Go and listen to some music or something
The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
-
Twistedheat02
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:34 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
And breathe!.....Relax everyone
Go and listen to some music or something
Go and listen to some music or something
- These users thanked the author Twistedheat02 for the post (total 3):
- Ordinaryman (Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:13 pm) • slinger (Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:02 pm) • Lindsayt (Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:14 pm)
Amps: Nva p50 pre, 2 x marantz sm17 power Amps
Digital: Chord hugo
Analogue: Rega P3, Graham slee era v gold
Speakers :Pmc 21,
Cables: speaker, NVA LS6, interconnect, ssp mk2
Digital: Chord hugo
Analogue: Rega P3, Graham slee era v gold
Speakers :Pmc 21,
Cables: speaker, NVA LS6, interconnect, ssp mk2
-
Geoff.R.G
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:46 pm
- Location: Denham UK
- Has thanked: 133 times
- Been thanked: 483 times
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
Thank youDaniel Quinn wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:45 pm I don't mind. It's a forum. It's only of interest if we learn something. Happy to be used as an example.
-
savvypaul
- Posts: 8670
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1663 times
- Been thanked: 2993 times
- Contact:
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
Thanks to Nick for raising this subject and for describing alternative approaches. Thanks to all who have posted their thoughts. It's been useful.
I accept Nick's point that by having rules there will always be those who seek to take advantage of those rules. But I think that there will also always be those who seek to take advantage of having 'no rules'. If individuals are here to play games, to the detriment of the forum, we can ban them, anyway, regardless of whether they technically break the rules.
Regarding censorship, I think it can be looked at in a few ways. The idea that, by having no censorship, you are solely responsible for what you write is an intellectually appealing one. It's a view I naturally lean towards. However, I find it can be troublesome in practice. I'm happy to read (or ignore) abrasive argument, but I soon tire of reading personal abuse. If members self-censor then there will be no censorship. Nick's point about censorship being required where there is an element of commercial content (NVA) is a good one, but it turns out to be moot as Tomasz and I have decided that, in the future, we will concentrate NVA's commercial content at the new website and on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter pages.
In conclusion, I think that the ad hominem rule is a good one. It removes personal abuse without stifling robust debate. It is straightforward to moderate and explain, and the majority of responses favour keeping it. I don't see any requirement to change our existing rules.
Lastly, thanks to the mods team for their time and skill. Feel free to put them out of a job, though
I accept Nick's point that by having rules there will always be those who seek to take advantage of those rules. But I think that there will also always be those who seek to take advantage of having 'no rules'. If individuals are here to play games, to the detriment of the forum, we can ban them, anyway, regardless of whether they technically break the rules.
Regarding censorship, I think it can be looked at in a few ways. The idea that, by having no censorship, you are solely responsible for what you write is an intellectually appealing one. It's a view I naturally lean towards. However, I find it can be troublesome in practice. I'm happy to read (or ignore) abrasive argument, but I soon tire of reading personal abuse. If members self-censor then there will be no censorship. Nick's point about censorship being required where there is an element of commercial content (NVA) is a good one, but it turns out to be moot as Tomasz and I have decided that, in the future, we will concentrate NVA's commercial content at the new website and on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter pages.
In conclusion, I think that the ad hominem rule is a good one. It removes personal abuse without stifling robust debate. It is straightforward to moderate and explain, and the majority of responses favour keeping it. I don't see any requirement to change our existing rules.
Lastly, thanks to the mods team for their time and skill. Feel free to put them out of a job, though
-
Lindsayt
- Posts: 4230
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
- Has thanked: 1103 times
- Been thanked: 699 times
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
On this final point, and to put things into persective:
A year might go by with me doing no actual moderation on this forum.
Either because I saw no rule breakages. Or because another moderator stepped in and moderated before I did.
That's how things have been for me over the last 9 years, since Richard first gave me the honour of inviting me to be a moderator.
Although past performance is no guarantee of future behaviour...