[gregorio]

Further to the “Interested in Opinions” thread, here is a draft of the text which would hopefully be prominently available on the landing page of this subforum. Please discuss its contents, what think is missing or should be removed or reworded.

Welcome to the forum for the discussion of the science which underpins sound and audio. This subforum is a little different to other subforums on Head-Fi, hence the need for this guidance. It will be assumed that posters agree and adhere to this guidance in all their interactions here.

As a general rule of thumb; if it’s acceptable to science, it’s acceptable here and conversely, if it’s unacceptable to science it’s unacceptable here!

If you’re not sure what is acceptable/unacceptable, here is some clarification:

If a claim or assertion of fact is made which contradicts established science, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge or refute it. It maybe requested that such a claim be supported with reliable evidence (see below) and if not provided, the conclusion drawn that the claim is false. Repeatedly making a false claim is unacceptable in this subforum (as it is in science).

Fallacies - A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument and is therefore unacceptable to science and to this subforum. The most common fallacies include: the Mind Projection Fallacy, the Appeal to Authority, Argumentum ad Populum, the Argument to Moderation, the Questionable Cause fallacies and various others. A list can be found here (Wikipedia).

Reliable evidence - There are many different sources of evidence, some are unreliable and therefore unacceptable in this subforum. Examples of reliable evidence include: Encyclopaedias, text books, published scientific papers and articles published by national and international bodies (such as the International Standards Organisation, the Audio Engineering Society and many others). Examples of unreliable evidence include: Purely anecdotal evidence, marketing material and reviews. Note that even reliable evidence can occasionally be at least partially incorrect and can therefore be challenged (with reliable evidence!).

If you are not sure of your facts or whether you are relying on a fallacy or unreliable evidence, then please phrase your point/s as a question, rather than an assertion of fact.

Please note:

1. You will not be treated as a troll just for inadvertently making a false assertion or relying on a fallacy or unreliable evidence. However, if you keep repeating the same false assertion or fallacy, even after referral to this guidance, that would be cause for sanction.
2. None of the above invalidates or supersedes the Head-Fi terms of service (TOS).

 

[bigshot]

I'm not opposed to any changes that are intended to curb the off topic trolling in this forum. Clearly the approach used now isn't working at all. Try things until something works.

 

[castleofargh]

Further to the “Interested in Opinions” thread, here is a draft of the text which would hopefully be prominently available on the landing page of this subforum. Please discuss its contents, what think is missing or should be removed or reworded.

Welcome to the forum for the discussion of the science which underpins sound and audio. This subforum is a little different to other subforums on Head-Fi, hence the need for this guidance. It will be assumed that posters agree and adhere to this guidance in all their interactions here.

As a general rule of thumb; if it’s acceptable to science, it’s acceptable here and conversely, if it’s unacceptable to science it’s unacceptable here!

If you’re not sure what is acceptable/unacceptable, here is some clarification:

If a claim or assertion of fact is made which contradicts established science, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge or refute it. It maybe requested that such a claim be supported with reliable evidence (see below) and if not provided, the conclusion drawn that the claim is false. Repeatedly making a false claim is unacceptable in this subforum (as it is in science).

Fallacies - A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument and is therefore unacceptable to science and to this subforum. The most common fallacies include: the Mind Projection Fallacy, the Appeal to Authority, Argumentum ad Populum, the Argument to Moderation, the Questionable Cause fallacies and various others. A list can be found here (Wikipedia).

Reliable evidence - There are many different sources of evidence, some are unreliable and therefore unacceptable in this subforum. Examples of reliable evidence include: Encyclopaedias, text books, published scientific papers and articles published by national and international bodies (such as the International Standards Organisation, the Audio Engineering Society and many others). Examples of unreliable evidence include: Purely anecdotal evidence, marketing material and reviews. Note that even reliable evidence can occasionally be at least partially incorrect and can therefore be challenged (with reliable evidence!).

If you are not sure of your facts or whether you are relying on a fallacy or unreliable evidence, then please phrase your point/s as a question, rather than an assertion of fact.

Please note:

1. You will not be treated as a troll just for inadvertently making a false assertion or relying on a fallacy or unreliable evidence. However, if you keep repeating the same false assertion or fallacy, even after referral to this guidance, that would be cause for sanction.
2. None of the above invalidates or supersedes the Head-Fi terms of service (TOS).

