[sander99]

I think it would be very usefull to add a footnote (or a reference to a seperate thread or whatever) to the sound science forum guidance to explain a few audio science basics that - or the lack of knowledge thereof - are often at the core of many arguments or misunderstandings.

I am thinking along these lines, I don't know how to clearly word it and what exactly it should contain, but I hope you will understand the idea:

1. What is the problem with uncontrolled listening tests, how strong and inpredictable is the influence of bias, not just concious and "partiality" bias but also unconcious bias.
2. Precision of measurements versus precision of hearing. The idea that if there is an audible difference there also must be a measurable difference (in some form or another, maybe not specs, but for example as a null-test). And the other way round: not being able to null does not imply there is an audible difference. Measuring a difference does not always imply audibility and more general also does not always tell us how that difference is perceived.

 

[bigshot]

Our problem with T 1000 was the fact that he attempted to dominate conversations by posting flurries of posts refusing to argue objectively and instead engaging in one or two line ad hominem attacks against individuals and the group as a whole, while ignoring arguments made in answer to his purely subjective claims, switching from thread to thread to spread the krapping, and ultimately threatening a forum member with violence.

What would help prevent that in the future? It seems to me that this is more of a behavior problem than it is lack of scientific backing.

I think posting guidelines could be just a few simple sentences...

Sound Science is the place to discuss science, not the place to argue against science. Pure subjectivity is OFF TOPIC in this group and does not constitute any sort of proof of your claims. Ad hominem attacks and arguments employing logical fallacies will not be tolerated here. If you want to participate in Sound Science, you need to maintain respect for the other participants in the discussion and respect for the purpose of the group as well. We recommend that you lurk and learn about the community before posting. It is not the same as other Head-Fi forums and requires a different approach to your participation.

 

[gregorio]

I think it would be very usefull to add a footnote (or a reference to a seperate thread or whatever) …

I think it would useful to have a document on the home page called something like “Common Misconceptions”. I think it should be separate to the posting guidelines though.

What would help prevent that in the future?

Well hopefully the guidelines will help. His posts were packed with fallacies, he seemed particularly fond of repeating the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. After pointing out/explaining they were fallacies and referring him to the guidance to prove that it was unacceptable to keep repeating them in this subforum, if he just continued doing it (as he did), we would have a black and white case to call for action from the mods and Castle would have a clear cut mandate to act. What actually happened is that you had the opinion he should be kicked out but that’s all, because there’s no rule currently against endlessly repeating false claims and fallacies, so he took it as your personal opinion against him and retaliated personally. With the guidelines it’s not “your opinion”, it’s the rules of the subforum. It might still have ended similarly but probably it wouldn’t have gone on quite so long and probably not so much against you personally/individually.

G

 

[bigshot]

I think his problem was more a matter of disrespect and an adversarial attitude than it was the quality of his argument.

 

[gregorio]

I think his problem was more a matter of disrespect and an adversarial attitude than it was the quality of his argument.

Well yes, but there’s no cure for that as Castle is rightfully lax on Head-Fi’s TOS regarding being respectful and adversarial because we are routinely (and justifiably) disrespectful of all the marketing BS, all the audiophile companies which employ it and those who push it.

The guidance deliberately doesn’t address this, from either side. It would probably have helped a bit though, maybe made it a bit less personal and possibly have avoided the posts which Castle had to delete anyway.

G

 

[bigshot]

Disrespect of marketing isn't the same as disrespect of a person.

It was a lot more than "a bit personal" at the end. I clearly saw it coming, but it was allowed to get to that point, even after several clear indications that it was heading in that direction.

 

[castleofargh]

I think his problem was more a matter of disrespect and an adversarial attitude than it was the quality of his argument.

Takes 2 to tango. You're particularly early when it comes to put aside audio arguments and start attacking the poster himself. It should never happen and trying to justify it with some gatekeeping mission is a poor excuse to mistreat other people like you sometimes do. It's not black or white where if the other is established to be bad and wrong then you automatically becomes good and right. Part of the solution here must start with you making an effort to leave the conversations at audio levels.

A forum is a complicated ecosystem and I cannot tell how many people are ready to jump in and take your place should you stop. After all I became that gatekeeper type myself after a few of the people I respected greatly in here got banned over troll fighting and flying insults. Most people probably don't recall but I thought I was going to get banned the day I became modo. The line then was that thin.
I changed a lot and also not so much. In part because I gained a different perspective on thing as a modo. In part because I tried to be less of a short tempered moron to try and be worth of moderating people who are better than me in most ways. I still think knowledge(real verified one!!!!) is worth almost as much as life itself, but doing the same dance round and round for years, it's getting old. Many here feel that way right now, you too probably.
So I don't know what will happen if one or 3 people change their behavior or are removed. I'm not clever like that. But I sure know that critics getting personal(like I'm doing right now with you), rarely make the target happier. A happy fellow is always easier to talk to.

 

[gregorio]

Disrespect of marketing isn't the same as disrespect of a person.

