• 11-26-2003, 05:46 AM
    skeptic
    Has censorship come to this board?
    Apparantly the format isn't the only thing that has changed here In the past, this has been a very free and open place to discuss just about anything people who post care to including those subjects not related to cables. Even flame wars including anglo saxonisms were tolerated to a degree and allowed to burn themselves out. It was only a couple of years ago that anyone even had to register to post here. Many of the people who post here post at other audio related sites including Cable Asylum. That goes for Jon Risch as well. He used to post here frequently. I don't know if he just tired of this place, has been too busy with being moderator of Cable Asylum, or felt his views were too discredited to show his face very often but he apparantly still makes a rare appearance here. Because of the number of people who do post there or those who left there and come here as a real refuge to a place of free expression, there is still a lot of interest about what goes on there, although not by me. I was only there for a very brief time several years ago, left in disgust quickly and never established any attachment or interest in it.

    Well now it seems that by locking a thread and telling people who post here that discussion of that site and their moderator is off limits, censorship has arrived here and their actions cannot be criticized without meeting the approval of our own new censor in chief. Is it the approaching Thanksgiving holiday or has this new ominous element put a chill in what was ordinarily a very active message board.

    If it continues and it becomes apparant that we must watch our words because we have our own new Communist Gestapo censor to deal with, I am outta here. And that means all the boards. No more advice or counseling to newbies about speakers, amplifiers, phonograph cartridges or recordings. That would make this not the kind of place I would frequent. And unlike some others, if I leave, I for one am NEVER coming back under this moniker or any other.
  • 11-26-2003, 09:23 AM
    FLZapped
    Gobble, Gobble....
    How sweet of you to notice.....especially since the thread was starting to go a different direction of it's own volition.

    Well, Happy Thanksgiving anyway.

    -Bruce
  • 11-26-2003, 09:38 AM
    skeptic
    It seems like CA's censorship is extended here
    We have to consider the possibility that the new censor is a shill or mole for Cable Asylum and he is actually somehow associated with them or is even Jon Risch himself under an assumed moniker. Why would anyone want to protect Cable Asylum from criticism on this board? What motive would there be for the moderator to become an extension of the censorship imposed there? Does Ted, or Rod, or Jon or whoever just call up the new moderator and say, stifle that thread or don't allow any discussion or criticism of CA, especially when it starts getting close to the possibility that CA is not a open forum but actually a cleverly disguised soft sell advertising campaign for the cable industry?

    Jon Risch and Cable Asylum are a legitimate topic for discussion and opinion here. Jon Risch has presented papers to the AES expressing his views publicly and he and his web site about cables are often referred to in postings at CA....by himself (a legend in his own mind.) His off the wall ideas and the no DBT policy were reason enough to compare the censorship imposed there to the free and open discussion we enjoyed here up to now. His new policy of apparantly deleting posts which challenge him or his views are reprehensible enough but when THIS message board becomes a feifdom protecting him from any discussion here as well, we have to examine whether or not this is the intent of the people at AR or whether the new commissar of truth has taken it upon himself to tell us what we are free to discuss and what we aren't. If this message gets deleted, it will generate a large number of complaints on the other message boards on this site, to the AR board, and on other sites where the CA goon squad hasn't taken control yet. The censorship here is far more insidious and dangerous to free speech than the anti DBT rule or even the deletions at Cable Asylum. Let's hope it gets nipped in the bud.
  • 11-26-2003, 10:33 AM
    FLZapped
    Maybe....
    It's time to volunteer as a moderator....
  • 11-26-2003, 01:25 PM
    TinHere
    The cable debates embody what seperates AR from many other sites. They were certainly not the reason AR declined, but rather what helped to sustain it. Regulars having heated debates and discussions is a far cry from the trolling that pervaded the old boards and led to many people leaving. With the heated cable debates AR thrived. I hope the aim of the change over isn't to eliminate an aspect of AR that kept people coming back. Jon has always been able to defend himself and his positions here even if not to the point of changing minds.

