| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
November 10, 2010 - 10:16am
#1
How to Moderate a Forum...
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Ariel, I don't have a clue what you intended this to be or to prove. The best I can figure is you've started a thread which is intended to start fights and a fight that has me at the center of it - the very thing you sent to the Dead Zone when it involved jj.
And, once again, I did not bring Mark's personal life into the forum. If he feels I did, then possibly there is more to the story than anyone expected. What's the bumpersticker, "Firemen do it hotter"?
He's prolly trying to illustrate that you could, perhaps, tone down the flame wars just a wee bit and make an effort to be less unpleasant in your interaction with other people. Even if the person in the receiving end doesn't mind being the object of your tirades, other people read the posts and it makes them uncomfortable and dampens their participation in threads they would otherwise like to take part in.
Or not.
Yeah, probably not. Particularly since we've entered the South Park era of hillarious moderation on this forum.
you're all wrong.
i just wanted the direction of that thread out of the thread about audio. If yall really want to discuss your issues, you're welcome too, just dont bring it to another thread. I could've brought a bunch of other posts over too from that thread, but honestly, did not feel like it.
Sadly, my attempts yesterday to dull down the negative energy in the forum only brought more anger and hate. I apologize for not being able to stimulate conversation and/or reduce the language that I saw as hazardous to our forums. I will do better next time.
Haven't had a chance to actually write the complete post that i'd like to for this thread, but you're all welcome to share your thoughts on how you think we can create and stimulate culture of positive discussion on these forums. Constructive comments only please -- ie suggestions that would help promote discussion and productivity in all the sections of this forum.
Also, maybe all the members could take a lesson from this kid.
None of that changes the fact "you've (purposefully)) started a thread which is intended to start fights and a fight that has me at the center of it - the very thing you sent to the Dead Zone when it involved jj."
I don't want to "discuss our issues". As far as I'm concerned there are no "issues" to discuss. Mark was the one who came into an audio thread(?) to post his BS, I simply responded to what he had posted. I'm done, there's nothing more for me to say to Mark. Either he figures out what he's done to himself or he cries until he can't sleep anymore. I don't care which path he chooses now, he tried to play some stupid Repub game and it backfired on him. In my opinion, what you've just posted should have been deleted and that would be the end of it. You haven't even provided any context to what you've posted for others to see what actually happened! You haven't done a goddamn thing other than say, "Go at it guys". You pulled this out of a thread but you won't delete Lamont's post because it would disrupt the flow of the "conversation"?!!! What the fuck is this about?!! What the hell kind of "moderation" is this?!!!
What exactly are you expecting to come from this little "experiment" of yours? 'Cause I can tell you right now what's going to happen on this forum and I'm not going to like it. To begin with, you've placed my post first as if I was trying to start a fight - which I was not. I was responding to Mark's post and faux indignation which led to him invoking the name of Ghandi, which in itself coming from Mark and on this forum is a joke on so many levels, and telling me we'll never be BFF's ever, ever again. I was stung, stung I tell you!
Ariel, I'm not seeing you making wise decisions in your capacity as South Park Funny Farm moderator. And I'm expecting you to do something about this thread before things get out of hand. IMO this is not "How to Moderate a Forum"!!!
YOU, at the center of a fight JV? I know I'm fuckin' shocked!
1. its not all about you -- seriously.
2. the thread about JJ was a direct attack on JJ. the thread you felt was an attack at you was a discussion about audio.
this is true. there were also many other posts not dealing with the topic posted in the "mac build quality" thread, many of which were insults traded between you and the members.
Wait, wait wait. I thought you just said: "I'm done, there's nothing more for me to say to Mark."
an admittedly rusty kind. I both apologized and promised to do better next time, but all you can do is criticize past actions and posts. MOVEON.org (to quote your favorite man: Lamont Samford).
do you like anything about these forums? you honestly seem pretty miserable.
again, ITS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.
your post + Mark's response was the last post on that thread before the conversation resumed to the topic at hand so i moved that one post and placed it to this thread in case you wished to keep going.
thank you for this excellent constructive comment on how to make the forums a better place. it will truly help.
Dear members, again, I'd love to hear any constructive suggestions on how we can stimulate conversation and reduce/eliminate the negative energy on these forums.
If you've ever spent any amount of time at places like the DemocraticUnderground.com, you'll recognize the type of forum and discussions Jan seems comfortable posting in. The remedy is to require that posting priveleges come with the personal responsibility of not engaging in personal attacks toward other members. That's not to say that ideas aren't fair game for all sorts of passionate discussions, but someone who isn't capable of showing a minimal amount of respect for other people will reduce the entire discussion to the lowest common denominator and ruin the forum for most usuers and certainly most constructive participants.
This forum doesn't suffer from a multitude of unpleasant personalities looking to pollute the screen with garbage, it has maybe 2 or 3. But, that's all it takes to fan the flames and create an environment of hostility toward constructive discussions.
Ban the personal attacks and put some asses in time-out for a bit. If they end up banning themselves it will only be because they no longer find civil discussions to their liking.
