Though I'm supposed to be editing drivel here at the festive office, I've been interrupted by constellations of orange sores creeping across my wrists and thought I'd pause to offer my observations on this thread before running away to weep like a bipolar infant (MWAH-HA-HA-TEE-HEE-HEE-SOB-SPUTTER-SNIFF).
What troubles me most about the HF-1 aftermath has been the proliferation of anti-Grado screeds that have gathered on endlessly rotting Head-fi threads. In the case of certain manufacturers -- especially those whom numerous members have praised recently and conspicuously -- there has been a tendency to trespass the dividing line between reasonable devil's advocacy and trolling. Allow me to provide a few examples.
The Reasonably Outraged Quasi-Troll uses grassroots consumer advocacy as a defense, even though s/he has not actually bought the product being discussed, and is careful to appear reasonable about saying negative and incendiary things. Often, s/he attempts to obscure insult with numerous caveats and smileys.
It is entirely reasonable, the Quasi-Troll maintains, to characterize [Grado’s]/[Ray Samuels’s]/[Mikhail Rotenberg’s]/[insert name of popular manufacturer]'s quality control, profit margin, materials and construction as lacking. Never mind that, if there were an issue so glaring and ubiquitous, each company would not enjoy its positive rep among many long-term members and customers.
Another sort of public distraction is the Oh-Please! Quasi-Troll. This particular strain of accusatory rectum hook wants you to assume, ad populum, that a reasonable person (i.e., a caustic cynic) could not possibly believe whatever random post a manufacturer or rep happens to write. Thus, if Todd or Mr. Grado remarks that the HF-1 was created as a favor to Head-fi members, or that this particular limited-run headphone was not intended to make a profit, the OP!QT is quick to ask rhetorical questions, such as you don’t really expect us to believe that, do you?, or make dismissive statements using the royal we (as in oh, please!, we all know how a profitable business is run. . . . ). The OP!QT's swill is sometimes followed by the eye-rolling smiley, as if the original statement, not the response, were overtly suspect.
The inconsiderate response is then quoted and reiterated in later posts, even though the OP!QT had no access to the information -- let alone, knowledge of the first speaker’s personal intentions -- necessary to evaluate the manufacturer’s claim.
The end result of quasi-trolling is hardly ever positive, since the complaints are too generalized, subjective, unsubstantiated or trivial to require action. They often result in fewer perks and less good will for members in the future. Think of it this way: If someone offered to put up a few hundred members at a hotel for an extra night at her/his own expense, then it might discourage future offers if members who hadn't stayed at the hotel chose to make public protests questioning the motives of the benefactor or the quality of the bedding.
Even the responses to Todd in this thread have struck me as instances of muted trolling. If Todd is miffed at certain individuals for selling the HF-1 on eBay for $400, then what constructive reason is there for members to take the side of the sellers? Why resort to the red herring of identifying all members who bought the HF-1 with the few opportunists who chose to be greedy? Todd himself didn’t make that mistake, so why should you?
Jude frequently posts stickies in forums to explain some new restriction or rule. Often, he explains, the new development is the result of selfish behavior; we are made to understand that the behavior of the thoughtless few have resulted in greater restrictions for the many. Isn’t Todd saying the same thing? Isn’t he simply telling you that the possibility of an HF-2 is unlikely and then explaining who is at fault? How is it constructive to scold him for being "naïve" enough to have hoped for better from us?
Moderators have repeatedly closed threads when members made unsubstantiated statements about manufacturers or simply proved ungracious. It would be nice, I think, if certain members managed to stop themselves from being sufficiently ungracious to pollute another thread. I suppose I could be called naïve for expecting civil behavior on the In-ter-net, but you'll have to excuse me (cue patriotic music). After all, I'm gullible enough to think my friends and community are capable of thinking before spewing.
