"Cordial Participation" in Terms of Service 2.

[Ron Resnick]

The first sentence of our Terms of Service 2. provides: "Cordial participation is a key requisite of being a member in our forum."

The first definition of "cordial" as an adjective in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language provides:

a. Warm and sincere; friendly: a cordial welcome; very cordial relations.
b. Polite and respectful; formally pleasant: "He shook my hand, but not warmly; he was cordial, but not amiable" (Oliver Sacks).

So "cordial" is a pretty high standard. This definition of cordial informs us that if a comment is obnoxious or a personal attack then it is, by definition, not cordial.

Often I feel that posts which the moderators delete for violating the Terms of Service are comments which would not be made by the poster if the poster were face-to-face with the person to whom the poster is writing or responding. A good rule of thumb is that if you would not say it to the person face-to-face, then you should not post it to that person, either.

If you are in doubt as to whether a contemplated post satisfies the definition of "cordial," another possible barometer is to ask your significant other to read the comment you are contemplating posting and ask him/her if the comment sounds "cordial." Ask yourself or your significant other if the post is "warm and sincere; friendly" or "polite and respectful." If your contemplated post does not satisfy this test then your post violates our Terms of Service. Again, if the comment sounds obnoxious or like a personal attack, then it is not cordial. If a moderator sees such a post do not be surprised if it is deleted.

WBF is a forum for audio and music. It is not a forum for politics or political innuendo. It is not the place to release your general frustration about life or to play written "rock 'em sock 'em robots" over the internet. There are an infinite variety of real world and internet venues for that. WBF is not one of them.

Finally, "free speech" is not the standard here. It is an inapposite concept here. This is a membership club to which members accept our Terms of Service by registering and becoming members. Registration and membership are completely voluntary. The Terms of Service are the rules of the club. If you join WBF then you are obligating yourself to the high standards of conduct required by the Terms of Service.

Thank you for considering this post, and for your understanding.

 

[spiritofmusic]

If you go down this restrictive path, we'll end up with a neutered forum no better than the Audio Exotics one.
Of course if it's all about stroking the egos of industry bigwigs, go ahead.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you for coming over here, Marc.

There is no change in path. There is no change in how this Term of Service will be enforced. This Term of Service has been in effect since at least as early as around 2010.

This post simply is an effort to illuminate and to discuss the standard guiding moderators' moderation decisions regarding this particular Term of Service.

Your dry and clever English sarcasm is still very welcome and appreciated!

 

[spiritofmusic]

What can I tell you, Ron...you deleted a post from me for perceived snarkiness. Even though it was self evident it was a simple statement of fact. I'm less offended by the deletion than the fact you felt the need to delete it. I think most of us are ok on the No Politics rule, but if black humour and dry asides are gonna be frowned on and judged/ruled, then the forum immediately loses its broad appeal.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What can I tell you, Ron...you deleted a post from me for perceived snarkiness. Even though it was self evident it was a simple statement of fact. I'm less offended by the deletion than the fact you felt the need to delete it. I think most of us are ok on the No Politics rule, but if black humour and dry asides are gonna be frowned on and judged/ruled, then the forum immediately loses its broad appeal.

Yes, Marc. As I wrote to you privately an hour ago I should have asked for the background to your comment, rather than deleting it without better understanding it. I already apologized to you privately.

Black humor (I honestly am not certain what that is) and dry asides (meaning English sarcasm?) remain welcome -- as long as they do not violate our Terms of Service.

 

[Carlos269]

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

 

[Addicted to hifi]

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

I am afraid sometimes when I post If I get in trouble for nothing.

 

[caesar]

A simple rule one can use: remember, there is a human being on the other side of the keyboard or reading the thread.

"You" don't have to agree with everything everyone says. If a comment is unclear, ask for a clarification respectful way.

Audio gear is a very expensive hobby. Mistakes can be very costly. Some guy may have been working his tail off to save up to acquire gear, in some cases maybe saving for a lifetime - seeing more patients, billing more hours, visiting more customers, etc.

Even if "you" don't find someone's post valuable, someone else might!

 

[Ron Resnick]

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

Your posts are sometimes deleted not in favor of anyone else but simply because they violate Section 2. of our Terms of Service.

Read the definition above. Do you believe that your posted comment of "This approach and logic dumb, Dumb, DUmb, DUMb, DUMB!!!!!!!!!" satisfies the standard of "warm and sincere; friendly" or "polite and respectful"?

 

[Carlos269]

Your posts are sometimes deleted not in favor of anyone else but simply because they violate Section 2. of our Terms of Service.

Read the definition above. Do you believe that your posted comment of "This approach and logic dumb, Dumb, DUmb, DUMb, DUMB!!!!!!!!!" satisfies the standard of "warm and sincere; friendly" or "polite and respectful"?

