Manufacturers on the web: a double edged sword?

[RobHolt]

The reason many of us try to prevent inter-forum arguments is that we remember all too well the dogmatic wars of the past, such as the OTT 'stand wars' that would rage on forum, end up with that forum imposing bans and then the argument spilling over onto other sites.

It was all very futile and put off more people than it entertained.

Cross forum arguments do nothing but inflame tempers and create even more bad feeling. If issues break out on a forum they should stay there and be dealt with by that forum.

There is a general understanding between most forums on behaviour and standards. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

 

[Fnuckle]

Astonishing! don't you see it is impossible to insult someone unless it is ad hominem

Please find the argumentum ad hominem in the following insult:

Well congratulations, you got it right. I guess even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

 

[Mescalito]

Astonishing! don't you see it is impossible to insult someone unless it is ad hominem, apply that rule and it doesn't matter what the subject is it has to be without conflict, as soon as ad hominem comes in it turns to conflict. That can be about forums or anything. Forums are now the only area, and I mean the admins and mods, where any form of behaviour can happen because it cannot be discussed.

I think I need to point to an example. This is the behaviour of and owner and admin of a forum with many thousands of members yet according to your rules it cannot be discussed and probably me using it as an example will mean it is removed, can't you see the bloody daftness of all this. If the Crossover Network hadn't allowed this to be published then this person would still be doing it and getting away with it. BUT he was named and shamed and doesn't dare do it anymore.

Read and feel disgusted http://thecrossovernetwork.co.uk/fo...(Art-of-Sound-forum-admin)-Threatening-Emails

Richard,

It may be bad manners, it may be boorish, it may be rude, but insulting or dissing someone is not ad hominem unless the insult is used as a reason to refute the other guys argument. EG

" Your argument fails because of x, y, z, and anyway, I cannot stand short arsed people like you" is not ad hominem.


"You are a short arsed little sod so your argument is a load of bollocks."

That's more likely to be ad-hominem, but there is an outside possibility that a short-arse logically cannot possibly have a correct view of the argument, in which case it is not ad hominem.

" Your argument fails because you are a short arse & I cannot stand short arses" is ad hominem.

With regard to Marco the Mad........

He's as good a reason not to allow cross forum discussions as any I know!

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Richard,

It may be bad manners, it may be boorish, it may be rude, but insulting or dissing someone is not ad hominem unless the insult is used as a reason to refute the other guys argument. EG

" Your argument fails because of x, y, z, and anyway, I cannot stand short arsed people like you" is not ad hominem.


"You are a short arsed little sod so your argument is a load of bollocks."

That's more likely to be ad-hominem, but there is an outside possibility that a short-arse logically cannot possibly have a correct view of the argument, in which case it is not ad hominem.

" Your argument fails because you are a short arse & I cannot stand short arses" is ad hominem.

With regard to Marco the Mad........

He's as good a reason not to allow cross forum discussions as any I know!

Chris

There are two discussions going on here only you could mix them up, or are you per usual deliberately trying to muddy the water.

 

[Richard Dunn]

The about.com definition of an argumentum ad hominem is extremely simplistic, beause it fails to distinguish between a legitimate ad hom. formal fallacy and a simple insult.

Insult: "Fred is an idiot"
Ad hom.: "What Fred said is wrong because he's an idiot"

The argumentum ad hominem is incorrect because there is no logical connection between the truth-condition of the premise and the person delivering that premise. Fred might very well be an idiot, but what he said might also be completely true.

There is no provision for enthymeme in formal fallacy. So if you present an argument and the counter to that is "Well, you're an idiot!", it remains disagreement and insult, rather than argumentum ad hominem. It can be a de facto ad hominem, but not a formal fallacy.

It is simplistic because that is all that is needed. Stop addressing me, so I do not need to reply, and address the subject of the thread. Then the problem stops, addressing me in any form on this thread is ad hominem.

 

[Richard Dunn]

The reason many of us try to prevent inter-forum arguments is that we remember all too well the dogmatic wars of the past, such as the OTT 'stand wars' that would rage on forum, end up with that forum imposing bans and then the argument spilling over onto other sites.

It was all very futile and put off more people than it entertained.

Cross forum arguments do nothing but inflame tempers and create even more bad feeling. If issues break out on a forum they should stay there and be dealt with by that forum.

There is a general understanding between most forums on behaviour and standards. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

But that was not the reason why those posts were removed, that was just a pedantic application of your rules. You don't need anything else than banning ad hominem then no other rules are needed as that solves it all and *anything* can be discussed.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Please find the argumentum ad hominem in the following insult:

Well congratulations, you got it right. I guess even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

Very simple, if it is not the subject of the thread and is addressed to one of the posters on the thread then it is ad hominem.

