HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

ADMIN

Admin decisions can be questioned in PM but not in public.

Please make sure to be aware of the forum rules.

One area I personally think could usefully warrant a push is DIY. There is of course diyaudio.com, but things can be hard to find there. For example, I'm exploring open baffle speakers and also Distributed Mode Loudspeakers. These 'alternative' technologies would seem to fit in well with the HFS thinking about doing things differently. IIRC DBH was an advocate of OB speakers as an alternative to semi-omnis.

Similarly, DIY cables are well explored in many other fora. However, perhaps this risks a conflict of interest with NVA cables. By way of example on the cable front, I've just knocked up a couple of sets of ultra-low capacitance unshielded interconnects which sound better that the silver litz braided jobs I've been using for a few years. They were based on a VH Audio design but use copper rather than silver.

IMO you now have to view this forum as a new one as everything changed the day Richard passed on. His vast knowledge and experience is now gone apart from what is in the archive here, in Tomasz's head and whoever else it rubbed off on. Although he did not like to talk about specs they can not be avoided sometimes when doing diy - especially making a speaker. Cabinet volume and if the driver likes sealed or vented or other is very important.

It would be great to have a more active diy membership here. I know there is some going on and most of it does not stray too far from Richard's principles but sometimes i think i am talking to myself. I don't want to rely on diyaudio too much as the mostly objectivist nature over there tends to pollute my mind with bollocks. There is information to be gleaned from there however as long as you know which bits to ignore.

Far from boring. Was off line for some time because of a power cut and a lot went on here.

The important thing is that NVA continues and to do so it needs to be in a different guise. I miss the Doc, his vast knowledge and his exposure of everything which is wrong with the industry. We are left with those who have benefitted from his knowledge and advice, reflected in the content.

I'm a little concerned about what I'm reading. What is the rationale for normal members not being able to publicly challenge admin decisions?

I also don't understand the need for secrecy; nor the dictitorial approach to moderation.

I was asked to come back under the assurance that things were going to be different; but it doesn't feel that they are. Some (public) clarity would be appreciated.

George Hincapie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:16 pm I'm a little concerned about what I'm reading. What is the rationale for normal members not being able to publicly challenge admin decisions?

I also don't understand the need for secrecy; nor the dictitorial approach to moderation.

I was asked to come back under the assurance that things were going to be different; but it doesn't feel that they are. Some (public) clarity would be appreciated.

Generally speaking, an Admin "strike" is not issued lightly. Our words are not sacrosanct, but an Admin will step in to stop a situation escalating into all-out warfare. Allowing the recipient of that strike, or intervention, to carry on in exactly the same vein while ignoring the Admin's direction in public only serves to make a situation worse. If you think you've been "falsely accused" then please, contact any of us via pm and we'll discuss your point, privately, and quietly, but don't stand in open defiance of what we're trying to do, because that, invariably, drags other people into the situation.

There is another dimension to this, in so much as people in these situations do sometimes contact admins when they are pulled up, but only to spew hatred, ignorance, and usually to swear at us quite a lot. You guys don't see that, and we don't think it serves any purpose to publish it.

The general rule is "three strikes and you're on the naughty step" but you'll find that more often than not the guilty party has received several "friendly" warnings about their behaviour.

We're not "the police" but we're here to police the forum and hopefully keep it running smoothly in line with the wishes of the vast majority of the membership. What would you expect if anyone in authority anywhere asked you to "Step into my office" to discuss a situation and instead of doing that you turned around and told them to "f*ck off" instead? PMs are our "office" in situations like these. Rest assured that if we're in the wrong we'll say so, and set the record straight in public. It works both ways.

That's my personal opinion, It's not secrecy, and it's not a dictatorship, it's doing a job without, hopefully involving or upsetting the other 99.9% of members. There have to be rules, and those rules are kept to a minimum. We will not, however, get involved in public arguments. When that happens is when we turn into the type of forum we all hate, and could quite easily name, I'm sure.

As I said, this is not some sort of official proclamation, just the way I, personally, see things, which of course is up for public discussion.

It was Jammy who was bored and started in on the forum and admin. Unfortunately he had been given an (extreme) amount of slack here by RD in the past, that and being used to 'other places' where a more aggressive form of posting is tolerated.

In trying to renew the situation here the main guideline (as I see it) is to respect a clear border and Jammy went way over this time. Repeatedly.

It is a good thing that George H has questioned admin policy and brought the matter into discussion. I only hope that everyone can see that specific attitudes will merit a specific action.

And I feel personally for Jammy - when he's fun, he's fun and he can liven the place up for sure (that's probably why RD liked having him around).

I'm staying out of all 'policy decisions' as the longest standing member and viewed by some as Richards right hand man, I feel it is best. I will say Mr Hincapie voices a concern all intelligent people will have.

Well I have to say I've always been a fan of Jammy's posts although I do appreciate others may not. I never take offence to any of his posts simply because it would always be water of a ducks back to me. Two very good posts yet again by Mr Slinger and DQ.

Hi everyone,

I'm happy to discuss moderation policy. I'm happy to talk about how that policy might be applied to certain scenarios. I'm happy to talk about how that policy has been applied in specific cases (within the boundaries of what is fair to someone who may not have a right to reply). What I won't do is to provide a running commentary, or have a public debate, while that decision making process is taking place.

Having to warn or ban people is no fun, at all. None of the admin team wish for that to be the outcome, unless it is unavoidable, absolutely necessary and clearly justified.

If you want to discuss the principles of what happened yesterday, then no problem. Post your comments and questions and I'll reply, later - I'll be away from the PC now, until about 8.30. All I will say, until then, is that my prime consideration when moderating is to determine the true motivation of the poster.

Hope this helps.

Paul