There is absolutely no benefit for a brand like Stereophile to be associated with this sort of nonsense at their home site.
I agree with all of that but we should all have some sympathy for mods who have one of the most difficult and thankless jobs imaginable. I know, having moderated several forums over the years myself. You waste astonishing amounts of time digging through the crap posts searching for the naughty boys and if you miss just one flame war they jump on you.
Again we should all be asking ourselves, What is it about internet forums and news groups that consistently attracts those who enjoy mindlessly insulting others and why is it invariably heterosexual males of our species who are driven by the need to behave this way?
Something not right at home?
I would agree if we had a lot of members creating this problem, but we don't. Somebody has to play Sheriff or the town will be full of outlaws and hell raisers and THEN it's a little too late to try and fix it.
For the personalities that live for the personal attacks, I think they will simply get bored and leave without the need for doing much of anything. Just having the rule will be enough to take their reason for posting away and they'll find other places to vent.
Most people who aren't predisposed to be unpleasant know that it's better to say, "I don't think you've thought this through" as opposed to "You fucking moron." They just don't want to use the more constructive discussion method.
The pressure of having to deal with flaming queens and transexuals?
So, you live with one or both of those?
I thought they were types of drinks.
Like, Brandi Alexander or Pina Colada.
Ariel,
Thank you for trying.
I suggest deleting the Open Forum. There are more than enough alternative places for those interested to impolitely argue politics.
I additionally suggest deleting all posts which contain a personal attack.
While this initially appears daunting, the forum is, sadly, not busy. Moreover there are only a few individuals which actively engage in such behavior. As already noted, the trolls will become bored and will find another bridge under which to hide.
I appreciate the traditionally light hand of this forum's moderators. However good faith self-policing by members has failed.
It is depressing that with 12,000 members there is so little productive discussion of audio.
Yes, but either I've expressed myself badly, you've misunderstood what I was trying to say or both. It's not the few idiots who want to play at flame wars who are the only part of the problem. Moderators have to read EVERY SINGLE WORD OF EVERY POST in their attempt to detect those breaking forum rules. This is a very time consuming and difficult exercise for which they are seldom paid anything. I doubt Stereophile pays Stephen or Ariel a big bonus for their efforts. Most forums & moderated newsgroups pay nothing.
We can all help mods though by sending them a PM if we detect spam or anything seriously offensive. Recently I spotted a nasty piece of Russian spam, told Ariel & Stephen and they removed it with lightening speed.
What I find difficult to get my head around is the way those conducting flame wars don't simply move their arguments to the 'Open Bar' section where the rules are much more permissive. They remind me of tom cats who want to piss all over other people's turf.
this is my biggest fear. in addition, it really prevents new users from feeling comfortable about joining. With such a tumultuous atmosphere, how can someone really feel that the Stereophile forums would add value to their life and listening experiences.
While I know a personal attack when I hear/read one, its a difficult thing to set a rule against since it can really take on many forms. And often, in the spirit of argument, they can be said without being hurtful or can be a leverage point or simply a source of humor/levity. The line between those types of comments and the ones that are meant to be hurtful is difficult to draw, and comments can often be misinterpreted as hurtful, when the author was really just joshin'.
What I interpret to be a personal attack is when the insult extends beyond the argument at hand. I believe you provided a perfect example of this:
>>>talking about the idea and then the rebuttal turns to be about the arguer
my question is, in the spirit of argument, what about personal attacks based on the idea i.e. calling someone a liberal bastard (if they're being a liberal bastard) -- are we skilled enough conversationalists that we are capable of recognizing that this is still within the context of the argument or should the extra step be taken to discourage any sort of personal attack whether within the context of the argument or not. I dont want anyone to feel like they cant argue the way they want, but more so, I dont want people to feel like they cant argue without risk of just being bated about how you feel instead of the actual opinions themselves.
and hopefully with some civil discussion, new faces will come out of the woodwork and stop lurking. Board lurkers abound, but may be afraid to speak...
You cannot enforce rules which do not exist in writing. That has been a problem of this forum since its inception. There are no rules and everyone is expected to behave as adults when it has been quite clear for years on end there are members who have no intention of behaving as adults. We've been through this and through this on a regular schedule month after month after year. If it hasn't been solved by constant discussion in all those years, there might be a need to look at something other than the members of the forum for an answer. You cannot enforce non-existent rules by the whim of some "moderator" who cannot explain what rule has been broken. Now I see we've gone from one moderator with no experience or skills in dispute or personell management and who resorts to "Just do as I say" moderation when nothing has been said and what has been said is not applied to everyone equally to another moderator who it would appear has a minor in "Primary/K through 5" education. Management by whim continues on the Stereophile forums.
