General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Civility?

Posted by Jim Austin on May 14, 2004 at 06:19:28:
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.
Best Regards,
Jim Austin