[Coq de Combat]

I never get free stuff here. I assure you my marriage would be better if I did.

 

[warrenpchi]

  RE: the moderators not getting financial compensation, what Mod here doesn't receive TOTL gear for review or to keep for as long as they like? Not to talk of actual review sets that aren't to be returned.

 
Me. 

  I have never received anything for being a moderator.

 

[Silent One]

Become a moderator on Head-Fi? 

 Where do I sign?

 

[vwinter]

1. No, no, no. Please go look up the definition of "freedom of speech". If you do, you will find that it applies ONLY to the government's censoring of a citizens comments. It has nothing to do with what medium is used or where the speech takes place. A privately-run newspaper or magazine has the right to edit or refuse to print any letter to the editor sent to the newspaper. A privately-run internet forum is no different. "Private" & "public" have nothing to do with who can view the content. It has everything to do with who owns the forum. Last time I checked, Jude is not an elected official or civil servant, and head-fi is not part of any government agency. That makes it "private", not "public".

2. See my #1.

3. Jude can moderate any way he wishes. It's his cash flow at risk. Jude has no responsibility to ensure the readers of head-fi are aware of his sources of income. It has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. I'm tired of people believing that someone else should look out for them and "protect" the ignorant. I say we each have a much greater obligation to eliminate ignorance and protect ourselves. Evolution in action. Jude has done nothing "wrong" - he is running this business in the way he believes will maximize benefit to the business. That is his ethical responsibility to his investors, his sponsors and his employees. We are free to make whatever evaluations of the way he runs this site that we wish - just don't expect Jude to pay for the server space for you to criticize him or his sponsors. You are allowed to stand on the city-owned sidewalk in front of a business and hold a picket sign. But you aren't allowed to nail that picket sign to the front door of the business.

I get what you're saying. I know the political origin and basis of freedom of speech. Like I said before, you are arguing legal and political factors and I'm arguing ethics. We're not talking about the same thing. I say public, I mean freely able to be accessed by the public. You say public, you are talking about a legal construct. Freedom of speech was used to engage conversation on a broad scale, not limit it to the strictest definition.

Jude can do whatever the hell he wants with his site and his secret blend of 12 herbs and spices within the law. Just because it's legal to do something doesn't doesn't mean it's necessarily ethical, in the philosophical sense, to do so. This obviously depends on your personal sense of ethics. Companies don't have to be "green" within the law. They can emit as much CO2 as the law allows to grow or maintain the bottom line. That doesn't mean they should, again from an ethical standpoint. Businesses can do whatever they want within an ever-changing legal framework and I would only have a mild problem with that based on my personal ethics. They are competing within a system and most would do whatever it takes to tip that system in their favor. Regardless of all that, personal ethics are just that and they shape how one would probably run their business to possibly a stricter standard than required by law.

I absolutely agree that people should be self reliant when it comes to these things. I'm not responsible and neither are you and neither is Jude. Hell, in a perfect world, we wouldn't even have to worry about it.

Whatever, this is digressing now. I'm just trying to point out that discussing two different books and believing they are the same will get us nowhere. Now I'm not saying this is happening here, but if you don't think that manipulating information available to the public to serve an agenda is an ethical issue, then I'm not sure what else I can say to you...

I do have an question though with your last analogy. Where exactly is this connected digital sidewalk? Either you're making a point in that there is none, which from my argumentative perspective on the ethics of all this only hurts your argument, or you know something I don't.

And rereading your sentence on ethical responsibility just now, the public is generally seen as an effected stakeholder for just about any business last I'd heard.

 

[billybob_jcv]

I get what you're saying. I know the political origin and basis of freedom of speech. Like I said before, you are arguing legal and political factors and I'm arguing ethics. We're not talking about the same thing. I say public, I mean freely able to be accessed by the public. You say public, you are talking about a legal construct. Freedom of speech was used to engage conversation on a broad scale, not limit it to the strictest definition.

