"Cordial Participation" in Terms of Service 2.

[Ron Resnick]

Natural/normal conversation between people does not happen behind a facade of cordiality. Demanding such in conversations between people who are familiar with each other says you cannot have a normal conversation here. Heck there are times I want to say "bonzo, don't be such an ass" and add a wink - and believe you would not be offended more than momentarily because we are bantering back and forth and while we don't know each other we interact regularly and don't put each other on ignore and wake up the next day still willing to engage.

Thank you for your thoughts here, Tim.

I agree that non-cordial but light-hearted mutual banter between friends is not an issue. Such mutuality and absence of offense can be gleaned from the course of the dialogue.

But that is a different fact pattern than the "rock 'em sock 'em robots" written punch-throwing to which the moderators object. It usually is obvious when the banter is not mutual, and is not reciprocated in a way that each member perceives as inoffensive.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It would seem to me that more appropriate intervention might consist of a private message to involved parties with something like: "you guys work this out in private" or "if you cannot work this out, stop interacting with one another until you cool down" - at least as a first effort - rather than [inappropriate comment deleted.]. Or, leave the "non-cordial" comment colored in red with a flag that says "this is non-cordial" which might be more educational to help people learn the 'ways' of the cordiality detector.

Given all that, I do acknowledge there are a few truly rude members who probably deserve to be cited or sent off-world.

I appreciate that the members do not know this precisely because we keep member reports and private communications private. But please know that probably at least half of the moderator comments, edits and deletions of posts which we feel violate Term of Service 2 arise from reports by offended members. Members regularly report posts that they believe, for one reason or another, violate the Terms of Service. Sometimes we do seek to mediate conflicts exactly as you suggest.

I like your idea about leaving the non-cordial comment colored in red with a flag that says this is non-cordial, at least for a period of time. I agree that this might help people to understand why the moderators take the actions they take.

Thank you, again, for your suggestions.

 

[PeterA]

Ron, Just as people have different preferences, examples, and references when it comes to bass quality from their systems, everyone has a different standard for what offends them.

During these very trying and troubling Covid times, people are easily “triggered”. If you point that out, they may simply be offended by your suggestion that they have been triggered.

As an audio forum community, we are increasingly being subjected to your ideas about certain standards. I do not think your position as a moderator is an easy one, but my advice is to err on the less restrictive side of speech control.

Personally, I appreciate some members rather blunt and direct commentary. It is both refreshing to read and also less confusion about what their actual position is. This is a place where we come to learn, share, and express our opinions. The more moderation and censorship, the less we are able to do that. However, I do appreciate the general civility on this particular forum.

 

[Bobvin]

I'm waiting for my social credit score. And the threshold defined and consequences of it dropping below the line.

I already have one with my wife, seems I can never get out of the doghouse. Just when I think its safe to go outside...

 

[Gregadd]

The right to free speech applies only to the government. Attendant to that right is to assemble at the places of goverment. There is no obligation private citizens to provide others with a platform for free speech.
I am generally against content based
occenshihip especially prior restraint. Pornography for exa
Ple can be relegated to rime and place. Child pornography can be prohibited entirely.
I see nothing wrong prohiting personal attacks. The Supreme has acknowledged the existence of fighting words. The mere mention of which is provocative.
Mentioned in in factual way, someone'conflict of interest, being disingenuous , previous inaccuracy, lack of credentials in a field is acceptable.
Freedom of expression is not compromsed by prohibiting ad hominem attacks. Come on guys we learned that im grade school.

 

[Al M.]

I thought one of the purposes - perhaps the primary purpose - of emoticons was to express one's attitude about what one was saying. Before the graphical user interface this was done with text annotations such as: <humor> or <g,d&r> or <g> or <sarc>.These are actually more informational than a graphic face. Nonetheless, considering rather than ignoring the emoticon might yield greater insight to what and how the poster is expressing himself.