    I hope Chris doesn't confuse heated on topic related debate with common nuisance trolling. It would be sad to see a bastion of free speech discussions morphed into what can be found in many other places. The cable forum at AR has always offered something special and different in the audio community, and I hope that continues to be the case. Fancy formats are available in many places, but lively audio debates often give way to a particular board's POV. Tough to find a place where all POV's can be questioned and debated until those involved decide for themselves that the issue is closed for the momment.
  • 11-26-2003, 01:32 PM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TinHere
    The cable debates embody what seperates AR from many other sites. They were certainly not the reason AR declined, but rather what helped to sustain it. Regulars having heated debates and discussions is a far cry from the trolling that pervaded the old boards and led to many people leaving. With the heated cable debates AR thrived. I hope the aim of the change over isn't to eliminate an aspect of AR that kept people coming back. Jon has always been able to defend himself and his positions here even if not to the point of changing minds.

    I hope Chris doesn't confuse heated on topic related debate with common nuisance trolling. It would be sad to see a bastion of free speech discussions morphed into what can be found in many other places. The cable forum at AR has always offered something special and different in the audio community, and I hope that continues to be the case. Fancy formats are available in many places, but lively audio debates often give way to a particular board's POV. Tough to find a place where all POV's can be questioned and debated until those involved decide for themselves that the issue is closed for the momment.

    Whadda you know..you probably never eat at Thai USA or Poncho Villa's anyway..Or, god forbid, pop a cold one on Co Co's deck in the summertime...

    Seriously, does the moderation group here feel the members want it that way, or is that policy open for discussion?

    Cheers, John
  • 11-26-2003, 01:59 PM
    TinHere
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jneutron
    Whadda you know..you probably never eat at Thai USA or Poncho Villa's anyway..Or, god forbid, pop a cold one on Co Co's deck in the summertime...

    Seriously, does the moderation group here feel the members want it that way, or is that policy open for discussion?
    Cheers, John

    Thai USA? Is that a town? I never had a margaritta, and the noise from Coco's never kept me up when I lived on my boat. I think I did see a Shamrock in a haze or two.

    I'm not sure what the moderators want, but it does look like things are getting discussed.

    Edited addendum:

    I took a look at the post over there and my head is spinning. I didn't read the whole thing, much of it could have been in Thai, but I didn't see mention of the power chords used on the testing equiptment. Details John. Maybe that's what makes the older equiptment as capable as the latest technology. An understandable oversite John. Sometimes the big picture gets lost in the minutiae of facts. See? No degree needed, just a willingness to believe. [note to self...Remember when talking to engineers you bought a Yammie with YPAO because using the SPL meter was a daunting task.]
  • 11-26-2003, 02:11 PM
    markw
    I would give it a try. Let all attack jon on the merits of his arguments and tey to keep from getting personal, and hope jon does the same. Remember, this ain't the same as his home field and perhaps therules are different. Let's see.

    so, I would suggest that jneutron and the others continue to body check jon. If jon can't delete posts or ban opponents, how long can he last?

    If this goes unchecked, then I'd say that chris is trying to get this to a more professional level of discussion than was here previously.

    But, if jon contines to get byatch slapped on the merits of others posts, well then, if posts are closed or deleted there is an issue.

    Let's give Chris a try on this and try to keep this at a level above "the other".

    I do wonder how far jon can continue to be battered by facts from other more knowledgleble and experienced people before he does what a man would do and admit defeat, or at least leave.
  • 11-26-2003, 03:34 PM
    skeptic
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    Remember, this ain't the same as his home field and perhaps therules are different.

    Jon has two basic problems here.

    First he tenaciously argues a point which he cannot support with credible scientific proof or even evidence to suggest that he is right. Neither can anyone else argueing his case.

    Secondly, he is a willing tool of the Cable Asylum board to stifle opinions that run counter to the prevailing premise, namely the value of audiophile cables to a fine sound reproduction system. (I have come to what seems to me the only logical conclusion as to why this happens and that is because it serves the financial self interest of the people who sponser that site, the only real reason for its existance.) In this capacity he acts as a censor enforcing their announced anti DBT discussion rule and apparantly, if we can believe some of the postings about it here, actually deleting postings that do not raise the issue of DBTs but for some other reason must be removed.

