Interested in Opinions

[whitedragem]

Well I can’t absolutely guarantee it but I’d be very surprised if it doesn’t help at all, provided of course we actually use it IE. Refer posters to it before stating or even implying they’re trolls and of course adhere to it ourselves.

If there’s agreement, I’m quite happy to create a draft, start a thread where we can discuss it and hopefully agree it’s final content/wording.

However, there’s no point unless @castleofargh agrees, is willing and able to put it on the landing page and willing and able to enforce it (when necessary). Castle?

G

Cheers peeps (affectionate slang term for ‘people’), I know I am not a SS regular, and no doubt fall into a ‘grey’ area (I don’t come to antagonise, but I also see ‘a group of regulars OWN SCIENCE’ methodology, and denounce casuals posters and passerbys as being basically incapable re: scientific method et al- the actual TONE that sets SS to being a ‘dark uninviting den’ for many no doubt..; we know this isn’t ALWAYS the case, but it is ‘too often’ for us to ignore it is ‘a thing’- and generally loads conversations towards high level antagonism and can reveal a lack of attempting to see WHY a neophyte has entered the SCIENCE subforum to post on a topic in the first place..)

Whilst talking about moderation qualifications, and ‘how to avoid’ needing such assistance (ie ‘self policing’)- we come full circle in this discussion.
Prior politeness (and a little positivity) means that even if a persons’ paradigm is shattered (knowledge is power!?), they can ‘pick up the pieces’ and put themselves back together…
Leaving people to feel like ‘exploring concepts’ is ‘to be punished’, is where I NEGATIVELY use the term ‘gatekeeping’ regarding the science pages.

My actual opinion on the efforts given to ‘gatekeeping’ (aka protecting) is ‘wow- that takes effort- well done’, but I seldom publicly show/say that because for every three pages of text reiterating beliefs and ‘rules’, a few posts often take it too far and nobody wants to associate anymore (with the thread/the people or even the forum)

No matter the best laid plans or best intentions, reiterating the same paragraph (a rule), unless a qualified trajectory of entry can be verified, isn’t going to give much of a TOTAL enforcement/‘this is a group’ (sense of authority self enforces codes/values if only ‘keeping up with the Joneses/one of us(belonging)’ mentality); if we could state ‘did you sign the waiver?’ we know that they’d have read a ‘mission statement’ if you will.

I do see quite a few links at the top of the SS subsection, that are great launch points. I feel that the people who take the time to read them (/some of them) are probably perfect posters anyway..
If we are arguing the semantics of ‘the internet will ALWAYS have trolls’ (and how to deal with that..) then, well,.. I am enjoying the civilness of THIS discussion

Castle voted it's fine where it is. If the trolling doesn't bother him, then those of us whom are bothered will need to find a way to deal with it ourselves.

gotta love VIGILANTE justice… popcorn cooking…

 

[castleofargh]

Sorry guys, I have to take my mother to the train station Saturday, so I've been getting long briefings all week about the complexity and dangers of driving a car to a given destination at an agreed time. I was going to answer this like 3hours ago.
To her I'm forever 5. And a 5year old driving her car... Of course she's stressed about it.
Please kill me.




I don't have the magic key to the forum's introduction page. I can obviously ask for someone to edit that page, but I cannot guarantee that one or several admins will agree with what you want in it. The last edits from the Curra era were very clearly aimed at the people already inside, telling them to lose the absolutism.

I don't enjoy trolls in any way, but I still think that we create most of them. And as I see a person change into one, I find it hard to moderate him because deep down I think he's been played. And by the time I want to get rid of him, I remember I can't because I'm not an admin and I can't kick someone out of the entire Sound Science? Yesterday's events with the other terminator for those who saw some of the temporary posts, were a glorious example of how powerless I am against someone who acts like an actual dick.