Natural/normal conversation between people does not happen behind a facade of cordiality. Demanding such in conversations between people who are familiar with each other says you cannot have a normal conversation here. Heck there are times I want to say "bonzo, don't be such an ass" and add a wink - and believe you would not be offended more than momentarily because we are bantering back and forth and while we don't know each other we interact regularly and don't put each other on ignore and wake up the next day still willing to engage.

We are the best judge of ourselves being offended, not the cordiality detector. I think a participant actually needs to say "I am truly offended in more than a momentary way." People who abuse such will become known as whiners. Rude people will become known as rude and perhaps avoided.

It would seem to me that more appropriate intervention might consist of a private message to involved parties with something like: "you guys work this out in private" or "if you cannot work this out, stop interacting with one another until you cool down" - at least as a first effort - rather than [inappropriate comment deleted.]. Or, leave the "non-cordial" comment colored in red with a flag that says "this is non-cordial" which might be more educational to help people learn the 'ways' of the cordiality detector.

Given all that, I do acknowledge there are a few truly rude members who probably deserve to be cited or sent off-world.

All of this realizing that someone may be offended by this post.

Which idiotic wussy hypersensitive moron would be offended by your post?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, Just as people have different preferences, examples, and references when it comes to bass quality from their systems, everyone has a different standard for what offends them.

During these very trying and troubling Covid times, people are easily “triggered”. If you point that out, they may simply be offended by your suggestion that they have been triggered.

As an audio forum community, we are increasingly being subjected by your ideas about standards. I do not think your position as a moderator is an easy one, but my advice is to air on the less restrictive side of speech control.

personally, I appreciate some members rather blunt and direct commentary. It is both refreshing to read and also less confusion about what their actual position is. This is a place where we come to learn, share, and express our opinions. The more moderation and censorship, the less we are able to do that. However, I do appreciate the general civility on this particular forum.

Thank you for your thoughts, Peter.

I am a little confused, though, because I feel like your thoughts on the ban on politics versus your thoughts on non-cordial bluntness are being mixed together confusingly in your post.

WBF censors political comments and political innuendo. Politics and political innuendo are not allowed on the forum. This is a firm rule, and the moderators enforce it as fairly and as impartially as they can. If members are upset that they cannot discuss politics and throw political jabs on WBF then, well, that is just too bad. This forum is not the place to discuss or to argue about or to get out one's frustrations about politics.

I, personally, do not consider maintenance of decorum and cordiality to be "censorship." If you were having a conversation with somebody in person, and he suddenly screams at you "That analysis and logic dumb! Dumb! DUMB! DUMB!!!" I do not think that "censorship" would be the correct concept to apply to evaluate the propriety and reasonableness of such an exclamation.

 

[dminches]

Ron, Just as people have different preferences, examples, and references when it comes to bass quality from their systems, everyone has a different standard for what offends them.

During these very trying and troubling Covid times, people are easily “triggered”. If you point that out, they may simply be offended by your suggestion that they have been triggered.

As an audio forum community, we are increasingly being subjected to your ideas about certain standards. I do not think your position as a moderator is an easy one, but my advice is to air on the less restrictive side of speech control.

Personally, I appreciate some members rather blunt and direct commentary. It is both refreshing to read and also less confusion about what their actual position is. This is a place where we come to learn, share, and express our opinions. The more moderation and censorship, the less we are able to do that. However, I do appreciate the general civility on this particular forum.

Peter, I think the issue is that people don’t limit themselves to providing a direct opinion (xxx speakers suck) but then extend it to a personal attack (if you like them you shouldn’t bother spending money on equipment). It is the latter part which is more likely to get flagged and which I find unnecessary.

Frankly, I think it is pretty clear when someone has crossed the line (by my definition).

 

[Al M.]

.