Jude can do whatever the hell he wants with his site and his secret blend of 12 herbs and spices within the law. Just because it's legal to do something doesn't doesn't mean it's necessarily ethical, in the philosophical sense, to do so. This obviously depends on your personal sense of ethics. Companies don't have to be "green" within the law. They can emit as much CO2 as the law allows to grow or maintain the bottom line. That doesn't mean they should, again from an ethical standpoint. Businesses can do whatever they want within an ever-changing legal framework and I would only have a mild problem with that based on my personal ethics. They are competing within a system and most would do whatever it takes to tip that system in their favor. Regardless of all that, personal ethics are just that and they shape how one would probably run their business to possibly a stricter standard than required by law.

I absolutely agree that people should be self reliant when it comes to these things. I'm not responsible and neither are you and neither is Jude. Hell, in a perfect world, we wouldn't even have to worry about it.

Whatever, this is digressing now. I'm just trying to point out that discussing two different books and believing they are the same will get us nowhere. Now I'm not saying this is happening here, but if you don't think that manipulating information available to the public to serve an agenda is an ethical issue, then I'm not sure what else I can say to you...

I do have an question though with your last analogy. Where exactly is this connected digital sidewalk? Either you're making a point in that there is none, which from my argumentative perspective on the ethics of all this only hurts your argument, or you know something I don't.

And rereading your sentence on ethical responsibility just now, the public is generally seen as an effected stakeholder for just about any business last I'd heard.

The digital sidewalk on the internet doesn't really exist - other than to start your own site where you can criticize any other site - although the rules of libel would still apply. My point was that once you sign-in to a forum like head-fi in order to write a post, then you have stepped inside the privately-owned business, and you become subject to the rules of conduct of that business.

I do get your points about legal vs ethical. Personally, I don't think the moderation of this site is anywhere close to unethical. If it were, then most of the posts would be shills for a sponsor. There's plenty of critical reviews of products from sponsors, and there's plenty of positive reviews from non-sponsors that are not censored. I think what does raise the interest of the site owner is when posts are made that attack the underlying business model of site sponsorship as unethical, or when individuals are attacked personally regarding their motives rather than the opinion and content of their writing.

I agree that I think we're talking about different aspects - although I'm not sure they are as far apart as you indicate. In any case, I appreciate the opportunity for spirited debate - cheers!

 

[eke2k6]

   
Me.  

  I have never received anything for being a moderator.
 

 
 

 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/707432/review-astell-kern-ak240
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/718321/brand-spanking-new-a-k-ak120ii-and-ak100ii/540#post_10609438
 
 
If these are a mistake, I apologize.
 
 
Quote:

You don't receive free stuff from manufacturers to review, which you then often sell (on ebay and the like)?

Free stuff is great, even I get it every once in a while, then, because the companies are nice enough to send things, I make sure to write my impressions about it, which then generates talk about the product. Since that talk happens on Head-Fi, it generates pageviews, which in turn helps Jude make money to keep the site running (ad revenues). If the free stuff isn't enough, then start a Youtube channel or similar, build a subscriber base, and find a way to further monetize the content you want to create. The fact that Jude and Co provide a site that allows you to have what is essentially a self-funding hobby as potentially expensive as personal audio, is pretty awesome, really. What is there to complain about?

*(However, I don't sell gear because I'm a packrat and like to keep it for reference sake.)

 
 
Define "YOU", and then define "OFTEN". 
 
After that, go back and read what I actually posted.

 

[jgray91]

 Best to you! And since I dig your presentations, where might I find you? Thanks for your contributions.

Cheers!

You know the drill. Check out his channel's about page (contemplating linking it here... nah better not risk it) and there's links to where to get in touch with him. Also that alien forum.

You're not wrong about everything else. But you're speaking for everyone and I don't think you can accurately assess everyone's understanding of the underlying economics of the situation.

There is every right for economic opportunity and gain. I think the real issue that's being raised is regarding the method at which it's sustained here regarding freedom of speech.

Don't take this as a stab at yourself. I've known you since I've been on the site, seeing that you joined not long before me. Your enthusiasm for the hobby is unmistakable, and I appreciate it.