I'm not sure anyone can keep up with such standards. You might as well add "don't lie" and "admit when you're wrong" that way we're sure nobody remains^_^.
I get the message and of course that would be an ideal and fully functional Sound Science forum, but we still talk to humans who for the most part did not get the right education for this.

 

[bigshot]

I get the message and of course that would be an ideal and fully functional Sound Science forum, but we still talk to humans who for the most part did not get the right education for this.

When I was in school the teacher applied a ruler to the back of your hand to impart that kind of education. It works really well and doesn't leave a mark.

 

[gregorio]

I'm not sure anyone can keep up with such standards.

TBH, I was a bit surprised at your response. Haven’t we already, for many years, been demanding reliable evidence in response to claims and then arguing that “even my wife heard it” is not reliable evidence or that their argument is illogical/fallacious and therefore wrong/invalid? All I tried to do was spell out in black and white what we already require, so we don’t have to go through it every time and so they don’t think they’re just being unfairly victimised by one of us regulars when we make such a demand or refutation.

… but we still talk to humans who for the most part did not get the right education for this.

I take it you read the “Please note” section, where I tried to make the point that in effect we don’t expect or demand that they never make a mistake and contravene the guidance, just that if they keep repeating the same mistake, even after we’ve explained it and referred them to the guidance, that would be considered unacceptable and therefore sanctionable. It also acts as guidance to the rest of us, for example that we cannot label them or even imply they are trolling just for breaking the guidance inadvertently.

Are you saying the “Please note” point #1 needs to be reworded and/or made far more prominent, or are you saying the whole document is unacceptable? If it’s the latter, then are you saying we should just carry on as we are, which in effect is applying the rules laid out in the guidance but just not telling anyone what they are until we’re already well into an argument, or are you saying that we’re not allowed to demand reliable evidence or challenge/reject a claim or assertion on the grounds that it’s illogical/fallacious, or are you saying something else that I’m missing?

G

 

[VNandor]

If a claim or assertion of fact is made which contradicts established science, ...

I'm sure the people that claim getting their power from a wind turbine is making the sound more spacious and airy as opposed to energetic and bright when getting it from a nuclear plant are very well aware of what established science is and they will do everything in their power to avoid contradicting it when posting in this holy subforum.

 

[bigshot]

I’m reading between the lines, and I think that the Head-Fi powers that be don’t give a flying flip about the sound science forum. They probably know that we are very good at bringing traffic in from google searches, so they tolerate us. But they aren’t going to raise their little finger to help us. We’re on our own to deal with it.

 

[Ryokan]

When I was in school the teacher applied a ruler to the back of your hand to impart that kind of education. It works really well and doesn't leave a mark.

How about a psychological one?



Oops forgot the smiley

 

[gregorio]

I'm sure the people that claim getting their power from a wind turbine is making the sound more spacious and airy as opposed to energetic and bright when getting in from a nuclear plant are very well aware of what established science is and they will do everything in their power to avoid contradicting it when posting in this holy subforum.

I’m sure that many/most do not know what the “established science is”, that they’re contradicting it or will do everything in their power to avoid doing so. In fact, I don’t expect the above guidelines to make any difference at all to what newcomers initially post!

What the statement does, is to make it clear that if/when they make such a claim (which we can rationally explain/demonstrate to be contrary to established science/fact), it is perfectly valid for us to request reliable evidence to support their claim and if not forthcoming, to legitimately conclude the claim is false. And then, if they just keep repeating that same false claim, that their behaviour is unacceptable and ultimately sanctionable. At the moment, none of that is clear (or even mentioned anywhere), so it’s just my, Bigshot’s or whoever’s illegitimate opinion that their claim if false, illegitimate opinion that their behaviour is unacceptable/troll like and, if they are sanctioned, that the mod is just siding with us regulars and the whole subforum is just a small bunch of opinionated bigots who victimise anyone who doesn’t agree with them!