    By combining his highly opinionated stance with his power to delete anything anyone has to say which bothers him, he has become a little tin pot god controlling the entire discussion to suit his own egotistical purposes. The question for this thread is whether or not we find ourselves with our own little tin pot god who will tell us more or less the same thing.
  • 11-26-2003, 03:45 PM
    Pat D
    Jon was injured in a car accident a while ago.
    This has curtailed his activities somewhat. No need to look at censorhip. Fortunately, neither he nor his wife were killed but as I recall she had some injuries, too. A search at AA would probably show more details.

    Some people have noted that the computer logic won't accept certain words, so that is a type of censorship, I suppose.
  • 11-27-2003, 04:26 AM
    skeptic
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pat D
    Some people have noted that the computer logic won't accept certain words, so that is a type of censorship, I suppose.

    That is not censorship unless those are words which some people consider unacceptable in polite company such as anglo saxonisms. Then in the strictest sense, technically, you are correct. Otherwise that is a software glitch. However, in the truest and most meaningful sense, as long as there is no banning on the expression of some ideas, there is no real censorship. There are many words which the software will accept to express the same thoughts.

    When acting as a censor, Jon Risch is merely a poodle enforcing the policies of the owners and sponsors of his board by restricting discussions to "positive experiences" with cables as Rod put it in his proposed mission statement. If anything happened to him (and I can't imagine why anyone would wish that) there would be an instant replacement which would be equally effective at squashing any real debate.

    In one of my rare visits to that Bizzarro world a couple of months ago after a few postings here regarding an unusually vociferous bout there involving the banning of someone named Steve Eddy, I noted that there seemed to be far more flame wars there than here. This points out the falacy of the anti DBT rule effectively preventing such wars. Anyone who comes here making blanket statements about the superiority of some cable or other knows he will be challenged to back it up with more than just an off the cuff endorsement. In other words, shills will be exposed for what they are ususally quickly and unceremoniously by someone like mrtycrafts. So far not only has this served to keep discussions here on a much higher level by far (even if it isn't as technically detailed) than at CA, but it continues to point out the stark contrast between the real nature of the two sites and why this one is of value while the other is worthless (unless you happen to be in the audio cable business.) Will it be allowed to continue that way here? We'll just have to wait and see.
  • 11-27-2003, 08:02 AM
    happy ears
    Cencorship
    All depends what is involved with censorship. I do agree that insults should be limited however debating should not. I will stand by my belief that cables do make a difference, not a big difference but it is there. Some better some worse, other people may agree or disagree. Cannot not prove this and have no desire to, I hear a difference and that is all I have to stand by. I will let others prove or disprove what I hear.

    The only posts which should be deleted are those that are offensive or insulting in nature. I do not consider debating an issue to be offensive or insulting. We each have our own opinions and beliefs and a right to discuss it. So happy debating and keep the punches above the beltline.
  • 11-27-2003, 12:52 PM
    skeptic
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by happy ears
    I do agree that insults should be limited however debating should not.

    The only posts which should be deleted are those that are offensive or insulting in nature. I do not consider debating an issue to be offensive or insulting. We each have our own opinions and beliefs and a right to discuss it.

    And what kind of insult do you consider it when one debator takes it upon himself to put a gag in someone elses mouth by deleting his posts because he also happens to be the moderator? What kind of reply to that kind of offensiveness exceeds the bounds which you would impose, especially when the victim has no recourse except to complain on another bulletin board where the offender doesn't excercise that kind of control? It is perfectly understandable to me when people who have been the victims of this tyrant at the other board come here to hurl their insults at him for his outrages, especially when there is a commonality of people who post at both sites.

