Ddk

[Chop]

Hi Amir

My point is that he chooses to leave here if he doesn't want to be moderated in any way. The quality of information he can contribute doesn't alter that. See Mike Lavigne's post #92.

 

[Gregadd]

A fundamental misunderstanding of free speech.

 

[spiritofmusic]

A fundamental misunderstanding of this forum is that it's free speech.

 

[dminches]

No one made suggestions about automating moderation. Kingrex said that alternatives to the current approach would be time consuming. Not if that is done with software options to enable alternatives to the current approach while still requiring human judgement. Have you no interest in ways to moderate conflict beyond the big stick approach of warn and ban?

Any changes are up to Steve and Ron.

And let me repeat that in 4 months there have been 2 bans issued to 2 people, 3 days each. In that same time there have been MANY violations of the Terms of Service for which we have just removed posts. You are acting as though we ban people regularly. We don’t.

 

[tima]

Any changes are up to Steve and Ron.

And let me repeat that in 4 months there have been 2 bans issued to 2 people, 3 days each. In that same time there have been MANY violations of the Terms of Service for which we have just removed posts. You are acting as though we ban people regularly. We don’t.

I'm not acting. We are losing or lost two, possibly three genuine contributors. People do not come to this particular audio forum for no reason.

I was suggesting there may be other ways to handle conflict. Perhaps a way to move forward.

You are repeating yourself. The owners say they have nothing to do with moderation, so I made my suggestion to you a couple times now with the same result. I know when to stop.

 

[dminches]

I'm not acting. We are losing or lost two, possibly three genuine contributors. People do not come to this particular audio forum for no reason.

I was suggesting there may be other ways to handle conflict. Perhaps a way to move forward.

You are repeating yourself. The owners say they have nothing to do with moderation, so I made my suggestion to you a couple times now with the same result. I know when to stop.

Their departures are voluntary. No one kicked them out. To suggest that the moderators are responsible is terribly inaccurate.

We moderate based on the terms of service. How moderation is handled, including potential changes to software, is completely up to Steve and Ron. I am repeating myself because you don't seem to be understanding how this works. You suggestions should be directed to them, not the moderators.

Finally, even in this thread there was a clear violation of the ToS. Did we ban anyone? No. Did we warn that person? No. We just quietly removed the post. In your words, the stick is very small.

I think I have said enough on this topic.

Back to my real job.

 

[treitz3]

Accountability can feel like victimization for someone who is used to (or expects) entitlement.

Tom

 

[PeterA]

When one enters a friend’s social club one accepts the rules of the club — especially if the rules are few and simple, and especially if it’s a dear friend. If one enters the club and chooses to get into a fight and gets thrown out by not one bouncer but a unanimous committee of bouncers, how is that the friend’s (the host’s) fault?

I genuinely don’t understand why any of the foregoing analogy is controversial.

Ron, it is a poor analogy. The clubs with which I am familiar all share one thing in common: their membership is like minded and shares the same values. One of the key differences of an Internet forum is theclubs are not public and one must be invited to join and be supported by a number of members in a difficult and lengthy admissions process. Members know with whom they are associating.

WBF is public so therefore quite different. Sure they both have rules that need to be followed to remain a member, but when there are infractions, they are dealt with quite differently. Good clubs handle it quietly, privately, and with respect. Their is no public shaming by colored ink, and calling out violation for all to see and comment on. There also is no vitriol. These clubs are owned by their members for the common good of their members. They are not owned by individuals who cede control to a panel of monitors. Rules, policies, and changes are discussed openly and then approved by the membership.

Public forums and private clubs both have their appeal. They both have rules but understand that they are quite different in structure and practice. The former is like the public square where anyone can participate and violators are called out. The latter is more like a group text or email discussion with invited participants and self monitoring.

WBF is a great audio forum but it is still going through growing pains and it’s mission is changing.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I can't imagine anyone as forthright and astute as Dave was unaware of TOS dictating that posts made are the property of WBF. So I'd assume Dave being surprised he can't take his posts with him, or delete them, is not the reason for his self cancellation.
No, I think we should just take what we've heard at face value, he doesn't believe he should be moderated, and maybe his dislike of the individual moderators is extra spice.
And if you don't believe you should be moderated, and you are, well then you head for the exit door, how hard you slam it behind you is your choice.
My thought? You can certainly disagree with the reasons you've been reprimanded and argue your case.
But to maintain the position that you're above moderation and all that entails, is just preposterous.
And unlike those in the public eye who are truly in the firing line of genuine cancellation, again there's no parallel here.
I don't see JK Rowling cancelling herself despite the unrelenting hordes online, but Dave has cancelled himself, first chance he got, with not even a whimper.