G

 

[castleofargh]

First let's be clear that on this one I'm just another guy with one point of view, I'm not talking as a modo and even if I was, I don't make any rule and only bend the existing ones ^_^). At best I'll be a courier for the final text.

mostly point 1 yes. I think it's untenable to hope for people to come here following those guidelines. But only asking for it is completely fine for me and pointing to it or quoting it is also fine IMO. It's how I actually act on it once it made no difference, that changes everything. Like how the rules ask for no personal attack, but I only moderate the hard stuff and let everything else slide. If I start doing a strict moderation on that, you get a ban! You get a ban! You all get bans!

It's about what I'm supposed to do with all the posts that inevitably won't follow your guidelines? fully enforcing those rules is IMO the same as closing the forum because again, we're dealing with audiophiles and almost all of them think that listening to a song is a legit proof of everything and then some. The timid, the cautious and the 3 people who are scared of cops will control themselves after such rules, while everybody else will do what audiophiles do. That's what I expect after something like this is in place. So how do I actually moderate that if it's ever implemented?

Taking action against someone because he's wrong and camps on his position(most people do) is a serious matter. Should someone lose the right to speak his mind because he's wrong(let's ask Elon)? Personally, I don't mind but It's not my forum. It has rules and a general approach that are ultra typical of a US "politically correct" platform. I very much doubt that there exists any desire from the big guys to create exceptions to that common model. Extra rules, maybe, but extra rules that relate to freedom of speech without being silly bleeps to hide swear words, I don't think so.

The other obvious issue is on what science actually says. I certainly do not want to become a sheriff of truth where what I believe turns into law through moderation. That not me and certainly not science. I get that you're basically asking people to ease up on claiming to know everything when they almost never know anything for a fact. And I support that particular objective 102%. But again, how much is just a "please don't do that"? And how much is "you can't and we'll make you stop"?


Other people with some opinion, please share your views. I do no know or think it will ever manifest into anything concrete and we're probably just writing a letter to Santa right now. But for this to get a chance to turn into a real little boy, we must arrive at something that's at least meaningful, fair, and supported by most. More voices might help that. Or not. ^_^ IDK I wrote too much to say almost nothing again.

 

[gregorio]

mostly point 1 yes. I think it's untenable to hope for people to come here following those guidelines.

Yes, it is untenable to hope everyone will follow those guidelines but only providing you are excluding Note #1 from the guidelines. Note #1 is itself a guideline and effectively (or apparently ineffectively!) states that breaking the previous guidelines cannot be considered trolling or sanctioned, unless a false claim or fallacious argument keeps being repeated even after it’s been explained.

It's about what I'm supposed to do with all the posts that inevitably won't follow your guidelines?

What you’re supposed to do is nothing at all! Because not following the guidelines is just considered “unacceptable” and can be referenced as such BUT, it CANNOT considered trolling and is not sanctionable. It’s only when they don’t follow Note #1 that it potentially becomes trolling and sanctionable. IE. When they just keep repeating the same falsehood or fallacy after it’s already been explained.

The other obvious issue is on what science actually says.

That’s entirely deliberate and IMHO entirely desirable! IE. That’s not an “issue” IMHO, it’s the ideal! isn’t that what this forum is supposed to be about; discussing “what science actually says”? Sure, that will probably still lead to an argument but that’s not necessarily a bad thing and it’s NOT what I’m trying to avoid. It’s only when it gets to the point of going round in circles on the same falsehood or fallacy, where there’s nowhere left to go and both sides are just repeating what’s already been stated, along with ever stronger accompanying insults. Hopefully, as soon as we get into that circle we can end it there because they are now acting as a troll according to Note #1, rather than according to just my or Bigshot’s assertion they are a troll and then arguing for another 4 pages about what trolling is and who is being one.

I don’t see the guidelines changing anything about how you moderate, except that you have a clearer mandate to jump in a bit earlier and avoid those last 4 pages which you would probably have had to delete anyway.

Clearly I need to change the wording somewhat, as the current wording is being interpreted as more absolute than intended.

G

 

[Ryokan]

I’m reading between the lines, and I think that the Head-Fi powers that be don’t give a flying flip about the sound science forum. They probably know that we are very good at bringing traffic in from google searches, so they tolerate us. But they aren’t going to raise their little finger to help us. We’re on our own to deal with it.

Do scientific findings and conceptions make good bed fellows with marketing?