I, personally, do not consider maintenance of decorum and cordiality to be "censorship." If you were having a conversation with somebody in person, and he suddenly screams at you "That analysis and logic dumb! Dumb! DUMB! DUMB!!!" I do not think that "censorship" would be the correct concept to apply to evaluate the propriety and reasonableness of such an exclamation.

Agreed, Ron.

 

[K3RMIT]

I’m sick and tired of my posts being deleted in favor of uneducated or uninformed reviewers, well-known posters, and greedy dealers & manufacturers.

Well you trash expensive gear hahaha.
While I respect your views and agree on most. one must consider the expense in advertising
in creating the product and lastly trying to get a good buzz. i truly agree up
to a point. Then take me I go too far when I say some are not qualified or don’t know. honestly I'm
way wrong even if I’m correct on the comment. We collectively need to possible take a step back and observe from a distance I think.

 

[dminches]

Ron, what is a shame about all this is that my guess is 95% (or more) of the members have never had to be flagged for a violation of the TOS (at least not more than once). It does seem as though the same members are repeat offenders of both the ban on political discussions and on decorum (not necessarily the same members for both).

Maybe the penalty for repeat offenses needs to be greater to send a message?

 

[PeterA]

Thank you for your thoughts, Peter.

I am a little confused, though, because I feel like your thoughts on the ban on politics versus your thoughts on non-cordial bluntness are being mixed together confusingly in your post.

WBF censors political comments and political innuendo. Politics and political innuendo are not allowed on the forum. This is a firm rule, and the moderators enforce it as fairly and as impartially as they can. If members are upset that they cannot discuss politics and throw political jabs on WBF then, well, that is just too bad. This forum is not the place to discuss or to argue about or to get out one's frustrations about politics.

I, personally, do not consider maintenance of decorum and cordiality to be "censorship." If you were having a conversation with somebody in person, and he suddenly screams at you "That analysis and logic dumb! Dumb! DUMB! DUMB!!!" I do not think that "censorship" would be the correct concept to apply to evaluate the propriety and reasonableness of such an exclamation.

Ron, I did not express my opinions about the WBF ban on politics in my post. Nor did I mention anything one way or the other about bluntness of expression being cordial or not. The only request I made is this: "... my advice is to err on the less restrictive side of speech control."

In a conversation if someone screams "That analysis and logic dumb! Dumb! DUMB! DUMB!!!" at you, the last thing you are going to think of is the concept of censorship. I am certainly not going to tell the recipient of such an outburst what he should do.

Do what you want as it is your forum. You solicited opinions when starting this thread. I'm sharing mine.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

what irks me is when rude comments that would never fly at an audio club meeting or audio show, are thrown out by the "brave" person behind their keyboard.

and when we have new blood in the form of a reviewer, then that "brave" person can't wait to throw down the gauntlet, to get their digs in. then i, by association through the forum, have to live with the environment it creates.

people just don't act that way face to face. i don't associate in work or play with that stuff. i do see my customers, from time to time, start out that way. it's my job to turn that around and connect. i'll be damned to have to do it here. leave your angry baggage at the door.

 

[rando]

But please know that probably at least half of the moderator comments, edits and deletions of posts which we feel violate Term of Service 2 arise from reports by offended members

I don't envy the blowback from lack of understanding in others for engaging in practical efforts to staunch contemporaneous elements outside their purview. You are receiving a lot of personal single minded attacks with no attention shown towards acts of steering - anticipating answers to problems before they grow unwieldly.

That said, I'd rather you erase every comment made on my account rather than let a snippet of one show up in use unannounced by anyone engaging in promotion/sales or manufacturing or journalism. This second element of the looming complaint does impact single accounts and a single voice behind them noting insecurity.



Maybe this holiday season you could try putting some M&M's in with the assortment of nuts still hanging around from years past. At the very least they add color to the dry and salty nobody wants to ingest.

and when we have new blood in the form of a reviewer, then that "brave" person can't wait to throw down the gauntlet, to get their digs in. then i, by association through the forum, have to live with the environment it creates.