Anyway, it's an audiophile forum, the laughing stock of hobbies. Most people who get involved beyond finding a new device every 5 years when their last one broke, will be passionate about their gears and their audio beliefs. They also will naturally have all the wrong experiences and assumptions because biased sighted impressions is what we were born with.
I think it takes a lot of effort and a good personality to even start second guessing what has always been their main source of "knowledge".
Ground level to start having a conversation in here is a PTSD level of shock for the average audiophile. The least we could do is to ease them into it. Instead it usually goes "you made it up, there is no difference". When they don't understand and resist that mind blowing claim(like they probably should), they get treated like idiots or trolls. I ended up doing the same but I resisted the urge for a long time and even tried to clarify a few things. I happened to be talking to a guy who thinks he's always the smartest dude in the room even though he has no clue about anything we discussed, but that too is completely predictable and I don't think it's right to just push the blame on "them" right at the start.
Most participants on a specific topic here are well on the left of a Dunning-Kruger graph(the real thing about lack of knowledge and skills, not the "Mount stupid" adaptation which is pointlessly insulting and wrong).
And of course most participants aren't most people. The more active people tend to be on the extreme of whatever argument is going on, while most of the planet just watches in silence. That model applies anywhere really. It's also part of why this hobby looks so much like a joke. Most people are regular blokes minding their own business, they don't fight, they might not even post.
Getting the not so confident or just the more humble/gentler personalities to participate would be wonderful for this forum. I agree with that sentiment. Really just having more people(any people) would be good because right now, each time someone argues with a newcomer(new to the sub forum), that newcomer rapidly makes an amalgam between the loudest voice and Sound Science's position. That's bad and expected at the same time. If 3 people posting a lot are the forum, it's not much of a forum IMO.


Anyway, I'm just a little quasi-modo in a small pond. If several people stand behind some changes I can at least bring them up one level and see what happens. In the meantime, I'm all for some fundamental stuff being drafted and put in a threads and maybe at the top of Sound Science. It cannot hurt to have something we can just link instead of writing it in our own words over and over again.

And in general, be kind. We have all ages in here from most countries, let's try being friends first. If that doesn't work, we can always pull out the guns later. Give people an actual chance even when they don't share your opinion. I think that is the best way to deal with trolls. Maybe not the only one, but the best for sure.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

Concur @castleofargh, very well put sir. I have been one of those silent watchers (posting only occasionally) for many, many years now. I find most, if not all, of your recent points and insightful reflections made in recent posts to be entirely spot on. Although the trolls can indeed be bothersome and even quite irritating at times the collective response to them overall has been far more disruptive. I find most of this recent "troll-gating" behavior questionably immature and increasingly mean-spirited to say the very least.

"Too many chiefs and not enough indians" comes to mind repeatedly as of late when reading threads in Sound Science. Certain members have adopted over-zealous oversight stances (almost Admin and Moderator-like) hidden behind the façade of their wanting to protect us from the trolls, which I too, like @bfreedma, find quite insulting. We are quite capable of identifying trolls without the need for someone to point them out to us especially via a thread-wasting "flushing out" escapade which only further fuels the trolling to continue to no end.

Another tiresome trend is the incessant need to "get in the last word" and the unending need to "further clarify" as if the rest of us didn't clearly see both sides of the ensuing argument/disagreement for ourselves... but most especially after a moderator has posted a corrective action and/or response. Much of this "back talking" should go directly to PM with the Moderator as it is really none of our business (nor do we really care in most cases) nor is it conducive to returning to the thread topic at hand.

Now back to my silent lane. Mad respects to you @castleofargh for putting up with all the nonsense with such calmness and fortitude. Cheers!

 

[gregorio]

Anyway, I'm just a little quasi-modo in a small pond. If several people stand behind some changes I can at least bring them up one level and see what happens.

I realise you have limited power/influence, that you can’t ban people, only lock them out of threads. The point of such a prominent statement though is hopefully you not needing to exercise the power as often. At the moment, there is nothing to say what is unacceptable here beyond the TOS. So, many newcomers have no idea and post the same as they see in all the other forums, which is very commonly based on logical fallacies (a well known reviewer published it, so it must be true. Who knows better than the manufacturers themselves? Thousands of other audiophiles believe it, so it must be true, etc.) and they only have the word of whomever they’re arguing with that such fallacies are an invalid (unacceptable) basis for an argument. However, if it’s in black and white on the landing page then it’s not just my (or Bigshot’s or whoever’s) word.

