|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Here's a proposal, put forward for comment and for the consideration of the bored.I don't think there's any conflict between free, open, unrestricted legitimate debate about audio equipment and ideas (on the one hand) and complete civility, no matter how forced (on the other).
"Free speech" and "censorship" are not the issue. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. This forum's management, like any newspaper's editorial page or any magazine's editor, has a right to decide what gets posted and what doesn't. A principled management will take this obligation seriously and endeavor to be even-handed while also enforcing standards. I suspect this is what the bored already tries to do.
Why not simply put direct personal criticism completely off-limits, and enforce respectful discourse? "I, personally, have never found the reviews written by Reviewer X to be helpful. Clearly, our tastes are different." No problem. "Despite what Reviewer Z wrote in his/her review, I've found this component to perform very well." Excellent. "Reviewer Y is an idiot, and is obviously on the take." Not okay. "All reviewers who work for audio magazines are on the take." Not okay, even, or especially, when only implied.
Posted by a representative of an equipment manufacturer: "Though I'm sure it's all a miscommunication, so far we have been unable to recover, after X months (or years) our Model X2345 preamplifer that was loaned to Reviewer Z for a review in Magazine A." Very courteous, even if the courtesy is forced, but it's blunt, names names, and gets the point across. BTW: the same post by a third party with no direct, reliable information--or who is unwilling to name his or her source--would NOT be okay. The acused has a right to confront the accuser. No manufacturer's rep would make such an accusation lightly, and they shouldn't.
I've used the Internet since before it was public, and participated in news groups almost from the first. Before that, it was electronic bulletin boards. And I've moderated a number of email discussion lists and Web-based discussion fora. From the beginning I noticed a tendency for people interacting electronically to speak, or write, uncivily, saying things that they would never say in person. Anyone who has spent much time interacting via electronic means is aware of this phenomenon.
The only way to avoid gutterization, I've learned, is to enforce a high level of civility. Anyone can write anything, as long as they meet their obligation to maintain a substantive, courteous, and civil discourse. "Moderation" is an appropriate term to describe the role of overseers of discussion fora.
Follow Ups:
- Bored take notice... - jeff mai 18:16:56 05/14/04 (0)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
There is already a forum that does exactly what is suggested here - rec.audio.high-end. It has been taken over by the self-righteous, is over moderated and in the process of dying a slow death.Rules lead to more rules because the rabble always push the boundaries. It never ends. I'd rather not have the place ruined because of a few overgrown children.
If someone is is bothering you, it is possible to ignore them. You can't control others' behaviour, but it's *your choice* to respond.
- Re: Civility? - BillH 16:37:38 05/14/04 (2)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
Civility depends greatly on shared values, tastes, interests. I doubt that there much of that present here in this General ward. So let 'em slug it out, because I've found that the only way to deal with ***holes in to get in their faces and call them ***holes. They know it, and if they know you know it as well they frequently slink off to places where they can feel more powerful, respected. Like the pool hall or the 7-11.
- Quite the opposite - kavakidd 17:17:41 05/14/04 (1)
In Reply to: Re: Civility? posted by BillH on May 14, 2004 at 16:37:38:
Civility is what is required to deal with people you disagree with, NOT people with whom you share values.
"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving's probably not for you".
- Re: Quite the opposite - BillH 18:30:34 05/14/04 (0)
In Reply to: Quite the opposite posted by kavakidd on May 14, 2004 at 17:17:41:
Well, I see below that you are an economist, and economists are seldom right, but at least they are civil, and so I will return the compliment.
- In fairness to all . . . - Jay 15:05:27 05/14/04 (1)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
Let the undisciplined have their rancor
Let the self-righteous have their vanity (i.e., this thread)
Let the vast majority carry on their usual well-balanced discourse.
- The voice of reason rings true (nt) - hinduclient 16:20:37 05/14/04 (0)
In Reply to: In fairness to all . . . posted by Jay on May 14, 2004 at 15:05:27:
.
- The "civility" that you propose... - rp1@surfnetusa.com 13:34:07 05/14/04 (0)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
is a worthy goal, but I think one of the overwhelming obstacles to it is lack of training our generation recieved in writing and communicating in general.To phrase things the way you have demonstrated requires a level of skill in thought, and the communication of that thought, that is sorely lacking in my, and the following, generation. If you look at the best writers here it seems that most of them are at the least college grads. Thats what it takes nowdays to reach the basic level of communications representative of a competent high-school graduate of my mother's generation; in fact I would go so far as to say that the 8th grader of her time would easily keep up on grammar and syntax with the best of the writers on the Asylum so far.