Ariel, you might not think what you've done is "not all about" me but you are quite wrong. Oh, I know you'll tell me it's not, but it is 99% about me as you've indicated in the body of your post. You make uneducated and unsophisticated assumptions which are not valid. Drawing a distinction between a thread begun by LS and a post redirected here by you is nothing more than semantic side stepping of your responsibility as a moderator. I didn't see Mark's intial post as an "attack" and, if Mark saw his post as an attack, that is his business and not mine. If you saw it as an "attack", then you should have included it in this thread's opening post. The idea you simply left out Mark's initial post seems to me to be a bit more personality driven than fair and balanced moderator seeking rules. Actually, I don't believe I've seen any more rules from you than I ever did from SM with his "don't be an asshole" singularity which was always open to his personal whim - after checking with JA. There have been insults on this forum from the day it began and I doubt there has been anyone who has complained about the lack of moderation on this forum more than I have. From the days of dup through to the end of Ethan there have been insults which reached momentus heights and the free speech attitude of this forum has prevailed whether anyone liked it or not and whether anyone was offended or not. But you know nothing of this nor have you made an attempt, from what I can see, to recognize the history of this forum and now you - as the new sheriff - arrive in town with new rules(?) which you have yet to state and which you now wish to impose retro-actively and at your whim. You mistake your "Mom will deal with this" approach of throwing the kids together to see which one gives up first as if you had actual knowledge of what has occurred on this forum for the last six years. Where'd you learn this idea? Kindergarten? Brilliant, Ariel, just brilliant. How many teeth got knocked out when you tried this with the five year olds?
"Wait, wait wait. I thought you just said: 'I'm done, there's nothing more for me to say to Mark'. I took you at your word and now I realize I have made the mistake of assuming you were going to act as a moderator, an unskilled moderator but a moderator. A moderator who acquired the job by virtue of being next lowest on the totem pole. As such I expected you not to be taking sides in this matter. Oh, I know you'll tell me you aren't but we can see what's happening when you post childish BS such as the above and direct it at one member. That is not moderation, that is childish mocking. Now which do you prefer to be, Ariel? A detached moderator, or just another member of the forum who adds to the displeasure of being here? I expect that sort of rudimentary crap from some of the forum members here but not from the moderator. Bravo! you've reached a new low for this forum.
I have criticized what I and others have seen as unfair treatment of individuals on this forum. Something others have complained about for years and something which has driven others from this forum. If you want to know how to build this forum - how to have more than a dozen of the 12,000 members posting at any one time, take the time to figure out what has not built this forum in the past six years. That is only common sense. Constantly having a discussion of why things get out of hand on this forum yet never doing anything to change this forum might be where you want to start. But you know nothing of that nor have you made any attempt at understanding the history of this forum and now you think this little trick will solve the problems. Good luck.
Honestly, good luck. If you succeed, you will have changed the rules of the Stereophile forums for the better - not that there ever were any rules. That you chose to do this in public rather than through PM's doesn't give me much hope for your fairness though. That this has been a constant topic of discussion which has never resulted in any change in the process nor the moderation of this forum doesn't seem to have crossed your mind. You say I criticize past actions and posts, to which I say I'm not sure what you mean. Did I happen to criticize the "Let's beat up on Jan" thread that was allowed to run unheeded on this forum? Did I criticize the numerous times when favoritism towards one member of this forum was displayed? Did I criticize the highly personal and over the top intrusions into my personal life which have occurred on this forum all because I happened to disagree with another member? Did I criticize "The Little Black Kid Joke"? Have I criticized the moderation by personal whim rather than by written rule aspect of this forum? Yeah, I admit that I have and I promise that I will continue to do so for as long as either I remain on this froum or this forum has a change in policy - neither of which are under my control. The rules of this forum have always been unstated yet meeted out upon a whim. Did one member do the same as another member who was banned for their actions or words? Doesn't matter, someone has "broken bread" with one favored member and enjoys their cello playing. Infraction forgiven! The other remains banned for life. Has one member been banned for defending himself against the personal and highly vitriolic attacks of another member who displayed a history all across the web of personally attacking anyone who dared disagree with him about audio? By most accounts, that has occurred on this forum and it dismays me to no end.
Now I find the moderator of this forum - the one who thinks LS is hilarious and South Park is not a cable TV show for a reason - has done what? Started what is very likely to turn into another "Let's Beat up on Jan" thread for what appears to be their own personal amusement. Oh, I know, you'll tell me that's not why you relocated this as you did. But we know better, don't we? I'm curious, Ariel, what purpose do you see to PM's and contacting a forum member you do not know before you toss them to the lions? Never crossed your mind I'm guessing. Well, I never once thought I would prefer the moderation "style" of Mejias. I can only hope this means you intend not to engage in "backroom" deals which are out of sight of the other members and therefore free to be broken by one member of the contract. That was something I and others found extremely distasteful about the way SM ran this forum. I can give you their names and many of their comments should you care to exercise the PM option.
Do I "like the forums"? What a stupid question! I'm here, am I not? No matter what you've deciced in the last few days, I came to this forum years ago to discuss audio and nothing more. That discussing audio on an audio forum has been so utterly difficult for the last six years has never made sense to me. I feel discussing audio from here on in will be even more difficut when the sheriff doesn't post rules or discuss actions, just says on a whim, "Have at it". When the sheriff just decides someone needs to be taught a lesson in "How to Moderate a Forum" I see no upside to this. Maybe I'm missing the invisible question mark of "How to Moderate a Forum?" Nope, not there.