In the meantime, I'm all for some fundamental stuff being drafted and put in a threads and maybe at the top of Sound Science. It cannot hurt to have something we can just link instead of writing it in our own words over and over again.

That’s my point, maybe it doesn’t really work as hoped but at least we have something we can link to rather than repeating the same thing all the time AND even if it doesn’t work at all, I can’t see how it could make anything worse.

I’ll draft something and start a thread to discuss it’s content in a day or two and I realise that anything other than a “sticky” will require the approval of higher-ups.

"Too many chiefs and not enough indians" comes to mind repeatedly as of late when reading threads in Sound Science. Certain members have adopted over-zealous oversight stances (almost Admin and Moderator-like) hidden behind the façade of their wanting to protect us from the trolls, which I too, like @bfreedma, find quite insulting.

Certainly I can be guilty of that, although in my defence: I’m not trying to protect those like @bfreedma or others who already have a good understanding of audio, I’m trying to: A. Give the poster an “out”, the opportunity to demonstrate they’re not the deliberate troll they appear to be, EG. Give me/us a rational option to conclude something other than that they must be a troll and B. To invalidate their false claims to others/lurkers/newcomers who may not already have the knowledge or understand the refutations and are just going on appearances/authority. If we don’t successfully invalidate the nonsense audiophile claims then it’s not just a case of having failed, it’s a case of information posted in sound science that potentially supports those claims!

The point of such a statement is hopefully that it (in at least some cases) becomes the “chief”. It’s not only for newcomers but for all of us as well!

Another tiresome trend is the incessant need to "get in the last word" and the unending need to "further clarify" as if the rest of us didn't clearly see both sides of the ensuing argument/disagreement for ourselves.

Again, I can certainly be guilty of that but also again, it’s not for the benefit of members like bfreedma or even for the poster, who probably stopped listening pages earlier. “The rest of us” isn’t just people like you or bfreedma it may also at some point include those not yet capable of accurately discerning for themselves and personally, I don’t like the idea that “the last word” in a sound science thread should be some audiophile/marketing BS.

Again, hopefully in some cases “the last word” would be something like, “It doesn’t matter how many other audiophiles believe it or that even your wife could hear it, that is a fallacy and therefore an invalid argument, as clearly explained in the statement on this subforum’s home page (link).”

G

 

[bigshot]

Folks may not be aware of it, but the recent troll publicly posted a fantasy about committing a violent crime against me. It was promptly deleted (thank you!) but it never should have been allowed to get that far. I clearly saw it coming over a month ago and privately asked for some attention to be paid to it back then. If moderation isn't possible here, I'll not bother hitting the report button any more. I'll just be honest and say what I think and feel. I'll speak for myself alone and not attempt to represent others. I'll reply to what I choose to reply to, and I'll defend myself if attacked. I'm perfectly willing to give admins the space to do their job, but if they choose to take a hands off approach that is fine with me. I can defend myself. In a wide open public forum, each of us gets to decide how we deal with things individually. There's nothing wrong with that as long as we all are on the same page about it.

 

[Steve999]

I just asked ChatGPT to draft up some guidelines for us. In less than a hot minute, its rendered its advice over the interwebs, as follows:

Me:

What types of rules would help audiophiles and objectivist audio enthusiasts get along in a sound engineeering and science oriented audio forum?

==
ChatGPT:

Here are some general rules that could help audiophiles and objectivist audio enthusiasts get along in a sound engineering and science-oriented audio forum:

1. Respect others' opinions and viewpoints, even if you disagree with them.
2. Avoid personal attacks or insults. Focus on the content of the discussion, not the person.
3. Stay on topic and contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.
4. Use clear, concise language and be respectful in your communication.
5. Follow the forum's guidelines and rules of conduct.
6. Be open to learning from others and consider their perspectives.
7. Avoid making claims that are not supported by scientific evidence. If you do make a claim, be prepared to back it up with credible sources.