But you'd be mistaken if you didn't smell the stink of the sponsorship driven agenda here. Nothing is wrong with reaping the benefits of a situation, but when you start to cull discussions that don't suit the agenda of a supposedly "open" forum for music lovers, then there's a problem. 

The fact is that the financial side of audio hobby simply doesn't follow the rules of the free market, because "quality" here is such a subjective issue. How can you create rules that are supposedly for the benefit of the community, then turn around and let others flaunt those rules because they pay you? Is that not what people everywhere else would call corruption? 

If the original content of the users here generates the traffic that keeps the lights on, why do they have any less speaking power than sponsors? There's one especially annoying sponsor here that sticks his head into any thread that even mentions a single letter in his company name. Wut?

This is not directed at anyone in particular - just at the topic itself.

"Freedom of speech" and "private Internet forum" do not belong together. Never have, never will. Jude is right - no one is chaining anyone to their keyboards. Anyone that wants to say whatever they want is perfectly free to start their own Wordpress site and go wild. Jude is free to edit anything and everything in any way shape or form that he desires. If we like the site and the editor, we stay. If we don't, we go elsewhere. That's how it works on every private forum site in the universe. Even an unmoderated site has made a choice - they have chosen to be unmoderated - and the users of such a site either live with the consequences, or find a different forum to haunt. It is exactly when a user begins believing that they have some sort of "rights" or that the site management is "censoring" that these little eruptions take place. Some forum users feel they have more "rights" because the posts they make are the content of the site, and the forum owners make money from advertisers. But that is a completely erroneous stance. If you truly believe your words are what bring-in the advertising dollars, then you absolutely should have your own site. Why would you not? Why are you giving your pearls of wisdom away for free? For the "community"? Or, is it, perhaps, for yourself? Does writing give you pleasure? Does it pump your ego? Or - is it being *read* that actually gives you the pleasure? That would certainly explain why posting on head-fi is preferred over posting on your own site. If you want or need the audience, then that's your choice - but it's certainly not a right.

I could rant on, but I'll stop here...

1. No, no, no. Please go look up the definition of "freedom of speech". If you do, you will find that it applies ONLY to the government's censoring of a citizens comments. It has nothing to do with what medium is used or where the speech takes place. A privately-run newspaper or magazine has the right to edit or refuse to print any letter to the editor sent to the newspaper. A privately-run internet forum is no different. "Private" & "public" have nothing to do with who can view the content. It has everything to do with who owns the forum. Last time I checked, Jude is not an elected official or civil servant, and head-fi is not part of any government agency. That makes it "private", not "public".

2. See my #1.

3. Jude can moderate any way he wishes. It's his cash flow at risk. Jude has no responsibility to ensure the readers of head-fi are aware of his sources of income. It has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. I'm tired of people believing that someone else should look out for them and "protect" the ignorant. I say we each have a much greater obligation to eliminate ignorance and protect ourselves. Evolution in action. Jude has done nothing "wrong" - he is running this business in the way he believes will maximize benefit to the business. That is his ethical responsibility to his investors, his sponsors and his employees. We are free to make whatever evaluations of the way he runs this site that we wish - just don't expect Jude to pay for the server space for you to criticize him or his sponsors. You are allowed to stand on the city-owned sidewalk in front of a business and hold a picket sign. But you aren't allowed to nail that picket sign to the front door of the business.

I have to agree with billy here. This is Jude's site, and whatever and however he runs his site, it's his job. Disagree? Well, you just have to walk out of the door. Personally, I am doing that. More or less. Only thing keeping me here is this thread only. The other titanic anchor: my fix for the anime thread guys, have migrated to the unmoderated, unadulterated filth of skype group chat. It's only a matter of time...

But I digress. Internet forums are a privilege. Some allow the occasional stroll for non-members; some are pay-walled to even view their garden. I'd rant a bit on how some of the gardeners treated me, but then I still have some iota of interest still in this here garden, and it's water under the bridge anyways. Bygones be bygones (maybe not, I'm a petty, vengeful person).