Ariel, I've seen all the lessons this forum has to offer. I can think of only one active member who has been here longer than I have and that not by much and certainly not that he remembers. Do I like the rules? Not one bit, at least not the way they have been unevenly and unfairly administered and most especially given the fact they do not exist in writing. Could you have found that out by way of a PM? Yeah, you could have. But you didn't bother to try. You thought that without rules ever existing you should just impose more imaginary and retro-active rules. The new sheriff should just impose unannounced rules and decide to make "an example" of someone. You'll let Lamont's posts stand but you'll make an example of this. I don't find you or Lamont to be "hilarious". Could you have found that out through a PM? Yeah, you could have - but you didn't. That's what makes me miserable on this forum, that decisions and agreements have never been evenly handled, that rules do not exist until they are enforced upon a whim, that backroom deals are meant to be broken by one of the members, that we go through the exact same crap on this forum time after time after time ...
Oh, I know, you'll tell me ...
No, not quite. Mark's initial post was on that thread and could just have easily been transfered. But you didn't bother. You didn't bother to ask whether I "wished to keep going". I suppose my post indicated to you, when I said, "Get over this incident and discuss audio in a rational manner ... Crying and getting pissed isn't going to change anything for the better", that I was looking forward to a continuation of all of this. No, I know you'll tell me ...
Somehow I doubt that. If you think Lamont is funny and this is how you deal with forum members, I doubt you'll see anything as I do. Same old, same old on the Stereophile forums, do as I say with no explanation and without fairness to all. It would have been nice to have some rules on this forum and to have a moderator who dispensed those rules evenhandedly. After this little stunt I don't see either of those things happening. If only there had been that question mark.
And, for you, Ariel
i hate to repeat myself. that post was the last one in that thread. nothing more, nothing less. if you continue to insinuate that i am targeting you, i will begin to. the fact that you find yourself at the center of it could be an indicator that you represent part of the problem though.
i dont think i've made any assumptions so far. i've judged purely by what i've seen on the forums.
i thought you were referring to WelshHifi's post as the attack on you, not Mark's. I could dwell on what happened in that previous thread, but again, this thread is not about that.
to repeat, i just copied and pasted as if the conversation continued. maybe if i had provided a link to the old thread it would have helped.
its not all about you.
why should this matter? and fyi, i've been reading and posting to these forums for 4 years now.
you gotta start somewhere. we're currently in the figuring it out stages, something which i admitted to previously. if you want to criticize my moderation skills more, feel free too, but its like kicking a baby when he's just learning how to walk. i'm offering the ability and the open-ness to help and you return with criticism and insult. this is non-productive.
case and point.
please tell me Jan. which one member did i specifically call out.
In addition, please recognize that you contradicted yourself. You insisted that you had nothing more to say to Mark, then you went and insulted him further. I believe your perspective is warped.
Neither. i prefer involved moderator.
the first suggestion so far as to how to improve the forums. not constructive, but helpful nonetheless. thank you for the perspective.
again, i dont see what history has to do with trying to instate some sort of civility. just because you had an anarchic state doesn't mean it needs to remain one.
really??? i find it much more fair that i bring my criticisms and questions to the public forum rather than PM's. this is a forum, so we should all have a say in the issues. Ultimately, Stereophile will make the decisions, but as participants i want to hear and be involved in your forum use
dude, will you seriously stop crying. not once have i even mentioned your name directly. its possible the reason why you find yourself at the center of so much conflict is b/c you may often be a part of it.
OK, fine. you can feel free not to believe me. Again, you decide to avoid the truth and instead insist that this is attack on poor Jan.
none. i prefer public interaction for a public forum for discussing public affairs which have already been made public.
wrong again. SM and I just have a different way of going about things.
i think i've made it clear that visibility and transparency are values that i hold dear for this forum.
wait, i thought you preferred a PM before being 'thrown to the lions'. i am confused.
see above previous statement
hopefully working towards this. but in this thread, i'm trying to get a grasp of not the best way to enforce these "rule(s)" but the distinction between what is acceptable on a forum and what is not.
pretty sure I called Lamont out earlier (the only person I've actually called out individually)
to repeat: THIS IS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.
..further confusion...in regards to your opinion on the PM thing
OK! second piece of criticism/suggestion on how to make this forum a better place. non-constructive, but still insightful. thank you again.
that is correct
hey! another suggestion. thank you!
Oh, my!
You've just made it all about me. A little tweak to your ego and like so many others, you've closed down your mind and you've made this all about me. You were exceptionally snarky about it - you obviously do enjoy this position you've been handed - but that's all you've done, other than threaten me that is.
Read the posts, Ariel, read the posts and think.
WE AGREE!!!