 

[RobHolt]

But that was not the reason why those posts were removed, that was just a pedantic application of your rules. You don't need anything else than banning ad hominem then no other rules are needed as that solves it all and *anything* can be discussed.

The problem is that we have to keep most of the people happy most of the time, or we end up with no forum.
From posts on this and other threads, your definition of ad hominem and of what constitutes a personal attack is at odds with most others.

 

[Richard Dunn]

The problem is that we have to keep most of the people happy most of the time, or we end up with no forum.
From posts on this and other threads, your definition of ad hominem and of what constitutes a personal attack is at odds with most others.

If you stopped the conflict and allowed open discussion without insult you would attract far more members.
My definition is reality, nothing more, I can give you link after link after link and all they can quote is Wiki

 

[RobHolt]

If you stopped the conflict and allowed open discussion without insult you would attract far more members.
My definition is reality, nothing more, I can give you link after link after link and all they can quote is Wiki

The forum you desire is simply not possible without either:

- Stalinist style moderation and censorship cracking down on anything remotely contentious in order to avoid possible conflict.

- Banning anyone with anything other than a docile, passive online personality because, again, strong personalities lead to heated discussions and conflict.

The forum you describe would be dead in the water.
In fact what you describe sounds like the recipe for a blog, not a forum.

 

[Richard Dunn]

The forum you desire is simply not possible without either:

- Stalinist style moderation and censorship cracking down on anything remotely contentious in order to avoid possible conflict.

- Banning anyone with anything other than a docile, passive online personality because, again, strong personalities lead to heated discussions and conflict.

The forum you describe would be dead in the water.
In fact what you describe sounds like the recipe for a blog, not a forum.

I am sorry that is fairy ding dong land. It is the easiest system possible with the least rules, least moderation, least conflict, most open discussion possible. It is happening at Subjectivist - very occassionally one of the idiots who wants to make trouble arrives, he makes trouble with an ad hominem post, it is removed and any future ones or fire backs are removed. The discussion carries on around it as though it never happened and they soon give up and piss off, you don't even need to ban them. NO discussion is ever stopped, or moderated, as no one attacks a person, only an IDEA. UNLESS the person is made the subject of the thread and then they are fair game as long as the information is honest and the truth backed up with facts and links.

Compare this with Mescalino who turns every thread I post on into a discussion of me in order to create conflict. On Subjectivist every single post would be removed until he discussed the subject or gave up, very simple, very effective. In fact I challenge him to come to Subjectivist and try his tricks, he wont be banned, he just will not have his posts lasting very long unless he discusses the subject. He can even start a thread such as Richard Dunn is a fairy loving twonk - discuss, and we will see who comes out as the idiot.

 

[danworth81]

Cant u guys put all this behind u now, its getting boring

Every recent thread has gone the same way!
Although firstly a little entertaining, its taking its toll on all of us and the OP's are being long forgotten.

Now I dont wanna be dragged into all this but come on guys, if u dont get on just ignore each other and continue the thread as if that person didnt even post.

Maybe a new AUP for going completely off subject in an adverse manner might be in order?

 

[RobHolt]

I am sorry that is fairy ding dong land. It is the easiest system possible with the least rules, least moderation, least conflict, most open discussion possible. It is happening at Subjectivist - very occassionally one of the idiots who wants to make trouble arrives, he makes trouble with an ad hominem post, it is removed and any future ones or fire backs are removed. The discussion carries on around it as though it never happened and they soon give up and piss off, you don't even need to ban them. NO discussion is ever stopped, or moderated, as no one attacks a person, only an IDEA. UNLESS the person is made the subject of the thread and then they are fair game as long as the information is honest and the truth backed up with facts and links.

Compare this with Mescalino who turns every thread I post on into a discussion of me in order to create conflict. On Subjectivist every single post would be removed until he discussed the subject or gave up, very simple, very effective. In fact I challenge him to come to Subjectivist and try his tricks, he wont be banned, he just will not have his posts lasting very long unless he discusses the subject. He can even start a thread such as Richard Dunn is a fairy loving twonk - discuss, and we will see who comes out as the idiot.

Sorry Richard but you simply do not understand how a forum works.
Subjectivist will die swiftly following your model.

We are certainly not following that model here, and will in future delete posts that divert the subject of a thread down these repetitive tangents about forum policy, ad hominem or moderation.

This thread is supposed to be concerned with manufacturers on the web.

 

[RobHolt]

Cant u guys put all this behind u now, its getting boring

Every recent thread has gone the same way!
Although firstly a little entertaining, its taking its toll on all of us and the OP's are being long forgotten.

Now I dont wanna be dragged into all this but come on guys, if u dont get on just ignore each other and continue the thread as if that person didnt even post.

Maybe a new AUP for going completely off subject in an adverse manner might be in order?

Well said.

