ZG & Trade posters - open discussion

There are two main problems on all forums.

1/ those that *start* conflict, not those that try to defend themselves as by that point it is too late.

2/ spammers who use thread topics or create them to spam their products, or even just to keep the subject (such as Flatpopely with the LP12) continually at the top of the list.

Two simple answers .

1/ ban ad hominem, so as soon as the subject of the thread is turned to the poster (any poster) it is removed. It is critical this should be the first post that does it.

2/ ban manufacturers or trade from refering to their products and services in the main forum body and give them a room or thread to say what they like, but not protected as now happens at PF in trade threads. They should be able to be challenged. BUT the ad hominem rule should still apply, so the facts and the subject are discussed and argued not the person.

Simples!

 

So many ways to skin those cats....

I don't have a problem with trade members posting on just about everything if they want, they often have an interesting POV on a subject even / especially if a particular topic is not part of their design philosophy.

I do believe that every person involved with the industry directly, or connected in a consultancy / retail capacity should be clearly marked in their profile. The trade member will prove whether or not they really post as an individual over time, but the forum posters in general can be a jaundiced lot; I can still see this approach leading to 'trade' members being pigeon-holed (& his views dismissed), which is the exact opposite of what they want when they try to express a view.

I like the 'Subjectivist' approach, and will it to work. When it's wings are spread a little wider and it has a bigger membership it can be really tested. The thing it's approach does have going for it is everyone is included without prejudice, whether trade, or 'normal' members expressing their views. No search for definitive truth takes over, therefore no non - conformist is dismissed.

 

Why, when they are the problem, why are the sacrisanct. You will not solve the problem until they are able to be discussed openly. The present situation that has been established between the major forums is just a form of censorship, and is used by some owners and mods to justify biased moderation.

 

Hi-fi has a unique blurring between product and manufacturer. Because hi-fi has its own personality cult, it's difficult to extract where the criticism of product line or brand strategy stops and the ad hominem starts. If Mike Creek (for example) were on here and someone started shouting about Creek products, would that be an assault on the person, the products or the person and the products? Naturally, the the attack became personal that's different, but if someone says "I don't like your products/marketing/brand identity/strategy/dealers/adverts etc", they are not automatically saying "I don't like you".

This cuts both ways. Real people need to recognise that the designer isn't a walking, talking version of their own products and trade need to spot that if someone is critical of something to do with your business, they haven't just kicked your granny in the face.

It gets all the harder to separate person from product when dealing with fanboys. They act as unofficial representative and spokesperson for the brand they are besotted by and will see suggestions of alternatives as personal attacks on their good standing, so wrapped up are they in their support of that product line. In those cases, ad hominem attacks are inevitable.

Ad hom. attacks are a function of forum chat. We aren't in the philosophy department or the debating team and not everyone knows the rules of engagement. Policing a forum to throw out the mildest ad hom. attack would quickly become impossible and the forum would grind to a halt in a few days. I agree that ad hom. quickly deteriorate into bitching battles, but you should also be able to take at least some knocks. If you can't, you should really consider bowing out of forums for your own sanity.

And that last is not an ad hominem attack, hidden or otherwise.

 

I can't see anything wrong with discussing another forum in very general terms - that's no different to discussing a company or organisatoin.

The only real taboo is bringing an argument or dispute over form another forum because that usually gets very messy.

Forums develop personality, ethos, and have their own individual way of dealing with issues and topics. That all must be fair game for discussion IMO.

 

This makes interesting reading:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

So it would appear that ad hominem as touted on forums is not actually ad hominem, it's just a personal attack; e.g 'you' don't know what you are talking about is NOT ad hominem. Whether that's acceptable or not is up to mods but it's not ad hominem.

This needed clarifying as some rules are being drawn up.

 

For heaven sake I wish you actually understand what it is before you spout. Of course you could discuss Creek products and criticise them as much as you like, and if the company fell down on it obligations that should be for discussion as long as the forum is not turned into service / complaints centre, that should be via the normal channels. Ad Hominem regarding the company would be *for example* calling them something like a bunch of crooks. But as soon as you refer to / attack / insult Mike Creek as a person then that is ad hominem. It is only when a thread is turned personal should it be moderated immediately. There is never a good reason to turn a thread from its subject to the poster, it happens when the argument and logic runs out but the ego insists you pursue, and it is the tool of a fool.

