Suggestion: moderate first 20 posts or limit early replies.

[Blumlein 88]

You know the problem of thread crapping being experienced currently. Fight club was created in response.

I know it would be a chore Amir, but maybe you need to moderate the first 20 posts by new members. At least until the forum 'culture' is firmly established.

I have seen similar methods used elsewhere though usually not the first 20 posts, often 5 or 10. I think 20 is useful because I don't think people posing to get past the initial 20 posts could maintain the facade very well. Once you see someone is not here to disrupt without contributing you no longer moderate them.

Some members involved in thread crapping have been doing that many posts in one day.

Another idea is perhaps limiting the number of posts new members can do in 24 hours. As well as needing your approval after they have had 20 posts for full membership. It would be rather restrictive, but maybe allow a max of 5 posts per day. Until reaching 20 and getting unlimited member status from you. That would remove the vicarious thrill some types get from seeing their own posting and its effects to disrupt communication.

In addition, for ongoing members, maybe rather than banning you can put in place a limited post restriction if you get complaints. Like, "due to complaints and a posting style against forum guidelines, you are restricted to 3 posts per day for 2 weeks".

Anyway, just some suggestions.

 

[amirm]

I really like the second suggestion. Alas, it requires custom change to the forum software.

The issue with the first one is that I am not up 24 hours a day on the forum so someone would join, post and see that it is ignored and lose interest.

Thanks and keep the suggestions coming.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

There is a much simpler solution. Have the member who starts the thread choose the direction, whether he wants educated adult answers or the Dunning-Kruger variety.
That way if they want serious audio science answers, the "subjectivist" idiocy that would clog the thread is automatically eliminated and they don't have to tediously sift through or waste time with the D-K gang, or worse have the thread itself placed in purgatory.
So the audio science types can have the discussions they came here for, while the D-Ks can create their own fantasy threads and argue among themselves who it the dumbest/most delusional.
No one is banned, just banished from threads by the OP who should set the direction of discourse desired.
My 2c

 

[Purité Audio]

That seems a really good idea, the OP can determine just how far he wants his thread to deviate.
If there is an interesting digression, then another thread could be started with that as the topic.
Keith.

 

[tomelex]

Give the OP of the thread what I would call "thread admin rights" and could using them he/she could outright delete or atleast shrink the size of off topic or non scientific posts to like 1/10th the size of area taken up on the screen so if he/she deemed off topic then as you read the thread you can skip these posts

 

[NorthSky]

No need to, any thread starter who is smart enough always coordinates his own thread in the right direction.
Couple off topic posts here and there is nothing to fret over. And good humor WITH all other members is always a good sign of positive happiness.

And if, if, the thread starter lets his own thread deviating from his positive objective, then the thread starter is the only one responsible.
When we start a thread it's up to us to manage it in due educative and fun form.

Each time we criticize another member it's us we criticize first.

We, all the members here, have the education and will power to make this site a powerhouse.

 

[tomelex]

Northstar, With respect, I can not stop anyone from posting in any thread, mine or anothers. That is evidenced all over forums all over the web. This site needs for sure the fight club but the main reason for this site is science, and that's why we are here. Rules are only good if they can be enforced. No cops, no laws.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No need to, any thread starter who is smart enough always coordinates his own thread in the right direction.
Couple off topic posts here and there is nothing to fret over. And good humor WITH all other members is always a good sign of positive happiness.

And if, if, the thread starter lets his own thread deviating from his positive objective, then the thread starter is the only one responsible.
When we start a thread it's up to us to manage it in due educative and fun form.

Each time we criticize another member it's us we criticize first.

We, all the members here, have the education and will power to make this site a powerhouse.

I think Tim's thread on "I need a DAC" is strong evidence against what you are saying. How did Phelonious Ponk fail in keeping his thread on topic?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

No need to, any thread starter who is smart enough always coordinates his own thread in the right direction.

Tell that to those who wanted adult science discussion and threads ended up infested with anti-scientific idiocy or in Fight Club.
Tim wanted info about DACs, not religious belief. He didn't "coordinate" it into FC.
Fact is, audio science and D-K belief does not mix. Oil/water. I didn't say ban anyone, just prevent them from polluting threads with anti-science believer idiocy if the OP so desires.

 

[NorthSky]

This entire affair started here and there, including Tim's serious thread, and ended up in the recycle bin (Fight Club section).
But think positive; it's not too late to turn things around. We all are powerful character individual people here, no measurements needed for that.
Our new site is very very easy; audio discussions on everything of interest, and always with respect, and fun too. That's it.
If one is eating froot loops as his favorite cereal in the morning and afternoon and evening, and the other one prefers cheerios only on Tuesday mornings (the other days of the week he has benedict eggs, pancakes, swiss ham and cheese tomatoes toasted grills, chicken breasts, etc. ...), and another one is eating bacon and fried baloney and hash browns, ...we just have to accept the ones who have sex first before breakfast...it's so simple really.