Let's return to the scene of the crime to gather some evidence. Nowhere in my post to Mark did I use the word "FUCK" nor did I place anything in caps as if I were shouting at him. IMO the discussion I had had with Mark was well within the boundaries of civility up to this point where Mark responded with the above. So, to begin with, I'm not at all certain why this one post was pulled as an example of anything other than tempers flaring on this forum. Personally, I find that far more acceptable than the sort of personal and vulgar insults that exist on this forum. None the less, it was pulled as an example of "something". This despite the asertion by ariel in another thread, "I will try to hold the standard that if the post is not a personal insult, but a contribution to the topic discussion (with intense sarcasm or not), its almost always ok." Therefore, I have a few questions.
1)
This would appear Monty has assumed Ariel was targetting me. Correct? Despite the fact I was not the one using "FUCK" or shouting. Correct?
2)
and ...
Semantics or slick game? Or, am I missing the collective "you" who goes by "Jan Vigne"?
3)
No one is making me the center of this, eh?
4)
First, that's so odd that would come from the person who just introduced Democrats.com to the discussion. Don't y'all find that a bit odd?!
Since I was not the individual who posted "FUCK" or placed any words in caps, I'm assuming here you, Monty, are meaning to point out that Mark is one of "the personalities that live for the personal attacks"?
Now, when you answer that, remember, this is not ALL about me.
5) I'll ask the Stereophile moderator(s) the same question I have asked several other members. When the decision was made to turn the Open Bar forum over to the R's after they stomped their collective feet and demanded it exist as a location to air their poltical opinions, what did you think was going to happen when the lefties saw what was being placed on the forum?
6)
Sounds like one more forum member who just doesn't find facts all that useful when they go against his desired thinking. Can anyone else think of another example where my facts have proven irrelevant to the debate and the other member resorted to insulting me?
(Hint: http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...art=3&vc=1) and "Your arguments are so full of shit it is beyond belief. by Jim Tavegia; http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=3&vc=1
Oh, you are definitely in the "2 or 3" that I was referring to. I dunno about AB. But, as AB has mentioned, when considering a policy announcement or rules that impact everybody, then it isn't about any one person as everyone will be expected to adhere to them.
Maybe the best course is to begin from a clean slate and let previous transgressions from cordial and civil conduct be a teachable moment and move on from there. Sorta like the beer summit Obama organized between the cop and the professor.
What do you think Jan? Seriously, should attacks on forum members have consequences from here on out, with the understanding that everyone is starting from a clean slate? What would you suggest be done to bring a higher level of civility to the forum? I'm seriously interested in what you have in mind to improve the discourse?
Excellent idea, Monty.
In my experience, moderating a forum is tricky.
There are several issues.
The first, and usually worst, is the well-poisoner, for instance, the person who responds to any criticism with off-the-wall personal and professional attacks, or who simply posts nonsense with the obvious intent of starting arguments.
The second, however, is the "offensensitive" type, who, when having a mistake pointed out, reacts with great "sensitivity" and cries wolf, wolf, wolf.
This often results in having the innocent shot, while the mistaken and deliberately deceptive take over.
There's no magic answer, really.
Sometimes, it's better to do what the navy does, just disperse the sailors who hate each other to the 4 winds, which is to say just close the thing.
No magic answers.
This place presents a problem in that a couple of people relentlessly engage in the well-poisoning behavior, on every subject from cables to politics, for instance. Others repeat a bunch of insanely false accusations every time their opponents dare to make a technical statement. Some others simply post the most ridiculous of claims, and then feign horror when they are ridiculed for them. Finally, we have the people who make claims and run, and the people who want everyone to remember that. It's good to remember, but it's possible to be reminded at least once or twice too often.
Dunno. If this were mine, I'd put a stake through its heart.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone use words like hate and deception quite as much as you. "Insanely false accusations" is a nice touch.
Well, of course, I am. We disagree on politics so it is only natural for you to despise me. And I assume when Ariel claims this is not all about me, I am in that 90th percentile of what this is about. Certainly when he proceeds to make this all about me, I am even more certain of that.
I have no problem with that as long as the policy is clearly stated before any infractions are called, and there are no retro-active infractions placed on anyone's "permanent record". What has p!ssed off numerous members of this forum has been the obvious favoritism which has been allowed to play out on this forum along with the backroom deals negotiated with no intent of imposing them upon all parties. The idea that contributing members of this forum have been threatened with banishment if they did not sit like good little children and take what a few favorites had to dish out has been terminally flagrant for several members. If all of that goes away, the forum will certainly improve. But none of that actually has anything to do with the members of this forum.
