New forum created for subjectivist members

[Barry2013]

Amir rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, I fear you have become the story and as has been the case in so many other such situations the best thing is for the individual concerned to withdraw and to observe a period of silence on that particular story.
I say that not to attack you but to honestly set out my view of the current unsatisfactory position.
The future of the forum should be everyone's prime concern including your own.
In the meantime the moderators should be left to continue to apply the TOS in a sensible way, which I am sure they will, and get things back on an even keel.
I have no hidden agenda and the foregoing is my honest view and I hope you can be statesmanlike and accept it.

 

[PeterA]

Of course it was. Here is the full thread in the private admin forum for Steve and I:

-----





Would you please give me an explanation why you think otherwise?

And why you think these rules are not proper for you to follow?

Amir, Lee wrote: "I will state that the "Rules for Moderators" was not written by and approved by both site owners, thereby incomplete as they stand." You admit that you alone wrote these rules and that Steve was not involved. Therefore, the rules were not written by AND approved by both site owners. The word AND makes a difference here. Steve may have approved them, as you pointed out, but he did not also write them. If Lee had written OR instead of AND, I think you would be correct. But he did not. I think this is the point Lee made, but I may be wrong.

 

[DaveC]

The solution is obvious and simple:

Everyone abides by the same rules and they are enforced by the mods, admin only steps in when absolutely necessary. It's really as simple as that, other forums do it this way and while it may never be perfect it does work. Maybe just start over with that in mind, consider it a blank slate, forgive each other and move on.

 

[RBFC]

1. There is no visible statement to Tom and me that Steve has approved these rules. There was no message to us that Steve had approved them. All we see is Steve telling you that Tom agrees to behave if you reverse his ban. If Steve posts a message in that thread stating that he has approved those rules as written, then I will consider them as governing my conduct here (not that I am in the habit of breaking them anyway).

2. Once again, you are not our boss. We are volunteers and you cannot threaten us with punishment over your subjective judgement/interpretation of any criticism we offer. Of course, you are always free to ban the individuals who have given countless hours to WBF. By not approaching us as team members from the start, you made sure we knew you felt you were above us. You didn't even remember that I've been on the admin team from day one, a slap in the face. Unfortunate, because I still respect your drive to make WBF better (definitely not your methods). When everyone who challenges you gets the first line of your reply, "No, that's not right", the rest of the conversation is wasted until you accept that you may be wrong about some things, and that the logic you employ to justify your "rightness" might be flawed.

It's just infathomable that you cannot consider that you have also played a part in this mess, regardless of what blame you lay on others. I'm truly disappointed.

Lee

 

[amirm]

1. There is no visible statement to Tom and me that Steve has approved these rules. There was no message to us that Steve had approved them. All we see is Steve telling you that Tom agrees to behave if you reverse his ban. If Steve posts a message in that thread stating that he has approved those rules as written, then I will consider them as governing my conduct here (not that I am in the habit of breaking them anyway).

2. Once again, you are not our boss. We are volunteers and you cannot threaten us with punishment over your subjective judgement/interpretation of any criticism we offer. Of course, you are always free to ban the individuals who have given countless hours to WBF. By not approaching us as team members from the start, you made sure we knew you felt you were above us. You didn't even remember that I've been on the admin team from day one, a slap in the face. Unfortunate, because I still respect your drive to make WBF better (definitely not your methods). When everyone who challenges you gets the first line of your reply, "No, that's not right", the rest of the conversation is wasted until you accept that you may be wrong about some things, and that the logic you employ to justify your "rightness" might be flawed.

It's just infathomable that you cannot consider that you have also played a part in this mess, regardless of what blame you lay on others. I'm truly disappointed.

Lee

Lee, the purpose of those set of rules was to have a way forward despite the mess. I can't come to the forum every day to read you or tom cursing me on top of Steve. You are a moderator here, not troops for Steve to beat up its partner. If that job is too hard and difficult, then just don't stay in it.

So either accept the rules or step down. I don't know what else to tell you. And no, you won't be banned. You will get banned like any other member if you keep violating the ToS.

You want this problem to get resolved? Make it an issue between Steve and I. Not all three of you against me.

 

[Ron Party]

The solution is obvious and simple:

Everyone abides by the same rules and they are enforced by the mods, admin only steps in when absolutely necessary. It's really as simple as that, other forums do it this way and while it may never be perfect it does work. Maybe just start over with that in mind, consider it a blank slate, forgive each other and move on.

I like this guy.

Part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

[Joe Whip]

The solution is obvious and simple:

Everyone abides by the same rules and they are enforced by the mods, admin only steps in when absolutely necessary. It's really as simple as that, other forums do it this way and while it may never be perfect it does work. Maybe just start over with that in mind, consider it a blank slate, forgive each other and move on.

+1

 

[rbbert]

Peter, to me this the gist of the problem. As an engineer I love data and measurements. There is nothing at all wrong with that. The problem is I also know that science has come no where near in understanding how changes at the atomic level can affect audio. We are just scratching the surface, and in the future we will know a lot more. Yet, some people think that current science is capable of explaining everything, and therefore if someone is hearing somethings that cannot be adequately measured and explained then they must be delusional. That is what really irritates me.