Say for instance that I prefer avocados with my eggs instead of green beans, but I run out of fresh avocados, then I look in my banana and oranges and tangerines and kiwis basket.
If I run out of milk for my cereals, I just call my neighbor and ask him also for butter (the nearest grocery store is 225 miles away, and the next flight is only on Thursdays).

 

[iridium]

There is nothing that stops Phelonious Ponk from starting a Second Edition Dac thread.

Or, I could pull-out the paper rolodexes and search for Guido.

iridium.

 

[NorthSky]

Very true too, and Tim is already over 60 I think, so he's an adult now.

 

[Don Hills]

Very true too, and Tim is already over 60 I think, so he's an adult now.

Growing old does not automatically include growing up.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Folks who believe in audio magic, folklore and Santa because they "heard" him, are not grown ups. Audio science is an adult theme, sorry.

 

[NorthSky]

Anyway, adults, kids, it's all relative. What counts is how big your engine is (in cc). ...And how much noise it makes (Harley).

But joke aside; I have never met a member here who deserves to be banned. ...Never ever. ...Words yes, but people no.
________

Some people love to give advice, it's their free generous side. And advice I receive occasionally; like don't judge, don't talk in the back of other people. And that's good advice too coming from people who judge and talk in the back of others negatively.

We live in a free society where nothing is free. To the point of great excesses, including audio products. Let the people moderate our government elected officials and our police forces. And let the criminals join our armed forces, to defend our values and freedom, and fight on the front lines for our rights. ...All with honor and dignity and civilized.

 

[March Audio]

There is a much simpler solution. Have the member who starts the thread chose the direction, whether he wants educated adult answers or the Dunning-Kruger variety.
That way if they want serious audio science answers, the "subjectivist" idiocy that would clog the thread is automatically eliminated and they don't have to tediously sift through or waste time with the D-K gang, or worse have the thread itself placed in purgatory.
So the audio science types can have the discussions they came here for, while the D-Ks can create their own fantasy threads and argue among themselves who it the dumbest/most delusional.
No one is banned, just banished from threads by the OP who should set the direction of discourse desired.
My 2c

I think that is a brilliant idea. There is no point in either side taking the other on in (stupid) argument as they know they will just get switched off.

The "other side" can start another thread to discuss as they wish.

Conflicts totally avoided.

Brilliant.

 

[March Audio]

Northstar, With respect, I can not stop anyone from posting in any thread, mine or anothers. That is evidenced all over forums all over the web. This site needs for sure the fight club but the main reason for this site is science, and that's why we are here. Rules are only good if they can be enforced. No cops, no laws.

This.

 

[Opus111]

No one is banned, just banished from threads by the OP who should set the direction of discourse desired.

Sounds reasonable to me AJ - the person opening the thread can specify 'no replies from X, Y or Z please' right at the start. Then if X, Y or Z have significant contributions to make they can open their own parallel thread to set out where the OP has taken a wrong turn.

 

[March Audio]

I think it's clear that we want this forum to be different from the others out there. We want it to be a genuine resource we can learn from and have fun in. It's clear that we feel strongly about this, we want it to work.

To achieve that however things have to be done differently. To think that it can be relied upon for people to be just tolerant (often unnecessarily so), to behave themselves, or not be plain fruit loops is unfortunately just naive.

I don't want the forum to be exclusive, you need different people with different personalities and opinions to contribute otherwise it's pointless. However they have to conform to the rationale and intent of the forum. If they don't they have to be controlled in some way or removed.

However unpalatable that may seem it's a hard reality.

I like AJs suggestion a lot. Moderation is in the ownership of the OP, conflict is avoided and "the other side" can still post their different views in another thread if they so wish. No- one is censored, no big admin exercise for Amir.

However, I suspect this is not functionality that's currently in the software.

 

[March Audio]

Sounds reasonable to me AJ - the person opening the thread can specify 'no replies from X, Y or Z please' right at the start. Then if X, Y or Z have significant contributions to make they can open their own parallel thread to set out where the OP has taken a wrong turn.

I don't think just stating that will work, people will just ignore it. Equally even people who I have little respect for and caused problems previously have on the odd Occassion contributed constructively to threads. So let them contribute and see how it goes. If they behave, no problem, the moment they act up they get switched off by the OP.

It's a great deterrent and motivator to be constructive. There's no point in doing anything else otherwise you get switched off.