"Transgressions" have always been in the eye of the beholder - both on this forum and off. This past weekend the NYT published an article written by Eli Wallach's nephew regarding "Uncle Eli's" lifetime achievement Oscar he is due to receive. It's quite a good article which I would recommend to anyone. The article concluded with a quote from a Tenessee Williams' letter giving tribute to Wallach. It read, "Eli has discovered the secret of pissing people off. He's happy." Need I remind anyone the same could be said of Norman Mailer, William F. Buckley, Paddy Chayevsky, Picasso, Gallileo and so many others? Williams was himself a popular and successful playwright due to his keen sense of how people react to circumstances. He, like most other literary giants, understood that how you react to anyone who "pisses you off" is within your own power to control or unleash. Not to place myself in the company of such minds but Jim's idea that I bring out the worst in him is a prefect example of such thinking. I didn't do anything other than provide facts which disproved much if not all of what Jim prefers to believe. That Jim had nothing but his own opinions which seemed very transparently placed there by a few talking head wingnuts on the far right and that his religious bent is hypocritical to those opinions is not my fault. Jim chose his opinions and did not seek out facts to secure whether what he was being told was factual, logical or just pure horse-hockey. To blame me for his sloth is nothing different than what occurred with Mark. Contrary to Ariel's assertions, I never attacked Mark, I simply asked questions which he ultimately found uncomfortable. Remember, he's the one who shouted "FUCK"! I did no such thing. Which still leaves me wondering why that post was lifted for this thread.
So who is to decide the transgression has ocurred when the admisitrator of this forum believes LS has a hilarious sense of humor despite my protestations to the contrary and my assertion that what LS posted was a transgression in my - the receiver's - eye? Apparently Ariel believes I am to blame for what both LS and or Mark posted and yet it should be clear to most I did not force LS to post anything - in fact, I had requested in just the previous post that LS just leave things alone and I had already explained to Mark why he was in error. So, who is to blame? Who is the transgressor? If I piss someone off by walking down the wrong side of the street and they mug me, who is to blame?
I still have a few people on this forum who blame me for dup's banishment. Not one of those people seems to have the common sense to realize dup could have stopped posting his BS at any time. I did not force dup to be the asshole he was. He chose to do what he chose to do just as did Ethan when he both created and posted the myspace (or whatever) page with false information about me and to spy on my house and to place a poll on the quality of my system. None of which are the reason Ethan was banned though dup was banned once for a similar "transgression". Actually, none of the moderators of this forum ever said a thing to Ethan at the time he did these things. If you do not say someone has crossed a line, are you not giving them permission to move the line even further toward unbridled transgressions? Am I then to be made an example of for what someone else could not control in themself and for what they did under the assumption they had been provided phlegmatic permission to do? Unless you forget, I have told SM on more than one occassion that when he removed the transgressions into my world, I would cease my intrusions into the world of the transgressor. As I have told everyone every time we go through this little exercise, I do not carry grudges forward on this forum. I approach each new thread as if the last had not occured and I am willing to assist even those with whom I have had serious disagreement. That isn't how most people operate in this forum. Take you for example, you dislike me because we disagree on politics and so you would like to see me made an example of "something". That's chidlish. I reserve the right to give what I receive and I am no fool. When I have proof someone will not act in an adult and sober manner - dup, Ethan, Boooha! - then I no longer expect them to and I do not let my guard down. I will give back as I receive. It's then up to them not to become the transgressor yet again. I've backed away from situations on numerous occasions on this forum rather than deal with those who cannot control themself.
I've already stated on numerous occasions what might be done to "improve the discourse on this forum". The first I would say is to ban everyone with a username which begins with the letter "M". That would go a long way to improving the discourse on this forum. There should be no backroom deals and no favoritism. Agreements are agreements between all parties and not just one. No one should be singled out for disagreement or for defending themself from those who respond to disagreement with immature methods. I wouldn't care for this to become a zero tolerance forum as such no-compromise rules tend to stifle opinions and ultimately favoritism still reigns. IMo there is a huge difference between "You Liberal Bastard" and "Jan's wife has a dick".
We are discussing audio here whenever possible. IMO the Open Bar has run its course. No one can or will answer my question as to what they expected when the forum was forcibly taken over by the R's. Given what has been the result of not thinking this through beforehand - say, the op in this thread - it's clear this was not a well planned experiment. The Open Bar should go away lest it lead to more transgressions against and between members. Personally, I'm tired of coming to the opening page of this forum and seeing 90% political comments and one person asking for a cartridge recommendation. I can't help but think others approaching this forum don't see the same thing.
Then I'll take you back to my post which reads ...
Not only can you not run a forum when no rules are posted without expecting and finding anarchy and mayhem but you cannot rule a ruleless forum by the whim of someone untrained in how to manage people. I've been told by SM to, "Just do as I say", and I've been sent messages saying there was no time to deal with my message as SM was too busy with his job to deal with the forum. Complaints have gone unanswered and requests have been ignored. Do you truly think I didn't complain when I first saw the "Let's Beat Up On Jan" thread first appear? Yet it ran for seven uninterrrupted pages of BS posted by those who blamed me for dup not knowing when to stop posting. And it finally culminated with a threat to my person and a challenge to a bar fight by other members who live here in Dallas. To which I was told, "Don't worry". Both of those members still post BS here and one sends PM's to other members to inform them of what he assumes he knows about my personal life. They had been given tacit approval through negligence which they mistook for permission to escalate their attacks. A civil forum doesn't exist under those rules. A moderator needs to be a moderator and not someone who is willing to take on another job to impress the boss. To that end I would suggest JA take a moment to read the "Corner Office" article in the Nov. 7, 201) NYT. Either the forum is moderated and it is moderated fairly under written rules which are understood by all or it is not ruled at all and the constant complaining and rehashing of the same old crap will continue. It's not up to me to come up with rules for how this forum should operate but considering we go through this BS every few weeks, it should be clear what has been happening hasn't been working.