By following these rules, members of the forum can create a respectful and productive environment for discussing sound engineering and audio topics.
==

SO, I am beginning to think @castleofargh is just an AI chat bot. :=)

By the way @castleofargh, as was kindly pointed out by another member, you did NOT post a new song or video with your post in my songs that get stuck in your head thread. See https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sou...s-you-cant-get-out-of-your-head.966129/page-2. This is in VIOLATION of forum guidelines set forth by YOU PERSONALLY that we respect the OPs reasonable guidance for the thread. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in the future.

 

[Dogmatrix]

I'll not bother hitting the report button any more. I'll just be honest and say what I think and feel. I'll speak for myself alone and not attempt to represent others. I'll reply to what I choose to reply to, and I'll defend myself if attacked.

A reasonable recipe for engagement in any public forum

 

[castleofargh]

A reasonable recipe for engagement in any public forum

If within the boundaries of the the forum's terms of service.

 

[whitedragem]

Folks may not be aware of it, but the recent troll publicly posted a fantasy about committing a violent crime against me. It was promptly deleted (thank you!) but it never should have been allowed to get that far.

‘dragem agrees: true; violence is unacceptible behaviour (so lets keep our ‘words’ effective for open communication!)

I clearly saw it coming over a month ago and privately asked for some attention to be paid to it back then.

‘dragem ponders: you had a chance to disengage from potential trouble ‘over a month ago’, saw the situation, and continued… damn this ‘dangerous’ hobby of ours’…


If moderation isn't possible here, I'll not bother hitting the report button any more. I'll just be honest and say what I think and feel. I'll speak for myself alone and not attempt to represent others. I'll reply to what I choose to reply to, and I'll defend myself if attacked.

‘dragem muses: you will continue to do exactly whatever you want and whatever you feel, unchecked.. (so do ‘small children’)

I'm perfectly willing to give admins the space to do their job, but if they choose to take a hands off approach that is fine with me. (‘dragem observes ‘here is your qualifier to “do whatever you want”- hmmmm)

I can defend myself. In a wide open public forum, each of us gets to decide how we deal with things individually. (‘dragem recognises- true in all walks of life)

There's nothing wrong with that as long as we all are on the same page about it. whitedragem disagrees strongly with this last statement (strongly)!! (enough to talk about themself in ‘the third person’) - being ‘on the same page about it’, infering ‘we can do whatever we want’ and ‘we should group up/stronger together’ being the attitude of this thread; if this thread exists to simply justify ‘poor’ behaviour- then we have done a disservice here to ourselves, and potentially (future) others…

if we respond as a group it might be seen as ‘bullying tactics’. ‘safety in numbers’ (numbers doens’t mean we are ‘more right’ necessarily) is a dangerous line to walk here.. hence we need guidelines and to keep this from being ‘personal’ (Castles’ job becomes 10x more difficult if any work need be made personal).

great minds talk about concepts. average minds talk about things. small minds talk about ‘people’.

Lets table some guidelines, sure,. lets make the bullet point list small.
a succinct document, easy to read in ‘plain english words’ (not like ‘Succinct’ that my ‘literacy for teachers’ teacher loved as ‘her favourite word’), so that people have a)the time and b)the inclination to do so (read it) would be a great idea.

If we could get the list down to neat bullet points like @Steve999 has drafted, surely they could live on the SS forum landing page.. (not even a hyperlink or living ‘a page away’)

 

[Steve999]

Lets table some guidelines, sure,. lets make the bullet point list small.
a succinct document, easy to read in ‘plain english words’ (not like ‘Succinct’ that my ‘literacy for teachers’ teacher loved as ‘her favourite word’), so that people have a)the time and b)the inclination to do so (read it) would be a great idea.

If we could get the list down to neat bullet points like @Steve999 has drafted, surely they could live on the SS forum landing page.. (not even a hyperlink or living ‘a page away’)

ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, drafted those, not me, enumerated indented bullet points and all, in less than a minute. Not kidding! This thing:

https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

https://chat.openai.com/chat

So yeah, ChatGPT, is super super cool!