Also, relevant xkcd:


alt text at link. It's unethical not to link to the source.

It is however you perceive who's who in this forum. I am implying things, and if that gets me burned, then so be it.

 

[Magick Man]

Define "YOU", and then define "OFTEN". 

After that, go back and read what I actually posted.

I did, it sounds like sour grapes. The fact is, as evidenced by the 100s of 1000s of amateur hobbyists around here, the vast majority simply do it because they love personal audio and talking about it with others. You aren't entitled to anything more than the wealth of information and community here, and that only by the grace of the people who have devoted their lives to making this site work. If you've made any money selling samples, or even if you've kept the items to enrich your personal collection, you've still benefitted much more from Head-Fi (and Jude) than it has from you.

 

[warrenpchi]

 

   
Me.  

  I have never received anything for being a moderator.
 

 

 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/707432/review-astell-kern-ak240
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/718321/brand-spanking-new-a-k-ak120ii-and-ak100ii/540#post_10609438
 
If these are a mistake, I apologize.

 
Let me begin by saying in advance, I accept your apology my friend. 

 
All of the units above (AK240, AK120II and AK100I) are dedicated Astell&Kern review units.  Each one is marked with an identifying code number and tracked by Astell&Kern.  They were provided on a temporary review loan basis to various press outlets like Stereophile, Digital Audio Review (John Darko's site), Audio360.org and others.  We do NOT get to keep these units.  All are the property of Astell&Kern and must be surrendered upon completion of our reviews, or upon demand by Astell&Kern.
 
As a columnist/reviewer for Audio360 (not to mention a co-founder), I temporarily had possession of these units for the purposes of evaluating and reviewing them for Audio360.  It has nothing to do with the fact that I am a moderator, but because I am a writer for Audio360.  My partner for the aforementioned AK240 review was Michael Liang (a.k.a. HiFiGuy528), with whom I shared the review unit with.  In fact, it was he that requested the review unit for Audio360, and received the unit for us.  He is not now (nor has he ever been) a moderator.
 
At the current time, here are the states of the three review units:
 

1. AK240:  Review done and published, unit is no longer in my possession.
2. AK120II:  Full review in progress, unit is currently in my possession
3. AK100II:  Full review in progress, unit is currently in my possession

 
But let me be clear, I DO NOT get to keep them, much less for free.  To my knowledge, none of the reviewers do.  If I want to keep any of them, I have to get them the old fashion way... I would have to BUY THEM.

 

[eke2k6]

I did, it sounds like sour grapes. The fact is, as evidenced by the 100s of 1000s of amateur hobbyists around here, the vast majority simply do it because they love personal audio and talking about it with others. You aren't entitled to anything more than the wealth of information and community here, and that only by the grace of the people who have devoted their lives to making this site work. If you've made any money selling samples, or even if you've kept the items to enrich your personal collection, you've still benefitted much more from Head-Fi (and Jude) than it has from you.

 
 
You're completely changing the topic from what Lachlan and myself were talking about.
 
Please go read what I posted without putting your own spin on it.
 
 
My point is that the site is run in a similar fashion to how Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers do things. If that doesn't make sense to you, then leave it at that. I'd rather my words be confusing than misconstrued. 
 
 

---

 

   
But let me be clear, I DO NOT get to keep them, much less for free.  To my knowledge, none of the reviewers do.  If I want to keep any of them, I have to get them the old fashion way... I would have to BUY THEM.
 

 
I never said you got to keep them, Sir Warren

 

[warrenpchi]

 

  But let me be clear, I DO NOT get to keep them, much less for free.  To my knowledge, none of the reviewers do.  If I want to keep any of them, I have to get them the old fashion way... I would have to BUY THEM.

 
I never said you got to keep them, Sir Warren

 
Which I don't... But my point is that it's not because I am a moderator, but because I write reviews for Audio360. 

