[tizer2000uk]

In the interest of reaching a fair decision and having a balanced discussion I find it bizarre that the admins here have deleted polite constructive posts from members looking to find out what happened!

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizer2000uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the interest of reaching a fair decision and having a balanced discussion I find it bizarre that the admins here have deleted polite constructive posts from members looking to find out what happened!

Here's a link:

Link

What conclusion do you come to?

EDIT: And, regarding the posts that were deleted: Given the circumstances, having people essentially register to discuss the situation (with what I considered a rather predictable path) was, to my mind, suspect--again, considering the circumstances.

 

[tizer2000uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's a link: Link What conclusion do you come to? EDIT: And, regarding the posts that were deleted: Given the circumstances, having people essentially register to discuss the situation (with what I considered a rather predictable path) was, to my mind, suspect--again, considering the circumstances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's a link: Link What conclusion do you come to? EDIT: And, regarding the posts that were deleted: Given the circumstances, having people essentially register to discuss the situation (with what I considered a rather predictable path) was, to my mind, suspect--again, considering the circumstances.

I think had this been conducted properly and less like a witch hunt, much of this could have been quietly dealt with. Now every time a fan of a product comes to sing it's praises he or she runs the risk of being accussed of being the manufacturer.

I in Stans defence got accused myself, another poster from another forum came to find out more and also had his posts deleted. To some it looks a bit suspicious that a forum would censor polite enquiries.

Such things can only serve to harm the reputation of the forum in the long run and no one wants that, additionally given the size of HeadFi, you guys are pretty much the largest audio forum out there and have a duty to lead by example.

Certain senior members could be considered ambassadors of the site yet their reactions and posts have left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth and I'm sure others too.

In future it would be prudent to lay down rules to ensure such things are not publicly aired but instead encouraged to be directed to admins to look at and decide from there. People's livelihoods are at stake when these things start to snowball. The only ones that deserve to be closed are those that take your money and fail to give anything for it.

I also think that as an owner of both of Stan's Dacs I like to think he wouldn't need to stoop to such levels to promote his products, when heard they pretty much sell themselves. Ok they are not quite the giant killers some have said and it is unlikely he will be putting the big boys out of business, but they are on par or better than quite a few high end dacs getting on for 6 years old or more and for the price are fantastic.

T

 

[RichyRich]

^ he's back.

 

[MatsudaMan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichyRich /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ he's back.

LOL. It's funny, but sad at the same time. Now that we know that Mr. Beresford crossed the line with these different aliases, it's so hard not to suspect other people of it. Before that jack!@# came on to the scene, I never would have thought anyone would be psycho enough to do such a thing. It's as if he's come and polluted this site......really sucks.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizer2000uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think had this been conducted properly and less like a witch hunt, much of this could have been quietly dealt with. Now every time a fan of a product comes to sing it's praises he or she runs the risk of being accussed of being the manufacturer....

First of all, you registered just a little over a month ago, you're here with 14 posts, just about all of which have something to do with Beresford, and all but two of which were posted after this situation started getting discussed in earnest. Your purpose here seems clear to me, so pardon me if your preaching tone means little to me on this particular matter.

As for your position that should have been quietly dealt with: Really? Why? Stanley has scared at least one member from posting his content here due to what seemed to the poster and others like a legal threat publicly made here. The posts related to the information I posted above (about the three banned profiles) numbered over 1000, not to mention the posts in response, thousands of page views, and the likely thousands of people who read all of the related reviews and comments by at least one of the banned profiles.

And my second point about it being dealt with quietly: I was ready to move on after the profile bans. I actually first tried posting the information being requested in the other forum/website where several (including Stanley) were requesting specifics regarding the profile bans, but was prevented from doing so by an administrator there. You're a member there, so you know very clearly that more information regarding the ban was, again, being requested publicly by Stanley and by others. Here at Head-Fi, some of the posts that were deleted were asking for more information publicly (I believe some of those profiles had migrated over from that other forum). Now that I've posted the information that was being requested, you think what I posted should have been somehow meted out to those who requested it quietly? Here are some posts from the other forum, including at least one from Stanley (who is known by the username "Sensimilia" there):

Quote:

....until I see evidence I give benefit of the doubt.... ....I'm with you guys on this, so let's give Stan the opportunity to explain himself before we all start adding up 2 + 2 and coming to 10.... ....Do we accept that the forum in question is incorrect in stating that the member was posting under several aliases?... ....It is not for us to comment on whether Stan is innocent or guilty, its not even for Stan to do this. It for the accuser to provide proper evidence to back up his claim. Just saying that the different members had the same IP address is not good enough. Until this is done there is no case, only a witch hunt.... ....All I did was ASK for the proof to be posted - publicly....