Here, I just asked it the exact same question again, slightly differently phrased answer, but same difference, as my grandfather would have said:

Me:

What types of rules would help audiophiles and objectivist audio enthusiasts get along in a sound engineeering and science oriented audio forum?

ChatGPT:

==

It can be challenging for people with different perspectives and approaches to come together and have productive discussions, but there are a few rules that may help audiophiles and objectivist audio enthusiasts get along in a sound engineering and science-oriented audio forum:

1. Respect the opinions and perspectives of others: It's important to remember that people may have different approaches and philosophies when it comes to audio, and it's important to respect these differences and not dismiss or belittle the views of others.
2. Focus on facts and evidence: In a science-oriented forum, it's important to base discussions on facts and evidence rather than personal opinions or beliefs. This can help create a more productive and respectful environment for everyone.
3. Be open to new ideas: It's important to stay open-minded and be willing to consider new ideas and approaches, even if they differ from your own. This can help foster a more inclusive and diverse environment for discussion.
4. Keep discussions civil and respectful: It's important to treat others with kindness and respect, even if you disagree with their views. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior are not productive and can create a toxic environment for discussion.

By following these rules, audiophiles and objectivist audio enthusiasts can come together and have productive, respectful discussions about audio engineering and science.

==

So I think it shows a trained elephant (or for that matter a chatbot) can tell us what we should do. What we will do, that is the question. No easy answers here on how to get there from here on my part, but it's worth trying to figure out how to make things better, IMHO & etc.

 

[bigshot]

Maybe AI can write our posts for us too! Then we can get a troll-bot.

 

[bigshot]

If within the boundaries of the the forum's terms of service.

My plan is to not call people stupid, but to honestly say what I think about their words. That should remain within the terms of service.

 

[Steve999]

Me:

Should an AI chatbot write posts for people on a sound engineering and science based audio forum if there are problems between objectivist and audiophile participants?

ChatGPT:

As an AI, I am not capable of taking sides or engaging in arguments between different groups of people. My primary function is to provide information and assistance to users who have questions or need guidance on a particular topic.

In the case of a sound engineering and science-based audio forum, it would be appropriate for an AI chatbot to provide factual information and resources related to sound engineering and audio science. However, it would not be appropriate for the chatbot to engage in debates or arguments between objectivist and audiophile participants. It is important for the chatbot to remain neutral and unbiased in its responses, and to provide accurate and reliable information to all users.

 

[Steve999]

Me:

write a dramatic and funny poem about a sound engineering and science based audio forum where there are problems between objectivist and audiophile participants

Chat GPT:

In a forum of sound engineers and scientists,
There was a great divide,
Between objectivists and audiophiles,
Each with their own pride.

The objectivists claimed to be pure,
Their measurements precise and true,
While the audiophiles argued by ear,
And the sound just felt good, they knew.

The objectivists scoffed and sneered,
At the audiophiles' subjectivity,
But the audiophiles just laughed it off,
For they knew they had the key.

The debates raged on and on,
Each side refusing to budge,
But in the end, it was clear to see,
That both had their own edge.

For the objectivists brought precision,
And the audiophiles brought emotion,
Together, they made a perfect team,
In this forum of sound and motion.

 

[whitedragem]

Me:

write a dramatic and funny poem about a sound engineering and science based audio forum where there are problems between objectivist and audiophile participants

Chat GPT:

In a forum of sound engineers and scientists,
There was a great divide,
Between objectivists and audiophiles,
Each with their own pride.

The objectivists claimed to be pure,
Their measurements precise and true,
While the audiophiles argued by ear,
And the sound just felt good, they knew.

The objectivists scoffed and sneered,
At the audiophiles' subjectivity,
But the audiophiles just laughed it off,
For they knew they had the key.

The debates raged on and on,
Each side refusing to budge,
But in the end, it was clear to see,
That both had their own edge.

For the objectivists brought precision,
And the audiophiles brought emotion,
Together, they made a perfect team,
In this forum of sound and motion.

holy smokes that is clever..
(and genuinely poetic)

I can see now why some fear their job security in an AI world…

(Brilliant!!)