If that's the case and the cast members of this forum constantly change with few exceptions, then there would appear to be a need to look not to the cast members but to the director and stage manager. There are other successful forums which have much higher traffic and do more actual discussion of audio which can be used as the groundwork for rules here. But rules need to be made and not dispensed when the whim comes across someone totally unsuited to the job of moderator and who finds themself exasperated by the task.
Finally, there are several members of this forum who have all but disappeared from the pages here. They came to discuss audio and nothing more and they presumably ended up on the Stereophile forums for a reason. At some point they must have cared about this forum and the discussions being had. Now that they have been all but run off this forum, they need to be brought back to further their contributions. Someone needs to contact those people and ask them what they think should happen to this forum. They are a vital resource of experience. And, should anyone feel the history of this forum shouldn't matter or that the most appropriate response to a suggestion is, "first suggestion so far as to how to improve the forums. not constructive, but helpful nonetheless. thank you for the perspective", then that person has no business having anything to do with the moderation of this forum. A child cannot rule the adults unless they behave as an adult.
That's where I would start.
In Freudian psychology, Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.
I haven't been here for quite some time. What/who are the "R's" and what did they do?
I'm aware of "projection", you needn't perform self-diagnosis upon yourself for my benefit.
The "R's" are the Republicans, conservatives, tea partiers, etc. After a few comments which they perceived as being "left wing" and "liberal" appeared in Stereophile - most notably in ST's column - they got all huffy about equal speech. You know, the sort of thing they oppose when it comes to the airwaves where R's dominate and R owned corporations own several media outlets in any one city or broadcast area. JIMV was the most vocal after appearing here in what seemed to be a blatant attempt at intimidating Stereophile. Possibly one of the moderators of this forum can recall the thread where most of this was discussed. Stereophile caved to pressure and created the Open Bar which was meant for topics not related to audio. It has since been dominated by politics and politics have dominated the boards of Stereophile. Just take a look at the posts for the last 24 hours and see how many are non-audio topics. Then check the Open Bar area to see how many non-political topics exist in that area.
Thanks. Interesting history.
Actually it might have been me that suggested a thread similar to the water cooler at AA.
Others may have suggested it as well. I don't think it was SP "caving in" but rather an attempt to contain vitriol in the open bar.
Sadly, it hasn't worked perfectly
I admire Jan's tenacity and rather incisive arguing skills. I admire his willingness to counter some of the far right propaganda.
However, I think Jan hurts his own arguments when he descends to personal attacks. The same tenacity he applies there seems over the top
I wasn't around much when that was going on as I don't recall any discussions about it. I do recall the periodic dust ups about the Stereophile contributors and their political liberties in their writing.
I have wondered for some time now why there was a "General" and an "Open" forum.
Having read through this thread I have come to the same conclusion I've had for some time:
It's a minority of oversensitive, possibly mentally disturbed folks who scare off a great many newbs and frequent readers alike. Who wants to join what often seems to be a continuous after school girl fight?
Being heavy-handed about banning repeat offenders would actually INCREASE numerical participation for all the obvious reasons. If it feels well moderated and friendly you'll join and stay.
There is a marked difference to loudmouths who like to make some occasional noise, and posters to go looking for trouble at every opportunity and can never let ANYTHING, no matter real or imagined, go.
And lastly: I'm so glad I have Jan and a few others on Ignore. Call it self-moderation.
This isn't my recollection of what transpired. Stereophile didn't cave to any right wing pressure to do anything. They created the Open Bar as a relief valve for all the political vitriol that our childish ideologues are incapable of moderating in an adult manner- and to allow audio related threads to flourish.
Just because I may stand to the left on more issues than not doesn't mean I want to see hundreds of long-winded, redundant attacks railing against the more conservative members of this forum. I have friends and relatives who are as conservative as anyone here. They are entitled to their opinions, too. I enjoy their company as much as I would if they were left wing Dem's. I would love to tip a beer with any number of "R's" like JIMV or Jim Tavagia or Mark Evans. Could you imagine having a bad time with Teddy Ray or Lamont? Dangerous as that may be. Likewise, our more liberal funsters like dbowker, Buddha and Elk.
So what's with all the breathless life-or-death histrionics over every perceived political insult? Is this how we behave in the REAL WORLD? Where do these volumes of hate filled rhetoric come from if not a deep seated self-indulgent narcissism? Hardly the stuff of enlightenment it pretends to exemplify.
Ariel, This is my constructive suggestion:
When a member's level of indignation, insult and effrontery reaches such compulsive and pathological extremes that it defies your common sense of proportion, it's time to pull the plug. Clip 'em.
p.s. What happened to Rubber Duck? Did we scare him away? He was great for this forum.
I was wondering the same. Who's in charge of missing persons around here? Dispatch the hounds.
Excellent post, rv.