Invariably, if someone says that cable, or component, 'X' changed the sound then someone pops in and says "No you don't. You are simply weak minded and delusional, and falling prey to marketing.' Then a fool with a multimeter, and a Cisco Networking certificate, starts challenging you to a blind test to prove to you that you are delusional. I am so fed up with this Culture of Stupidity that I will fight back.

The funny part is all I want to do is listen to music, and read others impressions of how some new gear sounds. Unfortunately, the close minded, know-it-alls have driven away many who could make useful posts, and simultaneously attracted the worst of the worst from other sites.

Nice post, it could easily describe my point-of-view also

 

[RBFC]

Lee, the purpose of those set of rules was to have a way forward despite the mess. I can't come to the forum every day to read you or tom cursing me on top of Steve. You are a moderator here, not troops for Steve to beat up its partner. If that job is too hard and difficult, then just don't stay in it.

So either accept the rules or step down. I don't know what else to tell you. And no, you won't be banned. You will get banned like any other member if you keep violating the ToS.

You want this problem to get resolved? Make it an issue between Steve and I. Not all three of you against me.

I have not been "cursing" you every day, and I believe the membership knows my style well enough to not buy into that. I am not proud of how either of you have handled things, but your recent changes ge of forum participation and the re-writing of the moderator rules to shield you from criticism are the egregious acts in this mess (IMO) that defined my position in this. For the record, I have never met Steve. This is not the "old buddies gang up on Amir" ploy. What I am tired of is an individual who says he is vehemently against bullying, who bans Tom and forces Steve to agree to new moderator rules in return for deciphering the electronic mess to allow him back. Why did you not post a statement that the rules were agreed to by Steve in a clear manner? Why is it that we could not reply to anything in the "new" admin forum where you specifically asked us to reply... Perhaps because no replies would bolster your impression of 3 vs 1? We still cannot see when anything is added to that forum, as the "New Posts" permissions haven't been issued. For a guy who is always telling us we're wrong, these omissions seem particularly suspicious.

As for my further participation, it's interesting that your first comment is to offer the door, rather than wonder what you could be doing to retain someone who has worked so hard for WBF. That's where this gets far more difficult.

Lee

 

[Don Hills]

I would suggest “What we perceive” as a title
Subtitle “A DBT free zone!”

Or is this too much objectivist

It works for the Head-Fi board...

 

[FrantzM]

The solution is obvious and simple:

Everyone abides by the same rules and they are enforced by the mods, admin only steps in when absolutely necessary. It's really as simple as that, other forums do it this way and while it may never be perfect it does work. Maybe just start over with that in mind, consider it a blank slate, forgive each other and move on.

I like this guy.

Part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Me too and +1 on the last paragraph. Can we move on? Now?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Someone would have to be pretty narcissistic to bask in repetitive praise. I may be a bit self-centered at times, but hardly like that.

Praise isn't the issue, agreement is. We all enjoy being agreed with, and make friends with those who agree with us. It's human nature.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

 

[Jinjuku]

Amir I had hoped you would come to your senses. It is becoming clear at least with respect to this forum you have decided to double down on your insanity. Clearly I made a mistake returning to this forum.

You really are an unhappy person.

 

[Jinjuku]

the forum for people who hate to have their views challenged.

Where does it say that at. I honestly am not able to find it.

 

[Jinjuku]

Thanks Opus. I'll take it from here.
Amir has never pleaded ignorance. He knows exactly what I mean. The creation of this forum is a carefully calculated move.

Yeah. It's calculated to get you to stop posting anecdata/opinion in the objective measurements forum.

 

[Gregadd]

Yeah. It's calculated to get you to stop posting anecdata/opinion in the objective measurements forum.

Somebody has to rebut all that pseudoscience.

 

[Gregadd]

You really are an unhappy person.

Is that why you follow me around? To cheer me up.

 

[Jinjuku]

1. That everyone including Amir be subject to the TOS. Has anyone heard or seen Amir agree to this.

I seem to recall more than a few members calling you out for your postings...

I don't post much outside of the Measurements Sub-Forum. And when I do it's generally lending of a technical nature if I understand an aspect to an issue.

There are threads about fuses, power cords, etc... I don't post in those forums regardless of all the data contrary. I'm happy to leave alone. I would be even happier to be treated in the reciprocal in a forum that generally should disabuse the subjective person from posting without data.

I would be ecstatic if when someone says I said something that I never said, when they can't find a post of mine they think exists, that it would be redacted when I submit it to moderation. Heck I was just accused of calling for Bill Low's banning here when I did no such thing. And when I point out I did no such thing not only don't I get an apology for being correct, I get called arrogant.

I mod at Audioholics so I know what it takes to do the right thing.

So my question is this: What are you goals with the Measurement sub forum? What target is being (attempted) hit? How are those goals fostered and moved forward?

 

[Jinjuku]

Somebody has to rebut all that pseudoscience.

Then rebut it but please do it with data, with peer reviewed journals, with actual technical and white papers. It's the quality of participation that is either of benefit or detractor.

That's the requirement and charter of THAT particular sub forum.