    If someone is being unjustly insulted for no justifiable reason, then the rest of the community will jump on him and let him know that what he says is unacceptable. But when those insults are the only possible reply to repression of the kind of expression of opinions and beliefs you say they have a right to discuss, then that seems perfectly proper to me. Furthermore, when someone who abuses other peopes' privelege of free and open discussion he enjoyed on a far greater scale which allowed him to achieve the education which has brought him professional stature, and material comforts of life, he deserves all the abuse his victims care to hurl at him and far more. I for one am offended that he claims the title of engineer at all. He gets no more respect from me than a doctor working for the Nazi's would get performing experiments on human beings would get from other doctors with even a shred of ethics or morals.
  • 11-28-2003, 04:21 AM
    happy ears
    Moderator or Debater
    I have to agree with you on this, it is very dangerous to be both the moderator and the debater. Although I consider myself to be an honest and forthright person, I have to acknowledge that having a bad day at the office or with ones partner in life, just might be enough to retaliate against someone else. Using the forum to take out my frustrations on someone else that does not have the same power that I have is not acceptable, but this is human nature. This alone makes it dangerous to be both the moderator and debater, one may think that they are perfect, but lets not fool ourselves and others.

    Deleting someone’s reply in a disagreement is unprofessional and unacceptable. This to me shows a lack in maturity or respect in others beliefs because they disagree with you. We do not have to agree with someone on any issue, but we should respect their beliefs no matter what that is. We may not understand it, but you most remember that it is their beliefs not ours. This is much easier to say than it is to do, that human nature problem again.

    There are many reasons why one should not be a moderator and a debater on the same issues. Very few of use will be able to meet the standards that this will require. So to prevent conflict in ones requirement, the best would be to avoid the temptations and problems associated with it. There is little one can do when the cards are stacked against you, *****ing does help but it does not solve the problem. I would think that when a problem like this occurs, the members should be allowed to vote to force the guilty party to be either the moderator or the debater but not both. I will even allow the person to choose which one they prefer. The members should also be allowed to vote if there is a problem with a moderators enforcement of the rules. When your are the policemen you do not get to decide what crimes will be punished, this to is much more difficult then most people realize. Hopefully these type of problems will be in the minority and not a common problem.

    Have A Great Day and enjoy the music, life is to short.

    Note: Remember to bring field stereo for these longer jobs.

    Happy Ears
  • 11-28-2003, 07:45 AM
    skeptic
    Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely
    On a message board, the power to delete postings and ban a participant is the power of life and death, the moderator being judge, jury and executioner. A message board is not a democracy, it is a protected site under the control of the owner for a specific purpose, namely advertising products to generate profits for someone. How heavy handed the owner is in controlling debate determines whether or not the site is of any potential value to the participants. In the case of AR up to now, the moderators have taken a largely hands off approach allowing debate to flow freely wherever it might go and only stepping in when it became obvious that postings had far exceeded all reasonable bounds of civility. That is one of the main reasons it is valuable and successful IMO, and even I click on the advertising sites from time to time to see what is on offer. With the closing of the posting discussing Jon Risch and the new moderator stating that discussion of another site, its policies, and the statements and actions of its moderator were off bounds for discussion here, it was exhibiting exactly the same kind of control over debate that Jon exercises at his site. Why would this happen? We have to ask why someone would want to limit discussion of another site. Is it to protect that site from criticism? Why? Has this site been infiltrated by a censor from that site? Is this moderator or someone directing him in collusion with the other site? No answers but a lot of conjecture and suspicion. So far the lock on that thread has remained however, the discussion has moved to this thread and so far it has not been locked...yet! Does this mean that the moderator of this board has had second thoughts about what he did? Does it mean that he is acting alone as a mole and doesn't want to risk showing his hand too strongly too soon? No answers but a lot of questions. I'll be watching and if you value this site, every one of you will be watching too and screaming if things change.
  • 11-28-2003, 08:31 AM
    Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
    The forum is moderated isn't it
    And seeing there is moderation in place what is the big surprise that this power would be used? If you don't like it take your concerns up with them and if you're still not happy you can always go elsewhere. Personally, I see no place for the discussion, or the degree of discussion, of personalities within any of the specific forums. The sub-title for this forum is "Cables and Interconnects - discuss them here.", not Peyton Place. Try the "Non-Audio" forum for your personal gripes of individuals or other audio forums.

