[daycart1]

The most plausible interpretation of the story has the webmaster emerging as the hero.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ebonyks I am simply asking that his products be treated the same way that every one elses would on the forums

If said person obeyed the same rules that all other vendors have been considerate enough to obey, perhaps said person's products would be treated the same way those other vendors' products are treated. It's a two-way street.

 

[Ebonyks]

I'm sorry macDEF, but i respectfully disagree with you.

 

[hottyson]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude I don't expect everyone to enjoy this story, but that's the story (and still there's more that could be told).

Entertaining story there. Thanks.

Welcome to Widg-fi, sorry about your wallet.

 

[archosman]

Ebonyks....

1. This website is not a democratic society. Webmaster makes the rules.

2. In simpler terms we are guests in someone's house.

3. Owner has a right to deal with people misbehaving in his house.

4. Said individual violated the webmaster's rules... more than once.

5. Action was taken.

Hey... I'm interested in the pics as well, but it's not my rules or website. We're guests plain & simple. They is one bad thing about the internet. It has a tendency to make us impersonal or say things we would normallynever say. I've been booted from a few game servers in my lifetime so I know where this is coming from. We either conform or leave. Those are only true choices.


One need not to hold their hand over a flame to know it burns...






Quote:

Originally posted by Ebonyks Let me clarify in that i am in no way defending the actions of said mystery person, nor am i asking for him to be allowed to return to the forums. I am simply asking that his products be treated the same way that every one elses would on the forums, which is, not at all. I don't believe the thread(s) that were posted about said person's product should be allowed, but at the same time, neither should anyone be able to make simliar posts on these forums. I agree with jude's actions on the matter, but i believe that is should take the next step, and apply his actions to everyone.

 

[00940]

All this remembers me a nasty fight on diyaudio. With a lot of legal threats and so on.

It all ended quite happily but I don't think it will be so in this case

 

[Jan Meier]

Dear headfellows,

Being a commercial vendor I would like to add my 2 cents.

Jude is running Head-Fi as a hobby. A hobby that is quite expensive and on which he doesn't make any money. At the contrary, despite sponsoring he still has to put in a considerable amount of money. As such I find it only fair that people who (try to) make money through Head-Fi also help to support this community.

Unfortunately there are always people who like to get a free ride. They want the publicity so they can make money but without any active (financial) support to keep the Head-Fi community viable. In biology we have a name for such behaviour/creatures.

Sure, I also would like to see my products have a lot of exposure. However, I feel a serious vendor should still be bound to a certain "ethical" behaviour. I have for instance more freedom on Headwize but yet do not publish any "reviews" on my own products/amplifiers. As a designer and manufacturer I feel I'm not the person to determine how good my products are. My customers have to decide on that one.

"I am surprised that you; a) posted this and b) opened this thread."

Why?

One of the reasons that Head-Fi is doing so well is that members are relatively well behaved. Such can only be achieved if these members are continuously made aware of the rules and of misbehaviour. Sometimes it's necessary to make an example.

"I am rather shocked that this thread is now open to reply."

Actually, in my opinion it simply shows that Jude is a democratic person in the best sense of the word and that he allows you to give your own opinion on the matter.

"i think it's wrong to hold their products to a different set of rules and regulations that you do everyone elses."

If so, Head-Fi would soon be dominated by serious and non-serious commerce without receiving any financial support. The character of Head-Fi would change rapidly (and not for the best). As soon as something is for free numerous people will try to make money with it.

"if the people of head-fi would like to judge this person for their actions, they are fully entitled to, however, i think it is only fair to give this mystery person a chance to defend himself and tell his side of the story."

The person had the chance to change his behaviour and to adapt to the rules of Head-Fi. The fact that he didn't and therefore has been banned seems fair enough to me.

"
1. This website is not a democratic society. Webmaster makes the rules.
2. In simpler terms we are guests in someone's house.
3. Owner has a right to deal with people misbehaving in his house.
"

I can't agree more!

Cheers,

Jan

 

[braillediver]

The un-named person could always create their own headphone website like Jude has done.

This is truly a hobby for the vast majority of the people here. Jude does this as a gift to the community. It bites that there has to be so much energy wasted addressing issues like this. We should all make an extra effort to obey the rules or go elsewhere. This is a public forum but like being out in public there are certain rules we must obey or we suffer the consequences.

Any dealings I’ve had with Jude or any of the moderators has been fair, polite and informative. Thank You.