 
Also, I'd like to mention that in the case of the latter units (AK120II and AK100II), the intention wasn't even to review them for Audio360 at first, but to gather impressions for Head-Fiers that wanted to know:  http://www.head-fi.org/t/718321/brand-spanking-new-a-k-ak120ii-and-ak100ii/180#post_10564995
 
It was done at the request of fellow Head-Fiers, for fellow Head-Fiers, and because I love this hobby and this community.  There is no gain - financial or otherwise for me - and I can assure you that my life would have been much easier had I not said I would do that.  It took a bunch of time gathering those comparative impressions... time that I was short of during those specific dates. 

 

[Magick Man]

You're completely changing the topic from what Lachlan and myself were talking about.

Please go read what I posted without putting your own spin on it.


My point is that the site is run in a similar fashion to how Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers do things. If that doesn't make sense to you, then leave it at that. I'd rather my words be confusing than misconstrued. 

MY spin? You're the one stating that Head-Fi owes you for simply participating in a community.

You have to remember that this place is more or less a farm, and we are the animals. Look at the front page...it's user reviews there mostly. The site admins get paid for the traffic our content generates, as well as the sponsorship. We pay for products, spend our time writing these reviews, all for their benefit. Hell, look at how much traffic Joker's thread alone generates. The worst part is that we can't even openly post our views, no matter how founded in fact or logic they are. 

GL with your campaign. I really enjoy your videos.

If simply being sociable and helpful requires that you receive some type of remuneration, beyond the enjoyment of the community itself, then you're in the wrong place. From a financial standpoint, I can never hope to make back the opportunity cost in time that I've put into Head-Fi.org, neither could Muppetface, warrenpchi, billybob, and a host of others. Warren is one of the most tireless, hard-working mother****** s I've ever seen. Jude couldn't afford to pay him for the time he's volunteered here, and he's used that opportunity (because professional life is about learning how to maximize opportunities) to branch out and make his own way, somehow without producing friction with Jude and the rest of the admins here, and without sounding like he's taking on some evil empire. I'd hire him myself (and billybob too, FTM), if he (they) were auto mechanics and didn't live on the other side of the country.

No one, and I mean no one who is charge of this site is wealthy, not by any stretch. The costs associated with running this place eats up >75% of revenues generated. After costs, and taking into consideration the content supplied and toil involved, the relative amount they could pay you, or any other single casual contributor, would literally be pennies /day, maybe a few bucks /month, max. The idea of comparing the fine folks here to the Kochs or Murdoch is such a stretch beyond the pale of reality that I have no idea how you came to it, frankly. This site was established as, and remains, a curated hobbyist bulletin board for fans of headphones and related gear. If you want a pure media outlet, YouTube is that way. ----->

Furthermore, if anyone thinks things are bad or unfair here, then life outside the pruned hedges of online Nirvana is really going to kick them in the stones.

 

[eke2k6]

MY spin? You're the one stating that Head-Fi owes you for simply participating in a community.
If simply being sociable and helpful requires that you receive some type of remuneration, beyond the enjoyment of the community itself, then you're in the wrong place. From a financial standpoint, I can never hope to make back the opportunity cost in time that I've put into Head-Fi.org, neither could Muppetface, warrenpchi, billybob, and a host of others. Warren is one of the most tireless, hard-working mother****** s I've ever seen. Jude couldn't afford to pay him for the time he's volunteered here, and he's used that opportunity (because professional life is about learning how to maximize opportunities) to branch out and make his own way, somehow without producing friction with Jude and the rest of the admins here, and without sounding like he's taking on some evil empire. I'd hire him myself (and billybob too, FTM), if he (they) were auto mechanics and didn't live on the other side of the country.

No one, and I mean no one who is charge of this site is wealthy, not by any stretch. The costs associated with running this place eats up >75% of revenues generated. After costs, and taking into consideration the content supplied and toil involved, the relative amount they could pay you, or any other single casual contributor, would literally be pennies /day, maybe a few bucks /month, max. The idea of comparing the fine folks here to the Kochs or Murdoch is such a stretch beyond the pale of reality that I have no idea how you came to it, frankly. This site was established as, and remains, a curated hobbyist bulletin board for fans of headphones and related gear. If you want a pure media outlet, YouTube is that way.