I've called out industry members and press for playing this the other way round knowing they could instigate a fight. Best if the grounds for this spark to blaze upon is never allowed to be salted into existence.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I did not express my opinions about the WBF ban on politics in my post. Nor did I mention anything one way or the other about bluntness of expression being cordial or not. The only request I made is this: "... my advice is to err on the less restrictive side of speech control."

In a conversation if someone screams "That analysis and logic dumb! Dumb! DUMB! DUMB!!!" at you, the last thing you are going to think of is the concept of censorship. I am certainly not going to tell the recipient of such an outburst what he should do.

Do what you want as it is your forum. You solicited opinions when starting this thread. I'm sharing mine.

I understand now. Thank you for explaining.

I appreciate very much you sharing your opinions! Thank you!

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't envy the blowback from lack of understanding in others for engaging in practical efforts to staunch contemporaneous elements outside their purview. You are receiving a lot of personal single minded attacks with no attention shown towards acts of steering - anticipating answers to problems before they grow unwieldly.

That said, I'd rather you erase every comment made on my account rather than let a snippet of one show up in use unannounced by anyone engaging in promotion/sales or manufacturing or journalism. This second element of the looming complaint does impact single accounts and a single voice behind them noting insecurity.



Maybe this holiday season you could try putting some M&M's in with the assortment of nuts still hanging around from years past. At the very least they add color to the dry and salty nobody wants to ingest.

Thank you for your comments, but I am afraid that in each sentence above I do not understand what you are talking about.

Please feel free to re-state your points.

 

[tima]

If you were having a conversation with somebody in person, and he suddenly screams at you "That analysis and logic dumb! Dumb! DUMB! DUMB!!!"

To take this example specifically ...

I regard such a remark as a sign of a lack of ability to communicate, or taking the time to communicate, or perhaps poor education. I might even feel sorry for the person who wrote it .. but probably not. Imo what needs to happen in response is not epithets but rather:

1. Identification of the logical fallacies of the statement(s) or argument If you do not or cannot explain the flaws in the logic of a claim or argument, then do not state that 'their logic is dumb'. Logic is not a matter of one's individual preferences but a fairly codified set of guidelines. For example: a straw man argument, or presuming the truth of a conclusion in one's premises (aka ' begging the question'). Logic is not about facts but about how we arrive at conclusions - the 'rules' of argument if you will.

All men are mortal
Alice is a man
Therefore: Alice is mortal.

16 Common Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

Logical fallacies might be hiding in your daily conversations. Learn how to identify everyday logical fallacies and improve your argumentation skills.

blog.hubspot.com

2. Carefully address statements you believe are wrong or false or misleading. IOW, fisk them. Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

Having done this then the peanut gallery will judge for themselves who or what is dumb.

The above is so much more entertaining and educational than exposing one's inability to communicate with cheap insults.

Edit: clean up sloppy syntax and spelling.

 

[tima]

I'm waiting for my social credit score

I think you want tiktok, not WBF - at least it better not be WBF!

 

[tima]

But please know that probably at least half of the moderator comments, edits and deletions of posts which we feel violate Term of Service 2 arise from reports by offended members.

Running to mom when your feelings are hurt or your ego is bruised is less than functional behavior, imo.

Mom's response, imo, should be "go tell your father". No No just kidding.

Mom's first response should be: "don't whine to me. Approach so and so publicly or in private and work it out like adults,, or tell or politely explain you are offended but won't go to that level and agree to diagree, or put them on ignore.

Which makes me wonder ... what about putting a "People who are ignoring you: " list in the private section of a member's profile. At least one will know who is offended and possibly rectify that.

 

[PeterA]

Totally agree Tim. Great post. People need to take responsibility and solve their own problems.

If I were a moderator, I would only respond to specific complaints through the complaint function on the forum. I would not just read everything and then try to control peoples behavior. I wouldn’t have the patience nor the interest.