    I moderate another audio forum and wouldn't appreciate anyone continually bashing another person, whether they were a member or not. And that goes for other forums as well. Take your compliants to the source directly, don't bring them to "my house". The forum I host involves discussion related to Tube Audio. Non-related disussion should be directed toward the General or Off-Topic forums. Instead of censorship [how dramatic] I've relied on contacting individuals off-line asking them to either re-direct their discussion or to keep the debate "on topic" without personal attacks. I'm not interested in what happens on other forums, my desire is to keep the discussion civil and topic related. I'm not a fortune teller but perhaps that is the reason Chris chose to lock the thread in question.

    As for moderators also being contributors. Most of our moderators are also our most prolific members. And while I do not always agree with how everyone runs "their ship" I focus on what happens within my one forum, while sharing my other concerns "off-line". And due to the quality of our membership I've not had to resort to the use of "administrative control" during my term. Like anyone else, some days treat me better than others but accepting my greater responsibility to our readership I choose my words and actions with respect for others.

    MikE
  • 11-28-2003, 10:32 AM
    skeptic
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
    I moderate another audio forum and wouldn't appreciate anyone continually bashing another person, whether they were a member or not. And that goes for other forums as well. Take your compliants to the source directly, don't bring them to "my house".

    First of all, you clearly are biased in favor of moderators having the right to use their powers of censorship without challenge by participants on their own board or anywhere else. You think that you and your counterparts should be beyond criticism for your actions not only in your own little kingdom of Audio Kharma but here and anywhere else as well. You think you are beyond the right to be held up to scrutiny or accountable in public by other people if you unfairly use your powers to enforce unreasoned censorship. You are WRONG.

    I have taken my complaint directly to the source. This board. I have stated my position clearly, that being that if censorship to the extent that any civil discourse about anything including the actions of other moderators of other boards including Jon Risch or yourself is out of bounds, then the rules are no longer acceptable to me and I'll leave. But everyone should know why and decide for themselves if that is the kind of new limitations they want to put up with. I see no reason to divert my comments to another board on this site where the participants who are directly involved with it might not see it. I don't go to the General board EVER myself and I wouldn't expect anyone here to look for my comments there.

    I occasionally post on your site and even on your board under a different moniker. But it isn't one tenth as interesting or stimulating as this one because the back and forth exchange is far more limited although I don't know the reason why. That's what's in jeaopardy here right now.

    I don't have any problem with a moderator also being a contributor but he must keep the two roles separate and not unfairly use his singular and absolute powers to skew the discussion or debate because he has no other way of advocating his point of view. But that is just what Jon Risch has apparantly done if the reports we are getting on the other thread that was locked are right. He is not merely enforcing a one sided rule which puts completely free and open discussion out of bounds, but he is now deleting entire posts which have nothing to do with his anti DBT rule because he can't refute them.

    If you don't like my posts or those like it, don't read them. Bashing is a perjorative term which infers that an individual is being unfairly attacked for actions he didn't take or are being described in exaggerated or untrue ways. Nothing could be further from the truth. The actions, whether the moderator of this board or of any other so far being discussed, have been written about in objective terms and the opinions seem fair and reasoned to me. I know that you largely agree with Jon Risch's opinions on cables and you play the same role on your board, he plays on his. Therefore your sympathy for him is understandable. What will you do if I decide to come to your board and advance an arguement about my rejection of vacuum tube amplifiers as a cult retro phenomenon being exploited as a niche market with outrageously priced ancient designs, delete me too?
  • 11-28-2003, 11:28 AM
    Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
    You make me laugh with your presumptions and attitude. You pretend to know what my motives are based on what responsibilities I have on another forum. I'm not pro-moderation and I see my role there as host not as some demigod. I could care less if that were incorporated here or any forum I choose to visit. As long as people are respecful. If that should change I would probably find another forum, than simply b!tch out loud. Either lead by example, join the administration [where you can affect change] or just go. Anything else is blowing hot air for no purpose than to hear an echo.

    The forums are seperated for a reason, if you choose not to repect that then you come under the same scrutiny as those you wish to hold to a higher standard. There is a word for that.