Again, you well know there was more like those posted there.

From Stanley (who goes by "Sensimilia" there): Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensimilia Those guys have sponsors who have seen a loss of sales due to my success. They have been attacking me for years. The TC-7510 made a big dent in some other DAC sales. But the TC-7520 is an even greater threat. A lot of people have been doing some good trade with their (expensive) headphone amps. The launch of the TC-7520 with the inclusion of a headphone amp that is making big headwaves is bound to upset even more people. But when the penny drops and potential buyers come to realize that the TC-7520 allows people to get their cake and eat it, I'll have the last laugh. Just imagine for the K701 alone you have had to pay some good money for an amp that can drive them. At a stroke the TC-7520 cuts that added expensive down to a minimum. Wouldn't that alone drive you if your site income depended on certain types of sponsors? If you guys read carefully, the claimed issue was started by a mod. Have you ever heard of a thread where the mods start an attack on a manufacturer? Any lawyer in the house?... ....Since my IP address is not static and I have several different internet accounts separated between home and business use, it begs the question how it would be possible to claim that I have been using the same IP address ....

Keep in mind that this was posted before I posted the information I based the bans on. At the time of his posts (above), all I had done was banned and tagged the three profiles--StanleyB1, Herandu, and DC Lee--as sharing IP's; and I noted that, because of the shared IP's, I closed certain threads. His explanation (immediately above), in my opinion, does nothing to invalidate the information I subsequently posted--frankly, that last bit he posted is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. An IP address from at least one of his e-mail headers also matches with Herandu and DC Lee, and no other profile (other than those two) that has ever posted here.

Stanley was discussing this publicly, you and other supporters of Stanley (again, prior to me posting the more specific information leading to the bans) were essentially demanding an explanation publicly. I tried posting the information there, where it was being discussed, was not allowed to, so posted it here, since some of you were migrating over here demanding the same here. You apparently do not like what I posted (nor, can I imagine, does Stanley), and now you're suggesting that should have been done quietly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizer2000uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....I in Stans defence got accused myself, another poster from another forum came to find out more and also had his posts deleted. To some it looks a bit suspicious that a forum would censor polite enquiries....

Given the circumstances, I don't think you're going to get too many apologies here for a heightened sense of cautiousnes when, after the crossed-up IPs/cookie(s), some single-digit-post-count members pop up suddenly to cry foul. I don't think you're going to get too many apologies for being suspicious (under the circumstances) of someone who comes in with two posts, the second of which is posted as all of this is coming out, and happens to be a full review of a Beresford DAC. And I won't even get into the spam posts (after the bans) that appeared rather clearly to me (and others) to target at least one thread in which this issue was being discussed--perhaps it was a coincidence, but, in concert with all else, I'll admit I personally do not think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizer2000uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....Such things can only serve to harm the reputation of the forum in the long run and no one wants that, additionally given the size of HeadFi, you guys are pretty much the largest audio forum out there and have a duty to lead by example....

I really don't think the banning of those three profiles will hurt Head-Fi's reputation.

And let me make the following statement about any activity that might reasonably be construed as untoward: If Head-Fi was the largest audio forum out there (as you say), and one conducted himself a certain way here that might reasonably be construed as untoward (knowing and/or motivated by Head-Fi being a large audio forum), then it is my opinion that he or she should expect that any knowledge of that conduct might have commensurately larger implications than at a smaller audio forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizer2000uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....Certain senior members could be considered ambassadors of the site yet their reactions and posts have left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth and I'm sure others too....

Just as I'm sure there is at least one person who isn't happy about the bans and the posting of the information that led to the bans, I'm sure there are some who aren't happy with some of the responses to that information and this certain cautiousness about anything related to the topic of Beresford that we're currently experiencing as a result. Again, I've found over the years that, in general, the Head-Fi community members look out for one another here--maybe more than I've seen at any other forum this size or larger--so I am not at all surprised by this.

With all due respect, given your very short history here--and the fact that all but two of your posts came after this situation came to greater light--it is my firm opinion that you aren't in possession of enough knowledge or familiarity with this community specifically to tell me or the other senior community members here what is best for us as a forum and community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizer2000uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....In future it would be prudent to lay down rules to ensure such things are not publicly aired but instead encouraged to be directed to admins to look at and decide from there. People's livelihoods are at stake when these things start to snowball. The only ones that deserve to be closed are those that take your money and fail to give anything for it....