Another aspect of this is Head-Fi has a level of credibility by not being an advocate for any one company or particular brand.

What about integrity, honesty, scruples? To post impressions of a product under a false name in an effort to create sales is dishonest to say the least. It speaks volumes of the person involved. What I haven’t seen in any of the discussion is condemnation of the un-named person’s actions. This person brought it upon themselves by their continued violation of the rules. They have no one to blame for the outcome but themselves.

And what has transpired was obviously done with the utmost discretion and confidentiality since most of us had no idea what was going on.

Head-Fi is head and shoulders above any other discussion board I’ve ever participated in. It’s a class act thanks to the efforts Jude and the other moderators. Keep up the great work, I appreciate it.


Mitch

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

.

 

[markl]

Help, I'm still VERY VERY confused. If I post some hypotheticals, can someone answer for me which are potential violations of Head-Fi terms of use?

1. A thread is opened by Member A regarding a New Amp, just general questions about what it is, when it's available and what pricing will be. There is no information publicly available on this New Amp anywhere on the Web (in fact the maker may not even have a Web Site yet). Any info anyone has on the New Amp is strictly "inside information" received directly from the maker of the New Amp. Can the Maker of the New Amp respond to questions arising about his New Amp in that thread? What if that response requires in-depth descriptions of the New Amp's internals, and the Maker's methodologies and approach to design (i.e why did you make the power supply like this, why those tubes, etc.). At what point does this become commercial speech and not allowed?

2. If the Amp Maker is restricted in the scenario above, can Member B, who has the "inside info" on the New Amp received directly from the manufacturer post that info in Member A's thread (including pricing and availability, etc.)? Even if this info is word-for-word what the Amp Maker would have replied themselves had they been able?

3. What if Member B has exclusive new pics of the New Amp received from the non-banned Amp Maker and wants to share them in Member A's thread, or even start his own thread for the express purpose of showing the community this hot new amp (that he doesn't own)? Is that prohibited under the new rules, and would such a post/thread need to be paid for by the Amp maker and located in the new forum?

4. Member C starts a thread inquring about a new headamp for his sytem, looking for suggestions. As it turns out, the amp Member C is looking for seems to match the New Amp member B has exclusive knowledge of. Can Member B post pics and specs and pricing/availability of the New Amp in this scenario in which no information was specifically requested about the New Amp whatsoever, or is that also potentially commercial speech?

5. What if Member D stumbles across a new amp on the Web that has never been discussed at Head-Fi. Can he come back to the Amp Forum, start a thread called, "Attn: New headamp from Maker X" and include links to the site, pricing info, and pics? This happens fairly often here, will members who do this be in violation?

EDIT: Also, what is the action taken when a member inadvertantly (or on purpose) violates the rules? Is it a temporary/permanent ban, or just a written warning?

Or, am I just making this a little too complicated?

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Help, I'm still VERY VERY confused...Or, am I just making this a little too complicated?

No, those are all very good questions, mark. I am still confused as well.

I think that the 'powers that be' here do recognize the complicated nature of each of your scenarios, and that they hope the new "Announcements" forum area will help (but in all likelyhood not completely fix) in this regard. I have been asked to wait and see, so I will...

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jan Meier "I am surprised that you; a) posted this and b) opened this thread." Why? One of the reasons that Head-Fi is doing so well is that members are relatively well behaved. Such can only be achieved if these members are continuously made aware of the rules and of misbehaviour. Sometimes it's necessary to make an example.

Okay Jan, thinking along the lines that you mentioned, I have to agree with you.

Quote:

"I am rather shocked that this thread is now open to reply." Actually, in my opinion it simply shows that Jude is a democratic person in the best sense of the word and that he allows you to give your own opinion on the matter.

Or he really likes verbal abuse

I saw this thread when it wasn't open for discussion. I just thought that any discussion here could get real ugly, I see that I was wrong. I am glad I was wrong.

Nice post Jan.

 

[fyrfytrhoges]

i must have been off on another planet or something because i missed this whole thing and i'm totally lost?????

 

[spaceman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jan Meier In biology we have a name for such behaviour/creatures.

Ahhhh.......I loved biology......and parasitology as well

 

[Edwood]

OK, the lawsuit part of the story is all the explanation needed.

No messing around with that one. Whether a bluff or not. That kind of crap has no place here.

Good decision, Jude.

-Ed