 

Not so.

May I refer you to post #26.

 

Here we go again - ad hominem is perfectly simple and understandable in the case of a forum. Someone starts a thread, it has a subject, that subject is discussed. Then someone doesn't like what one of the posters says and attacks that person, that is ad hominem i.e. turning from the subject to the poster. We should be discussing facts concepts and ideas, not the people who have them or provide them. The only way to discuss a person is to make that person the subject of the thread.

That is also what it says on your link, but that link also refers to ad hominem in slander and legal court and other situations. It is the basis of *all* debate, and a forum is really a specialised debating club.

 

Post 26 is nonsense.

 

With all due respect that is not correct. Turning a thread against a person not the subject is not ad hominem as defined anywhere. One simply cannot change the meaning of a phrase to suit a purpose.

If the idea is to stop what is described above then that something for the mod team and AUP but just calling it ad hominem is incorrect.

Read this below.

"Common misconceptions about ad hominem
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.

 

It is actually defined that way on the web page you refer to, you need to read the page not just a sentence.

 

We are not interpreting it the same then.

 

You are not even reading it! and quoting one sentence out of context.

 

Richard,

Have you ever wondered why you get the boot from so many fora? You really do need to start getting a bit more of a grip. You come across as a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work.

Now, I know that people who actually know you maintain that you are an OK guy, but anyone judging you from your outbursts on this & other fora would certainly not get that impression.

Incidently, for the record, whilst I can't comment on your current product range, I always rated NVA kit very highly back in the day. Almost bought apre-amp/amp from you, but Meridian pipped you at the post. There you are, reverse ad hominem!

Chris

PS

By the way, nn ad hominem attack is somethin like "Don't buy aWonderamp product, because the chief designer wanks spiders". Disagreeing with someone & doubting their motives for holding a given view is not.

 

If anything could encapsulate what I am talking about in one post this is it - perfect example. And you just deserve to get the same back with interest, but that would suit you wouldn't it, that is how you have played it in the past at other forums. The owner or mods don't deal with it so the person subject to your insults responds, you respond back, the subject of the post is forgotten and all there is is conflict, and it is the likes of you that creates it and this is at the root of the problem.

Once again tell me which forums I am banned from.

 

Fair enough, let's examine:

If this were directed at me...

"You come across as a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work."

...I would take it as constructive criticism, not an an attack. It would make me stop, think and reconsider the way I interact with the community.

If "you are an asshole" were fired off, you'd have reason to argue Richard.

 

Richard,

As I have already stated on another thread, I am not aware of any fora from which you are currently banned.

However, I know for a certainty that you recently sufferred a 1 month ban from PFM. Also, as far as I am aware, you only started posting on PFM after having been banned from another forum, I think it was the wam, but you would know that better than me.

And, how was my post a perfect examole. Nowhere was there any hint of ad hominem.

And yes, there will always be a certain amount of conflict on a hi-fi forum. You violently disagree with my world view of hi-fi, and I think yours is an irrational wooly mess, and will say so when you start to spout, what in my opinion, is little short of arrant nonesense.

Sorry if that gets up your nose, but hey.....

Chris

 

Again thank you for providing me with another example, this time of the concept of ad hominem. You *whole* post was ad hominem, your whole post was about me - the subject of the thread is ZG & Trade posters - open discussion, not me. All I am is a poster on that thread, so you change the subject to me a poster on that subject - *that is ad hominem*.

If you wish to discuss me so much with your rather weird infatuation then start a thread about me, then I can be the subject, and it is no longer ad hominem.

 

Richard,

My first post to this thread was #13. No mention of you at all.

I didn't actually follow the thread for a while, but when i did, guess what, you had got into a pissing match with someone.

I then responded in a fairly conciliatory way, but as per bloody usual, you just became increasingly obnoxious.

And, don't rely on Wikipaedia, check out the meaning of ad hominem with a publication of some authority.

Were I to attack your argument by attacking some unrelated aspect of your character, that would be ad hominem.

Were I to say "don't believe Richard's opinions concerning cables, he has BO", that would be ad hominem.

Chris