The present day reliance on tv as a baby-sitter has reduced the ability of the average human to even HOLD a complex thought let alone express it. And, before the flames begin, I don't exempt myself from that assessment.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
- Re: Civility? - The Bored 09:00:35 05/14/04 (0)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
> > I don't think there's any conflict between free, open, unrestricted legitimate debate about audio equipment and ideas (on the one hand) and complete civility, no matter how forced (on the other).We agree.
> > Why not simply put direct personal criticism completely off-limits, and enforce respectful discourse?
- Re: Civility? - Kevin DD 08:43:29 05/14/04 (0)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
Can we extend this civility to our highways and roads? People in cars are like what you describe some to be on the internet; overly discourteous which normally wouldn't happen face to face.
- Re: Civility? - Great Post - kavakidd 07:36:35 05/14/04 (8)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
Manners - what a wonderfully archaic idea - anonymity or not!!I for one, have NEVER seen an argument resolved with insults. I learned many years ago (in the South Pacific) that you CAN have a serious disagreement without destroying friendships/relationships. I've seen people argue to the point where you thought for sure they were going to kill each other. But - the argument remained saparate from THEM and they walked out with their arms around each others' shoulders.
I often pose this scenario: If we're having a disagreement and it deteriorates to the point of "let's take it outside" and you kick the sh*t out of me, does that make you any more right than you were before??
"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving's probably not for you".
- I think you hit the nail right on the head... - Jack Gribble 09:12:50 05/14/04 (7)
In Reply to: Re: Civility? - Great Post posted by kavakidd on May 14, 2004 at 07:36:35:
My experience is from going to grad school in the Econ Dept. at the University of Chicago. Debate was simply a way of life there. The debates at workshops could get so heated, someone not used to it might get really scared. In fact a couple times, a student from another school would present a paper, not be used to how heated the debates could get and would start crying.But it was never personal. Ever. It was always on topic, and it was always about the paper, not the writer of the paper. Did you consider this? Why did you assume this? What are the real world appications of this conclusion? How does this differ from this other study? The paper would be torn to bits (figuratively), but NOT the presenter. And after, we'd all go out for a beer or dinner and talk about how bad the bears were or something.
It led to great understanding of what one did and didn't know.
Never any personal attacks. Because, as you said, what would be the point of that?
--Jack
- Thanks Jack - kavakidd 09:21:09 05/14/04 (6)
In Reply to: I think you hit the nail right on the head... posted by Jack Gribble on May 14, 2004 at 09:12:50:
You don't suppose that has anything to do with us both being Economists (B.S. Degree only in my case)? We all know Economists never agree on much of anything.
"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving's probably not for you".
- could be... - Jack Gribble 09:31:27 05/14/04 (5)
In Reply to: Thanks Jack posted by kavakidd on May 14, 2004 at 09:21:09:
Lol. Could be. We're probably both used to being disagreed with and thus don't take it personally. It's hard, I admit that...we all hold dear to what makes sense to us, and sometimes perceive someone disagreeing with us as a personal attack, and it takes experience to get out of that...and I'm certainly not done...but as you said, to get all flustered and start throwing fists...that's a completely different level, and totally unproductive, in my opinion. Then again, when there is a car wreck, I'm guilty of rubbernecking! I read the posts here. Hard to ignore if you know what I mean.
--Jack
- Economists, eh? - Duke 01:43:38 05/15/04 (4)
In Reply to: could be... posted by Jack Gribble on May 14, 2004 at 09:31:27:
I read somewhere that if you took all the economists in the world and lined them up end-to-end, they would never reach a conclusion...
- LOL...some more quotes... - Jack Gribble 04:37:14 05/15/04 (3)
In Reply to: Economists, eh? posted by Duke on May 15, 2004 at 01:43:38:
Roosevelt: "Will some one give me a one handed economist"
Stigler(famous Chicago economist): "It takes an economist 10 pages just to clear his throat."To keep this audio (well, music) related. Every professor I had had a very keen and deep appreciation of music.