Once again, I didn't post the bulk of the information until several (you included, as well as Stanley) publicly requested it, with some of you insisting on coming here to publicly request it. Thanks for your opinion on "the only ones that deserve to be closed," but I firmly disagree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizer2000uk /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....I also think that as an owner of both of Stan's Dacs I like to think he wouldn't need to stoop to such levels to promote his products, when heard they pretty much sell themselves. Ok they are not quite the giant killers some have said and it is unlikely he will be putting the big boys out of business, but they are on par or better than quite a few high end dacs getting on for 6 years old or more and for the price are fantastic. T

Mmmm hmmm. Okay. This really isn't at all about what customers think of his products. If you haven't figured that out by now, then I seriously can do no more to help you understand the reasons for the bannings.

As for what Stanley would and wouldn't do, I imagine he makes up his own mind there. What I can do is look at information, and then make forum administration decisions based on that information. I posted the bulk of the information I based my decision to ban those profiles on. If that's not good enough for you, well, then it's not.

 

[RichyRich]

Well said Jude. Sadly, I think this is going to run and run, pushed forward by Stanley himself. The man is a megalomaniac and needs help.

 

[wolster]

As you can see from my number of posts, I haven't spent much time here but I still had a strong suspicion when I made this post:

Hi-Fi Choice DAC Shootout - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio

Well done on the bans I say.

Cheers
wolster

 

[Richard Dunn]

Why was my post removed?

 

[Patu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dunn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why was my post removed?

I managed to read your post and it was very suitable and on point. I pretty much agree with you. Storm in a tea cup.

Maybe moderators think that you don't have enough posts to take part in this conversation(?)

 

[Vuti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I managed to read your post and it was very suitable Maybe moderators think that you don't have enough posts to take part in this conversation(?)

Or maybe he's also one of Stanleys alias like all of us?

 

[AS1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vuti /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or maybe he's also one of Stanleys alias like all of us?

In that case there would be a big message under his screen name: this sucker has been banned

 

[MatsudaMan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif First of all, you registered just a little over a month ago, you're here with 14 posts, just about all of which have something to do with Beresford, and all but two of which were posted after this situation started getting discussed in earnest. Your purpose here seems clear to me, so pardon me if your preaching tone means little to me on this particular matter. As for your position that should have been quietly dealt with: Really? Why? Stanley has scared at least one member from posting his content here due to what seemed to the poster and others like a legal threat publicly made here. The posts related to the information I posted above (about the three banned profiles) numbered over 1000, not to mention the posts in response, thousands of page views, and the likely thousands of people who read all of the related reviews and comments by at least one of the banned profiles. And my second point about it being dealt with quietly: I was ready to move on after the profile bans. I actually first tried posting the information being requested in the other forum/website where several (including Stanley) were requesting specifics regarding the profile bans, but was prevented from doing so by an administrator there. You're a member there, so you know very clearly that more information regarding the ban was, again, being requested publicly by Stanley and by others. Here at Head-Fi, some of the posts that were deleted were asking for more information publicly (I believe some of those profiles had migrated over from that other forum). Now that I've posted the information that was being requested, you think what I posted should have been somehow meted out to those who requested it quietly? Here are some posts from the other forum, including at least one from Stanley (who is known by the username "Sensimilia" there): Again, you well know there was more like those posted there. From Stanley (who goes by "Sensimilia" there): Keep in mind that this was posted before I posted the information I based the bans on. At the time of his posts (above), all I had done was banned and tagged the three profiles--StanleyB1, Herandu, and DC Lee--as sharing IP's; and I noted that, because of the shared IP's, I closed certain threads. His explanation (immediately above), in my opinion, does nothing to invalidate the information I subsequently posted--frankly, that last bit he posted is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. An IP address from at least one of his e-mail headers also matches with Herandu and DC Lee, and no other profile (other than those two) that has ever posted here. Stanley was discussing this publicly, you and other supporters of Stanley (again, prior to me posting the more specific information leading to the bans) were essentially demanding an explanation publicly. I tried posting the information there, where it was being discussed, was not allowed to, so posted it here, since some of you were migrating over here demanding the same here. You apparently do not like what I posted (nor, can I imagine, does Stanley), and now you're suggesting that should have been done quietly. Given the circumstances, I don't think you're going to get too many apologies here for a heightened sense of cautiousnes when, after the crossed-up IPs/cookie(s), some single-digit-post-count members pop up suddenly to cry foul. I don't think you're going to get too many apologies for being suspicious (under the circumstances) of someone who comes in with two posts, the second of which is posted as all of this is coming out, and happens to be a full review of a Beresford DAC. And I won't even get into the spam posts (after the bans) that appeared rather clearly to me (and others) to target at least one thread in which this issue was being discussed--perhaps it was a coincidence, but, in concert with all else, I'll admit I personally do not think so. I really don't think the banning of those three profiles will hurt Head-Fi's reputation. And let me make the following statement about any activity that might reasonably be construed as untoward: If Head-Fi was the largest audio forum out there (as you say), and one conducted himself a certain way here that might reasonably be construed as untoward (knowing and/or motivated by Head-Fi being a large audio forum), then it is my opinion that he or she should expect that any knowledge of that conduct might have commensurately larger implications than at a smaller audio forum. Just as I'm sure there is at least one person who isn't happy about the bans and the posting of the information that led to the bans, I'm sure there are some who aren't happy with some of the responses to that information and this certain cautiousness about anything related to the topic of Beresford that we're currently experiencing as a result. Again, I've found over the years that, in general, the Head-Fi community members look out for one another here--maybe more than I've seen at any other forum this size or larger--so I am not at all surprised by this. With all due respect, given your very short history here--and the fact that all but two of your posts came after this situation came to greater light--it is my firm opinion that you aren't in possession of enough knowledge or familiarity with this community specifically to tell me or the other senior community members here what is best for us as a forum and community. Once again, I didn't post the bulk of the information until several (you included, as well as Stanley) publicly requested it, with some of you insisting on coming here to publicly request it. Thanks for your opinion on "the only ones that deserve to be closed," but I firmly disagree with you. Mmmm hmmm. Okay. This really isn't at all about what customers think of his products. If you haven't figured that out by now, then I seriously can do no more to help you understand the reasons for the bannings. As for what Stanley would and wouldn't do, I imagine he makes up his own mind there. What I can do is look at information, and then make forum administration decisions based on that information. I posted the bulk of the information I based my decision to ban those profiles on. If that's not good enough for you, well, then it's not.

