them, and the moderation challenge will become quite manageable. Try to manage them and it'll just make a bigger mess.

Tim

 

[Blumlein 88]

The proportion of nonsense on this site seems to be growing but it is usually opposed by the arguing, sniping, circular arguments,... you do not seem to like. Allowing the chap posting nonsense to remove all the "that is wrong because" posts is going to hamstring and discourage rational people and support and encourage the posters of audiophile nonsense. It will be the other way round in threads started by rational people but in a race to see who can start and maintain the most threads audiophile nonsense is going to win every time as can be seen on every audiophile forum in existence.

If you want a forum with rational discussion I cannot see how you can give audiophile nonsense an even break. There is simply too much of it and the people pushing it do not engage and resolve disagreements in a rational manner.

If Amir doesn't want to defend what he is trying to create then he will suffer the consequences.

I doubt it will be easy to come up with a good set but rules allow everybody that is on board to pull in the same direction. It enables everybody to see if a post is in or out which we cannot at present and provides the basis for moderation. Hydrogen Audio has a set of rules that successfully limits the amount of audiophile nonsense but it also causes some other problems. I would not suggest a direct copy.

Those concerns you raise mirror my own. If you have 90% non sense threads you'll still have a nonsense forum. I will give it a go for awhile longer and see what happens.

 

[John Kenny]

I personally don't have a problem with off-topic. Thread drift is natural if you're having a real conversation, and I hope we want to do that here. What I have a problem with, and I doubt I'm alone, is that there are people here who don't want to discus what we can learn from the science of audio. They want to discuss what the science of audio does not teach us, speculate on what the science of audio might someday teach us, then use the unknown to "support" what they hear, but cannot measure.

It's not exactly "I hear it, it's true." but it is just a thinly-vieled substitute for it. They are not here to have the kinds of discussions this place was created for, they are here to try to discredit them. They're here to challenge the very premise of this community. It's trolling, it's not very subtle, and most of us know who they are. Any and all rules or sanctions that do not address them directly will not be effective in changing their behavior, but will radically change ours. Boot them, and the moderation challenge will become quite manageable. Try to manage them and it'll just make a bigger mess.

Tim

It's a shame that "current research" into auditory perception is something you want to exclude from any discussions here.

If this definition of "audio science" was to prevail then I believe the forum should be renamed to "measurement technology" to state it's limitations & avoid misleading people

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's a shame that "current research" into auditory perception is something you want to exclude from any discussions here.

If this definition of "audio science" was to prevail then I believe the forum should be renamed to "measurement technology" to state it's limitations & avoid misleading people

I don't. I just want to be sure that we're talking about signals that can actually be received by the brain to be processed into perceptions. And when you pointed to something that showed supersonic content causing activity in the brain, my response was "thank you." Or was that subsonic? in which case the brain could be responding to vibrations, not sound.

Tim

 

[John Kenny]

I don't. I just want to be sure that we're talking about signals that can actually be received by the brain to be processed into perceptions. And when you pointed to something that showed supersonic content causing activity in the brain, my response was "thank you." Or was that subsonic? in which case the brain could be responding to vibrations, not sound.

Tim

Well I don't think you just left it at "thank you", Tim do you? From your follow on posts on the ASA thread you certainly showed you were not thankful or interested in the research (If you read the links I gave you would see that it was both sub & supersonic frequncies). If you want to continue this discussion then bring it over to the ASA thread

 

[BobShermanEsq]

It's a shame that "current research" into auditory perception is something you want to exclude from any discussions here.

If this definition of "audio science" was to prevail then I believe the forum should be renamed to "measurement technology" to state it's limitations & avoid misleading people

What John says is 100% accurate in my opinion. The main problem that you fine gentlemen do not understand is that once you put the word audio in this forum or anywhere, you cannot ignore the discussion of sound. If you do, you really have no interest in audio, which I believe is true for some of you, you just might not want to realize this or accept the fact.

In order to have a proper audio discussion you have to honestly include all aspects, otherwise it really becomes rather useless. You can bandy about measurements until you're blue in the face, but what are you measuring and why are you measuring them? It is because ultimately you hope to find some reasonable way to acquaint science to sound. Maybe this is a noble thing, or maybe just more foolishness, you have to decide for yourselves but if you really think you are going to accomplish anything of value that you must keep an open mind and not totally dismiss sound, as ultimately sound is what really matters otherwise you wouldn't be here at all.

 

[Purité Audio]

No one is dismissing sound , I/we are just not interested in anecdote.
Keith

 

[BobShermanEsq]

No one is dismissing sound , I/we are just not interested in anecdote.
Keith

But that can also be important, it is part of life. Maybe you just feel more comfortable when you can pick when it is acceptable.

 

[amirm]

You guys are seriously having an audio debate in this thread????

 

[Blumlein 88]

You guys are seriously having an audio debate in this thread????

+1

 

[Thomas savage]

You guys are seriously having an audio debate in this thread????

Not sure if you should be oddly proud of this or forking this custard.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You guys are seriously having an audio debate in this thread????

Yes, Amir, and to bring it back to the tone and how to moderate it, I hope you've noted precisely where this thread jumped off the rails.

Tim

 

[Thomas savage]

Yea carnival queen Steve Williams should be in charge.

Umm can't log into WBF anymore after this post. Was fine today but mystery password issues now lol

I guess I am stuck here so best we all do what ever it takes to make it a success

 

[Mivera]

Umm can't log into WBF anymore after this post. Was fine today but mystery password issues now lol

I guess I am stuck here so best we all do what ever it takes to make it a success

Where did you make that comment?

 

[Thomas savage]

Where did you make that comment?

Here on this thread... Oh well

Farewell spazmatron