It is disrespect though and we don’t only disrespect the marketing itself but also those who publish it. We’ve often been disrespectful of Bob Stuart and various others who pervert the scientific process for personal gain. We can’t implement a rule against being disrespectful and adversarial that only targets those we disagree with, it has to apply equally.

It was a lot more than "a bit personal" at the end.

I didn’t say it was only “a bit personal”, clearly it was well beyond that, I said the guidelines might have made the exchange “a bit less personal”.

I clearly saw it coming, but it was allowed to get to that point, even after several clear indications that it was heading in that direction.

I thought it was probably coming, though not as badly as it did. How much did stating categorically that he definitely was a troll made sure that it did come as you saw it and reach such an extreme level?

G

 

[bigshot]

I am not responsible for his actions. If I am not defended when attacks are made on me, I have no choice but to defend myself. But I defend myself by dressing idiots down. I don’t go to the extremes that T1000 went. The fact that he can fantasize in a post about kidnapping me and people still try to argue it’s my fault is telling. I did absolutely nothing to deserve that. He saw that he could get away with causing trouble and nothing much would be done about it. So he ramped it up bit by bit until the camel’s back was piled high with straw.

I would defend all of you from attacks like that and I have in the past. If we turn on our own, that won’t fix things.

 

[Dogmatrix]

OK, not sure we should go too far down that road because it curtails “free speech” quite a bit and we’d have little/nothing left to argue about! I get your point though, is this edit 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 clarifying the use of “unsuitable” above and explaining “acceptable” and “unacceptable”: “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 (see below). However, repeatedly doing so, even after it’s been specifically explained and you’ve been referred to these guidelines, is unacceptable (and sanctionable).

A simple and highly recommended way to avert potential issues is to phrase your point/s as a question rather making claims or assertions of fact! (For example, “Is vinyl higher fidelity than digital?”, rather than “Vinyl is higher fidelity than digital”.)

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!).

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

Welcome, very good but immediately followed with an assumption
General rule ? followed by the practically indefinable
Clarification constructed around "doesn't mean" followed by something that sounds like a kangaroo court
Reference to Wikipedia ? Latin, Yer avin a larf mate
Evidence, troll food, this says call for evidence at every conceivable point in the debate

Ultimately the only practical troll defense is disengagement, if an opening statement or charter can be constructed which aids in the soft disengagement of trolls, accidental or malicious then it has value

Action on the charter as drafted, to me carries too great a sense of ownership and perceived authority, both absolute gold for trolls

 

[bigshot]

But if you think that guidelines will control outright trolling, you can try it and see. I have no objection at all to clear guidelines.

 

[bigshot]

Ultimately the only practical troll defense is disengagement

or removal.

 

[bfreedma]

I am not responsible for his actions. If I am not defended when attacks are made on me, I have no choice but to defend myself. But I defend myself by dressing idiots down. I don’t go to the extremes that T1000 went. The fact that he can fantasize in a post about kidnapping me and people still try to argue it’s my fault is telling. I did absolutely nothing to deserve that. He saw that he could get away with causing trouble and nothing much would be done about it. So he ramped it up bit by bit until the camel’s back was piled high with straw.

I would defend all of you from attacks like that and I have in the past. If we turn on our own, that won’t fix things.

You certainly do have the choice not to respond to trolls. The primary reason things escalated was your choice to repeatedly respond.

A few guidelines will be helpful, but not repeatedly responding is likely the simplest and most effective opportunity to actually reduce trolling.

 

[gregorio]

I am not responsible for his actions.

No one stated you were responsible for his actions but you are responsible for your own actions, and it’s likely that your actions contributed to the severity of his actions because:

If I am not defended when attacks are made on me, I have no choice but to defend myself.

When you called him a troll (however justified) and he was not defended from it, then clearly an attack had been made on him and he had no choice but to defend himself. See, it works both ways and if both parties follow your philosophy, escalation is inevitable!

I would defend all of you from attacks like that.

Which attack like that? His nonsense claims and insults or your attacks calling him a troll? The final attacks were completely out of order and if it had been you who made them rather than him, I would NOT have defended you!

G

 

[castleofargh]

Which attack like that? His nonsense claims and insults or your attacks calling him a troll? The final attacks were completely out of order and if it had been you who made them rather than him, I would NOT have defended you!

His last actions to show how clever he is, included making a fiction story about doing stuff to bigshot. I removed it as soon as I saw it without even bothering to read it all so I can't say if it's movie worthy or not. He posted it back right away and that's when even I had enough(he was already locked out of 2 threads and just jumping all over). An admin removed the second one and he's been out of my hand and out of that sub forum since. Except of course for how Sherlock keeps showing he has everything figured out by trying to bait me with 12 year old reverse psychology in reports and PMs over stuff I didn't do and couldn't change if I wanted to(I don't!).
We can say it ended as badly as it could.

Of course the guy didn't target bigshot randomly. You and bfree just echoed my position on that. bigshot, just imagine that all the posts are made by cute puppies. they don't understand a all lot about sound most of the time, and one will poop all over the thread on occasion, but they're all really good boys so you must be nice to them(Now I wish I could force an avatar on someone and put puppy faces on offenders).