Well said Jude. You are indeed the one voice of reason and honesty. As for all of you Stanley supporters - I have to say that you don't know what is good for this Headfi community. Indeed you are polluting this site. You don't realize that before you came into the picture, this place was an honest to goodness forum for people to share - no trickery or deceit.

I say we get rid of all threads related to Beresford and maybe then the site will be back to normal. Let's do it Moderators!

 

[Patu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well said Jude. You are indeed the one voice of reason and honesty. As for all of you Stanley supporters - I have to say that you don't know what is good for this Headfi community. Indeed you are polluting this site. You don't realize that before you came into the picture, this place was an honest to goodness forum for people to share - no trickery or deceit. I say we get rid of all threads related to Beresford and maybe then the site will be back to normal. Let's do it Moderators!

I'm one of those who think that this whole subject is somewhat over emphasized. Though I definitely agree that banning was the right thing to do. There is this lynching atmosphere which I hate over everything else. I've been on the forum since Feb 2005 and pretty much know how things work here. I very much like this community (in 99 % of the cases) and enjoy the great reviews and threads/posts with some real content. What I hate the most is the fanboy stuff which I've learned to filter when I go through threads.

So please don't go telling me that I'm polluting this forum.

Quote:

You don't realize that before you came into the picture, this place was an honest to goodness forum for people to share - no trickery or deceit.

You're talking like this case has ruined the forum and the whole community. Please, you can't be serious.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm one of those who think that this whole subject is somewhat over emphasized. Though I definitely agree that banning was the right thing to do. There is this lynching atmosphere which I hate over everything else. I've been on the forum since Feb 2005 and pretty much know how things work here. I very much like this community (in 99 % of the cases) and enjoy the great reviews and threads/posts with some real content. What I hate the most is the fanboy stuff which I've learned to filter when I go through threads....

Once again, I banned the profiles (which I know you agree with). My subsequent post about the information leading to the ban was originally intended for another forum/website where Stanley and others were all but demanding to know more specifics about why those profiles were banned. (It seems to me that some were not expecting the information to be as, well, thorough as it was.) I was not allowed to post that information at that forum/website, so I posted it here (which I was considering doing anyway, since some of the people from the other forum/website were coming here making the same requests). Given the information that I posted, what kind of response did you expect?

In my opinion, this situation is not a minor one--far from it. Herandu alone has 1173 posts here, a substantial portion of which were about Beresford products (to say the least). I have, unfortunately, read many of that username's posts where, in my opinion, it was not only promoting Beresford products heavily (and denying any affiliation along the way), but was, to my mind, concurrently and frequently slamming any products that would be considered competitors.

It seemed to me that DC Lee was well on its way down a similar path.

While I do not agree with what MatsudaMan is suggesting, as far as measures go, I know for certain I'm far from alone in this community in being more cautious about the topic at this point; and it will take some time before that dissipates.

If you see this as no worse than the typical case of fanboyism, then, again, you and I simply disagree. Again, several were requesting the information I posted to be posted, and I posted it. Given what was in that information, I am not particularly surprised that there would be a rather emotional response, one way or the other.