Also, I think it has been said that you could put a bunch (gaggle?) of audiophiles in the same room listening to the same systems, and they would probably agree on what they heard, but would disagree on what was better, because each one places different emphasis on aspects of the sound that are important to him/her.
In economics, economists for the most part agree on the theory (what will happen to y if you do x), but differ on whether y is desirable or not for society.
--Jack
- Economics theory and audio... - Al Sekela 10:32:27 05/15/04 (2)
In Reply to: LOL...some more quotes... posted by Jack Gribble on May 15, 2004 at 04:37:14:
Actually, there is a connection.Free (as in unregulated) markets are promoted under the guise of economics theory as being efficient. However, a free market is a form of feedback control system. Some historians even relate the beginnings of Cybernetics to Adam Smith's observations in his books "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759) and "The Wealth of Nations" (1776).
Engineers who have studied feedback control systems have found they work within narrow limits of timing. If the information from the outcome of the system takes too long to affect the input, the result is instability. Audio amplifiers employing feedback and with inadequate phase margin oscillate, and markets with time delays in production scaling exhibit boom and bust instability. These are the SAME PHENOMENA at bottom.
- yep... - Jack Gribble 21:59:48 05/15/04 (1)
In Reply to: Economics theory and audio... posted by Al Sekela on May 15, 2004 at 10:32:27:
Very traditional economics assumes "perfect information" which implies the instantaneous dissemintation of infomation. A long time ago "Austrian" economists (Hayek etc.) proffered that the accumulation of knowledge--and who gets that knowledge when--has a profound impact on the "waves" of the economy.Recently computer scientists at Stanford working on AI have been working with modern "Austrian economists" because they need a model of learning.
In macroeconomics, filters used in engineering have been borrowed to extract "signal from noise" in the economy, and more recently economists of this ilk have found these classical filters wanting and have begin developing their own.
It would be interesting if audio engineers looked at some of the filtering techniques economists have come up with.
I was at an AEA conference once, and someone was presenting a mathematical paper on this type of stuff. Some naysayer in the audience asked what the real world significance was. The presenter lightheartedly said "it is preliminary work, but I feel it will provide a greater understanding of how the fed exacerbates the amplitude of the business cycle due to timing lags...and it would also make a pretty good amplifier." !!!!!
:)Nice post,
- Thank you! - Al Sekela 11:56:45 05/16/04 (0)
In Reply to: yep... posted by Jack Gribble on May 15, 2004 at 21:59:48:
THAT would be wonderful: if economists pushed feedback theory forward, and better audio equipment resulted!
- Freedom is better. - shamburg 07:27:48 05/14/04 (4)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
Yes, AA can get pretty stinky. But, as I see, as big part of its role is letting all these noxious gases dissipate into the fresh air of unfettered debate. I think AA is already regulated too much.
- Freedom does not extend to slander and libel ... or trolls - hinduclient 08:00:52 05/14/04 (3)
In Reply to: Freedom is better. posted by shamburg on May 14, 2004 at 07:27:48:
.
- An occupational hazard of free speech - kjg 09:31:23 05/14/04 (2)
In Reply to: Freedom does not extend to slander and libel ... or trolls posted by hinduclient on May 14, 2004 at 08:00:52:
Accept it. The alternative of limiting the free exchange of thoughts and ideas to topics in a rigid rule book is worse. People get mad and they express themselves without regard to Robert's rules of order. Take that away and a lot of folks will stop talking altogether.I can take the heat well enough to want to stay in the kitchen.
- Re: An occupational hazard of free speech - kavakidd 10:52:29 05/14/04 (1)
In Reply to: An occupational hazard of free speech posted by kjg on May 14, 2004 at 09:31:23:
I've never heard anyone express themselves logically when angry!
"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving's probably not for you".
- True enough - kjg 10:57:01 05/15/04 (0)
In Reply to: Re: An occupational hazard of free speech posted by kavakidd on May 14, 2004 at 10:52:29:
But sometimes its the anger that carries the real message. I'd hate to lose that piece :-)
- Well said - bdiament 06:47:36 05/14/04 (0)
In Reply to: Civility? posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
Civility.
What a concept.A well worded post with which I completely agree.
Thanks Jim.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
You can not post to an archived thread.