 

[PeterA]

Accountability can feel like victimization for someone who is used to (or expects) entitlement.

Tom

Why continue to dump on David?. He has left and is gone.

 

[XV-1]

Much to do about nothing.

We all have our own choices.

 

[Chop]

I can't imagine anyone as forthright and astute as Dave was unaware of TOS dictating that posts made are the property of WBF. So I'd assume Dave being surprised he can't take his posts with him, or delete them, is not the reason for his self cancellation.
No, I think we should just take what we've heard at face value, he doesn't believe he should be moderated, and maybe his dislike of the individual moderators is extra spice.
And if you don't believe you should be moderated, and you are, well then you head for the exit door, how hard you slam it behind you is your choice.
My thought? You can certainly disagree with the reasons you've been reprimanded and argue your case.
But to maintain the position that you're above moderation and all that entails, is just preposterous.
And unlike those in the public eye who are truly in the firing line of genuine cancellation, again there's no parallel here.
I don't see JK Rowling cancelling herself despite the unrelenting hordes online, but Dave has cancelled himself, first chance he got, with not even a whimper.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Argonaut]

Absolutely spot on.

A genuinely novel experience for me also

 

[spiritofmusic]

A genuinely novel experience for me also

Glad TheMoon is in my orbit.

 

[Gregadd]

A fundamental misunderstanding of this forum is that it's free speech.

When you don't understand free speech, you will not recognize it when you see it.

There are rules of decorum and civility required for this forum. Follow them and you can avail yourself of the privilege of participation. You can say whatever you want. You have no right to do it on someone else's platform. Participation on this platform (or most others) requires adherence to the platform's rules. Those rules are dictated by he owners and the mission statement (tos).
Asking that the members not to engage in ad hominem attacks and/ or politics seems reasonable. If you can't follow, the rules you get sanctioned. If you still can't do it, you can either leave voluntarily or be banned.

If you want to throw a temper tantrum and leave that's your business.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike
excuse me for my comment, I am peaceful and I do not like hurt any audiophile but :
If you want to learn more you should Respect smart/expert/professional audiophiles like Romy the Cat or David.
high end world is full of non-sense information spread by magazines and also many audiophiles and only very very few Audiophiles like David or Romy the cat help us to have better sound/knowledge.

The expert members give the forum its value.

only when those experts respect the value of the community. experts have choices how they act. they can think it over before they hit 'send'.

i can consider David a friend (not that at this point he would necessarily reciprocate), and greatly respect his knowledge, but not like all his actions. and even maybe agree with consequences of his actions. unfiltered brilliant people are around us, and life will jump out and affect them sometimes. i hope he returns, but don't want the community to change it's rules of the road.

the community deserves what it tolerates. when we come together, we should be able to rely on it being a place of rules we can depend on.

 

[PeterA]

If you want to throw a temper tantrum and leave that's your business.

What temper tantrum? People are leaving quietly. David is not the first, and he will not be the last. People make choices based on conditions and what is being offered.

 

[spiritofmusic]

When you don't understand free speech, you will not recognize it when you see it.

There are rules of decorum and civility required for this forum. Follow them and you can avail yourself of the privilege of participation. You can say whatever you want. You have no right to do it on someone else's platform. Participation on this platform (or most others) requires adherence to the platform's rules. Those rules are dictated by he owners and the mission statement (tos).
Asking that the members not to engage in ad hominem attacks and/ or politics seems reasonable. If you can't follow, the rules you get sanctioned. If you still can't do it, you can either leave voluntarily or be banned.

If you want to throw a temper tantrum and leave that's your business.

Why would I want to leave, I'm happy abiding by the rules. But having been told on a few occasions to pipe down on certain subjects or a ban would be forthcoming, despite not clipping on any politics/religion/guns tripwires, and not throwing epithets around like others have done, I'd argue the point re speech.
Indeed there are fewer and fewer places where free speech is practiced. But I'm content with the structure of restrictions on this forum. Evidently, not everyone else is.

 

[Gregadd]

What temper tantrum? People are leaving quietly. David is not the first, and he will not be the last. People make choices based on conditions and what is being offered.

I suggest the act of leaving, quiet or noisy, is in and of itself a temper tantrum.,

Why would I want to leave, I'm happy abiding by the rules. But having been told on a few occasions to pipe down on certain subjects or a ban would be forthcoming, despite not tripping on any politics/religion/guns tripwires, and not throwing epithets around like others have done, I'd argue the point re speech.
Indeed there are fewer and fewer places where free speech is practiced. But I'm content with the structure of restrictions on this forum. Evidently, not everyone else is.

i have been warned and had my post deleted. I saw it coming, but thought I was in the gray area.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Greg, it's ALL a gray area lol.