Quote:
nwavguy for example asserts that he was banned for publically questioning Schiit about their amps.
I've heard lots of stories about people who do get banned for talking down on sponsors. Censorship means that you don't necessarily know. Whether those who claim that they've been banned or not are credible or not, or how legit their ban really is - I do not know. I've only heard their side of the story.
nwavguy was not banned for publicly questioning or criticizing the products of any sponsor. In fact, I'm quite sure that every single criticism he has posted--every piece of data he has posted here--remains (unless he has since removed any of it, prior to this ban). What he took exception to was my request that (a) he remove the link to his blog from his signature, and (b) that he refrain from linking to his blog frequently. This is a request we (moderators) send out at least a couple/few times per week. Are exceptions made? Yes, on a case-by-case basis, but not before a person has shown that one of his primary reasons for posting here is not pointing people to his site or video channel. And, by the time the exception is granted, the person in question is usually a more veteran member.
When he was asked these things, he took great exception to the request; and, not surprisingly, even more so when the links were removed. What he doesn't post (and what I have the messages to prove, as I'm sure does he) is that I told him he was more than welcome to post his information here, instead of posting teasers here and then linking to his site to finish. I told him at some point he might be able to do that here; but, again, not before he had shown that one of his primary reasons for being here wasn't to redirect to his blog.
Take a look for yourself. It's all still here (save for a good number of links to his site).
As for the ban? One of the fastest paths from being a member able to post here to someone banned from here is to send a hostile message with mention of attorney(s) and such. Try it and you'll see.
I don't agree with all of his positions, but I appreciate his positions. And he's certainly a sharp guy, I certainly can't argue that. But his accusations of being censored here, and his strong opposition to it (remembering that the censorship was pretty much entirely limited to his links), are, in my opinion, inaccurately represented, unfair, and ring hollow.
Yes, we censored him--we removed at least some of his links to his site (including the one he'd placed in his signature). But I'm quite sure all the info he posted (other than the links) is still here (again, unless, before he was banned, he removed any of it).
His posts on his blog about this issue--his calls to action and protest--seem to me to at least strongly suggest that his content and data criticizing the products of Head-Fi's sponsors was deleted here. Again, I'm quite sure that, other than links to his blog, the information and data he posted is all still here. And, again, he was told at the time he could continue to post his posts, findings, data and information here, minus the frequent linking to his blog (and his signature link). That he couldn't link to his blog, or place a link in his signature, was, as he put it, censorship, which was something he could not abide by (and something he was clearly ticked off about).
Regarding censorship, here is one of many things nwavguy said to me (and this is a direct quote), in response to my link removal request(s):
I'm all for open communications and a lack of censorship. I'm very much against anyone trying to distort reality through censorship of any kind.
Anyone who was here through all of that ruckus remembers that
no censorship of any kind was one of his primary rallying cries.
However, from his blog (as of today):
PLEASE NOTE: Comments may take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days to be approved. The approval process is necessary to prevent obscenity, etc...
More comments from him in another forum make clear it is not just limited to obscenity:
The anonymous comments lately have been on the original O2 Headphone Amp article and the Subjective vs Objective Debate article. The ones I haven't published have been sent to Blogger's spam folder and are not visible.
It seems to me they're just trying to pick fights and/or throw up the same tired audiophile arguments that have never stood up to any reasonable scrutiny. And when I refused to publish a few the tone switched to being more subtle and trying to seem like they would "like to believe in me" but somehow just can't.
...the sad part, to me at least, is having to censor comments. I honestly can't tell if some of them are genuine or a carefully veiled attempt to just dilute the comments as so often happens on Head-Fi. And I'm sure that might be their intent. But, as Maverick said, there really isn't a winning move here. If I publish everything the comments sections become ungainly and nobody will want to read them. If I don't some will accuse me of censorship.
To me, that's ironic, and, at the very least, rather hypocritical.
Am I going to discuss his ban any further than this? Do you see me discussing anyone else's ban on the forums? Rarely.
Very rarely. So the answer to that question is
probably not.
On most days, at least a couple-thousand posts are made on Head-Fi. How many of those posts do you suppose criticize sponsor products? And are you suggesting that they're removed? So the only posts having to do with sponsor products are the ones that are positive, all others deleted? Is that what you're suggesting? Really? Look around. It won't take long for you to see how absurd that suggestion is.
And so now are you suggesting I'm protecting Heir Audio? Here's a piece of news for you: Until I was directed to this thread, I'd never even heard of them.