I clearly stated that the approach is “dumb”. I did not say that the poster was dumb. Not sure why directing a derogatory comment at an inanimate objects violates Section 2 of the terms of service.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I clearly stated that the approach is “dumb”. I did not say that the poster was dumb. Not sure why directing a derogatory comment at an inanimate objects violates Section 2 of the terms of service.

Thank you for your reply.

Just to be clear, do you believe that replying to a post with "This approach and logic dumb, Dumb, DUmb, DUMb, DUMB!!!!!!!!!" satisfies the standard of "warm and sincere; friendly" or "polite and respectful"?

It is a "yes" or "no" question.

 

[Bobvin]

Your dry and clever English sarcasm is still very welcome and appreciated!

Hey, speak for yourself (he said, cordially )

 

[bonzo75]

The problems here are the following:

1. You are the judge for snarkiness. You, imo, are not suitable to differentiate between actual humor and snarkiness. I remember once I made a joke on Tang, which he too found funny, that you deleted because you thought it was snarky. While I understand misinterpretations what made worse was, even after discussing offline with me, you stuck to your incorrect perception. This makes you judge, jury, executioner, and the appeal process does not work.

2. You apply different standards to different people.

3. Another example. There is a regular poster who keeps his language cordial, but uses his prose to insult people and even adds friendly emoticons to increase cordiality perception. Naturally, the posts that get flagged are then our replies to him, after he has instigated it. I really don't expect mods to spend time to understand the whole background over connecting threads. Mods have their own life and will not have the patience. The natural response for them is to look at the most recent nasty post and penalize it. However, this approach is clearly flawed, and results in the main instigator continuing to repeat his "crimes". In that case, either you spend time to appreciate the whole background, or you just let the two posters moderate each other in a free market. Intervention by you leads to a flawed process. Imagine a judge saying he does not have the time so is just going to sentence based on a first impression.

 

[bonzo75]

Broadly, while your headline, like a govt policy, sounds like an attractive proposition, to make it successful, intervention has to be flawless. Which I do not think is possible, by you or by anyone else.

 

[bonzo75]

Tbh I thought both first and second amendments in the constitution were aimed at audio forums

 

[Ron Resnick]

The problems here are the following:

1. You are the judge for snarkiness. You, imo, are not suitable to differentiate between actual humor and snarkiness. I remember once I made a joke on Tang, which he too found funny, that you deleted because you thought it was snarky. While I understand misinterpretations what made worse was, even after discussing offline with me, you stuck to your incorrect perception. This makes you judge, jury, executioner, and the appeal process does not work.

2. You apply different standards to different people.

3. Another example. There is a regular poster who keeps his language cordial, but uses his prose to insult people and even adds friendly emoticons to increase cordiality perception. Naturally, the posts that get flagged are then our replies to him, after he has instigated it. I really don't expect mods to spend time to understand the whole background over connecting threads. Mods have their own life and will not have the patience. The natural response for them is to look at the most recent nasty post and penalize it. However, this approach is clearly flawed, and results in the main instigator continuing to repeat his "crimes". In that case, either you spend time to appreciate the whole background, or you just let the two posters moderate each other in a free market. Intervention by you leads to a flawed process. Imagine a judge saying he does not have the time so is just going to sentence based on a first impression.

Thank you for your thoughts.

1. If your point is that humans are fallible, then I agree. The moderators do their best

I respect your opinion that I am unable to differentiate between humor and snarkiness -- if you respect my opinion that your humor often is a lot less funny than you think it is.

2. Steve, Tom and I concede that this has happened in the past. We are trying not to make the same mistake in the future.

3. If you find a post which you believe is insulting -- even if it includes friendly emoticons to increase cordiality perception -- please report it on the website reporting system or contact me privately. I truly don't know which member you are referring to, but this is something I want to address the next time this clever poster violates the Terms of Service.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Broadly, while your headline, like a govt policy, sounds like an attractive proposition, to make it successful, intervention has to be flawless. Which I do not think is possible, by you or by anyone else.

I disagree with the premise that intervention has to be flawless. This is a subjective, discretionary endeavor. I think such a premise makes no sense in connection with this kind of activity. The moderators do their best to be fair, impartial and consistent.

How would you propose to enforce the Terms of Service on this cordiality issue?

 

[Addicted to hifi]

I wonder if there’s a limit on how many posts you can do per day?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I wonder if there’s a limit on how many posts you can do per day?

There is a limit on how many posts from one member other members can patiently stand to read per day.

 

[tima]

There is a regular poster who keeps his language cordial, but uses his prose to insult people and even adds friendly emoticons to increase cordiality perception.

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.