    My post or the discussion has nothing to do with anyone's preference of audio sites. Like the "new AR", if you don't like it than don't go there.

    All your kind and Jon are doing is arguing amongst yourselves. It has little to do with the major or the subject at hand. Which is fine but should be re-directed to a non-audio forum.

    I never said I didn't like your posts, and read posts like them for my amusement. Though, my reply wasn't directed at you, instead the broader subject - moderation. You just took it as such judging by your reply.

    Sympathy for Jon? Please, I don't like the guy let alone feel for the role he has adopted.

    As for my moderating style? There is a new poster that is generating alot of discussion at AK, and has even posted in my forum. As I told the other mods, I'm not so quick to judge him or concern myself with his motives. I'll ignore him as long as he doesn't become uncivil. Fools are not excluded from posting on any public forum. And no, that was not directed at you.

    MikE
  • 11-28-2003, 11:39 AM
    skeptic
    Actually, I enjoy reading your posts too. Hope your new Moth amp is meeting your expectations. Sorry if I over-reacted. It just annoyed me that the other post was locked up for no legitimate reason. Bruce would never have done that. I hope Chris has had second thoughts about it himself.
  • 11-28-2003, 12:36 PM
    Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
    Cool
    MikE.
  • 11-28-2003, 10:46 PM
    Norm Strong
    Moderator as poster
    The fact of the matter is that the moderator should never post in the forum he moderates. You're either a participant or a judge--but not both.
  • 11-29-2003, 12:16 AM
    tentoze
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Norm Strong
    The fact of the matter is that the moderator should never post in the forum he moderates. You're either a participant or a judge--but not both.

    Regardless of the topic of the particular discussion here, I have to say "hogwash" to that statement. I've hung around discussion groups for a few years (pre-dating the Internet, even) and moderators have never been excluded from participation. Silly statement, with no historical basis. Forum moderators are not Oracles from Delphi, sport.
  • 11-29-2003, 06:46 AM
    spacedeckman
    An orderly board
    Why can't a moderator post. If a moderator has interest in what is going on, they can add a lot to the conversation. Seems silly...almost like...CENSORSHIP...but it isn't....right?

    Civil discussions are cool. I may disagree with every one of your sorry backsides, but I'm not going to call you an idiot, moron, Nazi, Commie, question your masculinity/femininity, tell you that you are becoming a metros@*ual, ask who does your nails, or anything else. That is nothing but bullying and takes away from the reason many people come here. Heated debate is even cooler, but it doesn't have to get personal. Moderators are there to limit the destructive elements. Maybe what they should do is act like a teacher and send the post back to you for correction.

    I left a year or so ago because of the incessant personal attacks and personal bickering was starting to overshadow the whole point of having a forum. I got bored. I came back to see if it had changed. Not really. The whole concept of freedom of speech is that you are allowed to say what you want, you are not freed from the responsibilities attached to what you say, nor the repercussions. And I don't have to listen either.

    This is starting to sound too much like the presidential debates with 9 people picking on someone else, but not adding anything to the debate. It's okay to be aggressive, just remember to keep the personal attacks out of it.

    Now go out and play...nicely with others

    Space
  • 11-29-2003, 07:19 AM
    Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
    Nice post Space
    Well said. I'll admit that mixing moderating with active participation has it's downside, but as mentioned our contributions stand [or fall] on the integrity and insight of the individual behind the mask/monikor.

    MikE
  • 11-29-2003, 07:59 AM
    skeptic
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
    our contributions stand [or fall] on the integrity and insight of the individual behind the mask/monikor.
    MikE

    And if that's all there is to it, you are absolutely correct. But when the moderator uses his power to delete postings that he can't refute by logical (or illogical) arguement, this is intellectually 100% disingenuous and an outrageous abuse of his power. And according to the reports in the locked thread, that is exactly what Jon Risch did at CA and would presumably do anywhere else he had the power. That makes it absurd for anyone IMO to go there to discuss anything or look for objective debate and decide for yourself based solely on the strenght of the arguements. But then if you do decide to go there anyway, it's your nickel.