1) Then don't look. You control which threads and which posts you click on. No one is posting pornography or pictures of aborted fetuses. But you do have some control over your lizard brain and the opposable thumb which allows you to scroll, do you not?
2) Please point out exactly where you have found "hundreds of long-winded, redundant attacks railing against the more conservative members of this forum". It would appear I am looking at the same forum you have access to and I haven't see any such thing. Unless you've forgotten it was Mark who posted ...
Hardly what I would call longwinded and certainly not an attack "against the more conservative members of this forum". Get your facts straight. Opinions not based in reality entice lenghthy responses as information is presented to someone who has been diving in the deepest fathoms of nonsubstantial unreality. When faced with someone who has swum in the murky depths of partisan BS while lacking an adequate supply of facts for long periods in their life, it takes time to bring them up to the surface - to "decompress" them - without forcing them into the reality bends. You must go slowly or you risk damaging the person with too much too fast. A swift "you liberal bastard" or "f'ing repub asshole" might be fine when you're trying to snap someone out of their partisan fog but to have any real effect, such tactics are short term and easily forgotten if not downright dangerous as the recipient is far more likely to return the volley.
If you are doing nothing more here than perptuating the idea that factless opinions are "better" in your mind than acquiring actual knowledge, then you are in the majority on this forum. If you feel misquoting someone to support your unfounded opinion is better than reading, comprehending and restating what was said so as to factually counter the idea is better than just spouting more made up BS, then you are still in the majority on this forum. Should you feel being bitchy to a forum member while lacking facts to support your bitchiness is better than actually presenting solutions to the ongoing conflicts of this forum, then you will definitely be in the majority of this forum. However, none of that makes you right nor does it support the opinions you claim.
When facts become useless, we all suffer the consequences.
Once again I would ask, where are these "volumes of hate filled rhetoric"? And, if they do not exist, are you not then guilty of the same very "deep seated self-indulgent narcissism" about which you bluster? If your very assumption is incorrect, then it is only self indulgent of you to go on so long about something that does not exist other than in your biased opinion.
Fill me in because I, for one, have yet to see a clear rationale for why Mark's post was pulled as an example of "How to Moderate a Forum". I am even more confused about this after Ariel posted, "I will try to hold the standard that if the post is not a personal insult, but a contribution to the topic discussion (with intense sarcasm or not), its almost always ok." The word "FUCK" was used in reference to politics and not to an individual. The word "JERK" was used as an insult toward an individual. Have we reached the point on this forum and with the new moderator where you can call someone a "liberal bastard" or a "f'ing repub asshole" (with a smiley face attached, of course) and that will be acceptable to the moderator yet calling someone a "JERK" gets you singled out for undue attention? Or, while South Park style "humor" is deemed part of the conversation but "JERK" has crossed the line of cilivity? And, if that is the case and Ariel was singling out Mark for his quasi-offensive invective "JERK", why has Ariel been so damned snarky and childish and game playing to me?
Obviously, logic and reason do not play a large part in the workings of many people today. But I am still confounded by why this thread actually exists.
Couldn't agree more.
I was also wondering the same thing ... maybe Rubber Duck went to a forum that discusses audio
" Is this how we behave in the REAL WORLD? Where do these volumes of hate filled rhetoric come from if not a deep seated self-indulgent narcissism? Hardly the stuff of enlightenment it pretends to exemplify."
This has been my point more times than I care to remember. Such over the top bad behavior in the real world gets you: shunned, ignored, arrested, beat up, ejected from any and all private establishments (and often a combination of all those). It's like some people just can't wait to let their antisocial inner child out and have a tantrum in front of as many readers as possible.
It's just one of the long list of things that fall into the "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" category.
Obviously Keld found some exceptionally strong hash and isn't yet cognizant enough to post.
He is European, they are all stoners, that's why they need universal health care. Lucky bastard
An excellent point for Ariel to ponder. Along with - why does this thread exist? Why isn't there a question mark at the end of the title?
Doug
100% agree
Time for several people who are the main culprits to be banished, if this is deemed to include regulars and/or myself then it needs doing. I left for six months because i was sick of all the bitching and attacks ( in my case by one person ) and i get back and nothing has changed.
It is absolutely impossible to have any opinion differing from the hatemongers.
Clean this stuff up and the forum can move on.
Alan
Oh, Alan! To you a "hatemonger" is anyone who doesn't cost out parts - which would include John Atkinson.
Wasn't there a once upon a time rule that asking for someone to be banned would result in your banishment too?
Alan?
John disagrees with me but has never attacked me in the forums, he does not call me a lunatic and various other things you use that im sure i could find if i trolled through the forum.
If the moderators feel i am part of the problem then i yes I should be banned. I will be OK with this if its a purge of the forum to return it civilty.
Would you be OK with it also ?
Alan
"Trolled" through the forum?
But, Alan, that's what you've been doing now for the last four years.
Welsh, don't go! Though you may be cheap with a dollar (pound?), you are also thrifty with verbiage, which is a good thing.
True, "add up the parts" is cheap and would be quick had it not been repeated 1,500 times.
Pages