And We're having no more of it.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Sorry Richard but you simply do not understand how a forum works.
Subjectivist will die swiftly following your model.

We are certainly not following that model here, and will in future delete posts that divert the subject of a thread down these repetitive tangents about forum policy, ad hominem or moderation.

This thread is supposed to be concerned with manufacturers on the web.

Then look where it deviated and moderate there, don't just attack the piano player.

I will remind you about that remark of "Subjectivist will die" in one year, and by saying it you are even breaking your own rules, so look to yourself.

 

[RobHolt]

Then look where it deviated and moderate there, don't just attack the piano player.

I will remind you about that remark of "Subjectivist will die" in one year, and by saying it you are even breaking your own rules, so look to yourself.

Not so, I am not bringing an argument here from your forum (difficult as I haven't posted on it other than to confirm bake-off!) - I am giving you my opinion on aspects of your policy and why I believe it to be severely flawed, in response to your own posts raising the issue.

You can discuss other forums here by all means, just don't start regurgitating old or current battles here or start criticising their moderation/moderators.
That stuff should be taken up on the forum concerned and with the people concerned.

So if you want to discuss 'ways to run a successful forum' by all means start a thread.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Not so, I am not bringing an argument here from your forum (difficult as I haven't posted on it other than to confirm bake-off!) - I am giving you my opinion on aspects of your policy and why I believe it to be severely flawed, in response to your own posts raising the issue.

You can discuss other forums here by all means, just don't start regurgitating old or current battles here or start criticising their moderation/moderators.
That stuff should be taken up on the forum concerned and with the people concerned.

So if you want to discuss 'ways to run a successful forum' by all means start a thread.

What the hell are you talking about, what argument am I bringing from Subjectivist, this is fantasy. Now you are playing games Rob this does not show you up in a good light. I have not raised any issue apart from I dissagreed with posts being removed by Dev just because they refered to another forum. Read the thread. Are you saying I am not entitled to that opinion? EVERYTHING that happened after was brought up by other posters INCLUDING YOURSELF and I have just been responding. So are you now telling me I shouldn't respond to posts addressed to me. I think in that case you will have to set up a seperate set of rules for me the same as TonyL did. Then all I become is the forum kicking boy the same as happened at PF, at the mercy of Mescalito and his like, if that is what you want I am out of here, as you will be showing your true colours.

 

[RobHolt]

Richard,

I've just spent time deleting posts relating to a row between yourself and Andrew which was aired on your forum, and I believe PFM some time ago.
I haven't accused you personally of initiating it here, but it involves both of you and so it gets deleted.
In this instance, Andrew brought up the subject first and his was the first post to be deleted, followed by your responses.
Similarly, Mescalito's post was deleted earlier today.

So please don't accuse me of playing games.
The only game being played here today is Dev & I running around deleting silly posts.

Playground cries of 'Miss Miss he started it' just look silly for all concerned.

Sorry there are going to be no special rules.

 

[danworth81]

I think thats fair enough Rob!

@Richard u seem like a pretty intelligent guy to me so, wash ur hands of the whole affair and I'm sure u wont let it affect ur life!

@Everyone else I am not favouring Richard over anyone else here and I do not know enough about the history, but I'm sure if Rob and Dev have to keep doing this to threads they are not gunna be happy bunnies!

Right now back to the OP....what were we talking about again?

Ah manufacturers on the web!

A good healthy way to promote and devote time to a customer base which at the moment seems like a really good avenue to converse and with and share knowledge with people as, alot of dealers are dissapearing and also with many peoples busy lifestyles a conversation could take place over several days through emails for instance yet still provide people with that first hand detailed knowledge of a product that not all dealers could give due to the range of products being supplied by them and the fact that the best person to speak tto about any part of an audio design would be the head honcho!

Downsides are a lack of demoing in some cases, although I know some manufacturers do offer home demos, some of the swines want a 20% restocking charge and if u are demoing gear that costs say £2000 thats £400 for the privelage!!! Sod that!

I prefer to deal straight with manufacturers in my own experiences as the service seems more personal and I feel that they are more reliable and cheaper also.

On this front I would like to give praise to Tony @ Exposure for some recent repairs, Kevin @ Talk for the same and an upgrade, Martyn @ Anatek for a service and tweaks/mods and for being one of the best ive ever dealt with and also Richard unbenown to him I had some cables off ebay last year and was pleased as punch

 

[Richard Dunn]

Ah manufacturers on the web!
Downsides are a lack of demoing in some cases, although I know some manufacturers do offer home demos, some of the swines want a 20% restocking charge and if u are demoing gear that costs say £2000 thats £400 for the privelage!!! Sod that!

According to trading standards that is illegal if you purchase on line, and they say test cases will be brought to court to stop the practice. There have been articles and news clips on tele about seriously large companies that are not applying the law correctly - growing pains IMO.