---

>

Furthermore, if anyone thinks things are bad or unfair here, then life outside the pruned hedges of online Nirvana is really going to kick them in the stones.

 
 
This is why I say you don't get it.
 
You seem to have the preconceived mentality that what I, and ultimately Lachlan, are talking about is somehow related to us wanting a slice of the pie.
 
But please, keep putting words in my mouth.

 

[gelocks]

MY spin? You're the one stating that Head-Fi owes you for simply participating in a community.
If simply being sociable and helpful requires that you receive some type of remuneration, beyond the enjoyment of the community itself, then you're in the wrong place. From a financial standpoint, I can never hope to make back the opportunity cost in time that I've put into Head-Fi.org, neither could Muppetface, warrenpchi, billybob, and a host of others. Warren is one of the most tireless, hard-working mother****** s I've ever seen. Jude couldn't afford to pay him for the time he's volunteered here, and he's used that opportunity (because professional life is about learning how to maximize opportunities) to branch out and make his own way, somehow without producing friction with Jude and the rest of the admins here, and without sounding like he's taking on some evil empire. I'd hire him myself (and billybob too, FTM), if he (they) were auto mechanics and didn't live on the other side of the country.
 

---

>

Furthermore, if anyone thinks things are bad or unfair here, then life outside the pruned hedges of online Nirvana is really going to kick them in the stones.

 
Agreed.
My "pay" is that I get to participate on tours to test out equipment, talk smack with like-minded (or not) individuals and just simply enjoy the ride. Have never even considered getting "paid" for reviewing stuff I like or don't like. First, English is not my primary language, I don't think I have the literary skills to pull "proper" reviews (or at least stuff that I'd be proud of), Third, I don't like asking for review samples for a few reasons that probably match what Lachlan has mentioned and because I just don't like it. What does this mean? That I have to BUY my own gear, test it, if I like it I might stick with it, if I don't then I'm out of luck. Either way, I sell what I don't want and that's it. Do I lose money? Yeah, most of the time BUT I enjoy the ride and I'm not crying all over the web...
 
What I have done and like the most though is make friends with a couple of guys here that are excellent people, love music, love headphones and we can swap war stories and gear as well... and that's what a community is supposed to be. Like someone else mentioned before, if you want "money" and don't want Head-Fi to enjoy their "boost" in traffic due what anyone thinks are "their" reviews, then maximize the opportunity and get to work...
 
And speaking of work, it takes BALLS to "ask for money" in order to get a retail unit, review it and get paid (via ads/website visits/etc) instead of doing it the hard way (i.e. work a normal job, gather funds, buy the unit if you are THAT interested in reviewing it...). To me that's baffling and I would definitely NOT support that in any way. I love the current model (whether it is by asking for review units, receiving them and keeping them or just plainly buying them at retail) and I love it with its pros and cons. As an individual YOU get to rationalize and decide whether a reviewer is just a shill or whether he/she genuinely likes a product.
 
So, it's Head-fi making money because of OUR reviews? Maybe, probably, who cares?!?! That makes us even most important as part of the community as a whole!
Is the review system flawed? Of course! ALL systems are flawed (economic, politics, etc.) it's a matter of how we as individual deal with the flaws. And this is why to me the whole "debate" is kind of pointless... ...
 
Just my .02 cents.
 
Oh, and hello!

 

[billybob_jcv]

I'm confused. You state:

Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post


You have to remember that this place is more or less a farm, and we are the animals. Look at the front page...it's user reviews there mostly. The site admins get paid for the traffic our content generates, as well as the sponsorship. We pay for products, spend our time writing these reviews, all for their benefit. Hell, look at how much traffic Joker's thread alone generates. The worst part is that we can't even openly post our views, no matter how founded in fact or logic they are.

GL with your campaign. I really enjoy your videos.

If that is not asking for a "slice of the pie" - then what are you saying? Are you upset that anyone is getting pie and the cost to run this site should come entirely from Jude's pocket? Or do you just mean that your content contributions should make you immune to moderation?