 

[castleofargh]

Yes, it is untenable to hope everyone will follow those guidelines but only providing you are excluding Note #1 from the guidelines. Note #1 is itself a guideline and effectively (or apparently ineffectively!) states that breaking the previous guidelines cannot be considered trolling or sanctioned, unless a false claim or fallacious argument keeps being repeated even after it’s been explained.

What you’re supposed to do is nothing at all! Because not following the guidelines is just considered “unacceptable” and can be referenced as such BUT, it CANNOT considered trolling and is not sanctionable. It’s only when they don’t follow Note #1 that it potentially becomes trolling and sanctionable. IE. When they just keep repeating the same falsehood or fallacy after it’s already been explained.

That’s entirely deliberate and IMHO entirely desirable! IE. That’s not an “issue” IMHO, it’s the ideal! isn’t that what this forum is supposed to be about; discussing “what science actually says”? Sure, that will probably still lead to an argument but that’s not necessarily a bad thing and it’s NOT what I’m trying to avoid. It’s only when it gets to the point of going round in circles on the same falsehood or fallacy, where there’s nowhere left to go and both sides are just repeating what’s already been stated, along with ever stronger accompanying insults. Hopefully, as soon as we get into that circle we can end it there because they are now acting as a troll according to Note #1, rather than according to just my or Bigshot’s assertion they are a troll and then arguing for another 4 pages about what trolling is and who is being one.

I don’t see the guidelines changing anything about how you moderate, except that you have a clearer mandate to jump in a bit earlier and avoid those last 4 pages which you would probably have had to delete anyway.

Clearly I need to change the wording somewhat, as the current wording is being interpreted as more absolute than intended.

G

Wait for other people before that. I'm the modo so of course I read everything differently because it concerns me differently. I don't claim any amount of objectivity or impartiality in this.

 

[gregorio]

Wait for other people before that.

Too late

I'm the modo so of course I read everything differently because it concerns me differently.

Yes, but you’re the one who has to sell it to the higher-ups and implement it. So if you’re not for it, it doesn’t really matter what the rest of us thinks. Hopefully we can arrive at something that suits both you as Mod and you and the rest of us as users of the forum.

Anyway, here’s an edited version, so now there’s two choices. Is this one better?

Welcome to the forum for the discussion of the science which underpins sound and audio. This subforum is a little different to other subforums on Head-Fi, hence the need for this guidance. It will be assumed that posters agree and adhere to this guidance in all their interactions here.

As a general rule of thumb; if it’s acceptable to science, it’s acceptable here and if it’s unacceptable to science, it’s unsuitable here!

It’s worth explaining what is acceptable and unacceptable, and clarifying the use of “unsuitable” above. “Unsuitable” doesn’t mean “forbidden”, you will not be considered a troll or be sanctioned just for inadvertently relying on a fallacy or unreliable evidence. However, repeatedly doing so, even after it’s been specifically explained and you’ve been referred to these guidelines, is unacceptable (and sanctionable).

If a claim or assertion of fact is made which contradicts established science, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge or refute it. It maybe requested that such a claim be supported with reliable evidence (see below) and if not provided, the conclusion drawn that the claim is false. Repeatedly making a false claim is unacceptable in this subforum (as it is in science).

Fallacies - A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument and is therefore unacceptable to science and unsuitable here. The most common fallacies include: the Mind Projection Fallacy, the Appeal to Authority, Argumentum ad Populum, the Argument to Moderation, the Questionable Cause fallacies and various others. A list can be found here (Wikipedia).

Reliable evidence - There are many different sources of evidence, some are unreliable and therefore unsuitable in this subforum. Examples of reliable evidence include: Encyclopaedias, text books, published scientific papers and articles published by national and international bodies (such as the International Standards Organisation, the Audio Engineering Society and many others). Examples of unreliable evidence include: Purely anecdotal evidence, marketing material and reviews. Note that even reliable evidence can occasionally be at least partially incorrect and can therefore be challenged (with reliable evidence!).

If you are not sure of your facts or whether you are relying on a fallacy or unreliable evidence, then please phrase your point/s as a question, rather than an assertion of fact.

Please note: None of the above invalidates or supersedes the Head-Fi terms of service (TOS).

 

[Dogmatrix]

Noble sentiment, questionable in practice
Haters gonna hate, etc
Raw analysis of the “Interested in Opinions” thread suggests most advocate no change
If it makes y'all feel better, I see no harm