Some of the Worst Offenders in Bad Audio Forum Behavior Are Not Regular Forum Members
I've noticed first hand a disturbing trend over at Stereophile for the past couple of years that whenever someone knowledgeable challenges the mantra put forth by some of their editors, the Chief Editor, Mr. Atkinson, demands that the poster put forth personal information about themselves and any possible affiliations they may have with regard to employment that Mr. Atkinson might consider some kind of conflict of interest. Most notably, this occurred recently with a user named Archimago - a popular member of Computer Audiophile who extensively examined MQA, it's claims, and the claims made for it by Stereophile staff. Mr. Atkinson repeatedly challenged the author for his identity and professional affiliations - without which, he would disregard the message conveyed by said forum member. Mr. Atkinson has gone even further in other instances of which I personally witnessed first hand. He insists on banning from Stereophile's forum anyone whom he believes has a duty to publicly identify themselves without specifying the criteria behind the demand - other than that an industry affiliation might exist. I would encourage readers here to visit Computer Audiophile and search for Archimago /MQA discussions to see what I'm on about first hand.
The point of raising this is not necessarily to drag Mr. Atkinson through the mud but to highlight a key aspect of hypocrisy with respect to Mr. Atkinson's "policy" and how that relates to ALL online forums. Time and again, we're reminded in various forums when ideas are presented and challenged in a heated atmosphere - "FOCUS ON THE SUBJECT MATTER - NOT THE CREDENTIALS OR PERCEIVED FAILINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING HIS OR HER POINT". This in my view has always been good advice. When we "play the ball" and not "the man", it is much easier to maintain a civil exchange of ideas/experiences. So where does Mr. Atkinson's insistence on identifying qualifications of the person fit in to this concept? It seems that every time he or a staff member is personally challenged for facts, he resorts to this "policy" as a form of censorship. So basically what I"m saying here is that there's plenty of evidence that in some circles, the very people who should be encouraging us all to focus on the merits of the message - letting it stand or fall on its own without involving the supposed "credentials" of the messenger, - these people are in fact the worst offenders among us. Instead of setting a good example and sticking to it, they are doing the opposite while on occasion imploring the rest of us "regular members" to "do as I say - not as I do". I no longer participate in Stereophile forums because of this obvious cute form of censorship that has been employed. I hope that kind of thing never happens here on Audiogon. My guess, however, is that since Agon moderators aren't in the business of promoting/reviewing certain products that come along, that issue is not likely to present itself. In any case, how do you feel about the privacy rights of other forum members? Should everyone be required to put forth their real name and potential industry affiliation or should that only apply to people who appear to be trying to sell something other than knowledge in the course of posting?
"
So cj, do you have any industry affiliations, where do you live, how do
are you and do you have an EE or similar degree in acoustics or higher
mathematics?
" - vindian
I prefer to let the accuracy/verifiability of my posts speak for my credentials/qualifications. If it isn't obvious by now that I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, no amount of "credentials" are going to make the case for "who I am" any clearer for you. And once again, the topics presented in this forum are supposed to be about all things Audio. This site is not dedicated to boosting all of the fragile egos that drift throughout the world wide web on a daily basis. PLAY THE BALL - NOT THE MAN....PLAY THE BALL....NOT THE MAN....PLAY THE BALL....NOT THE MAN...
I know it's hard for people who spend most of their energy propping up belief and "confidence in experts" to break free from the habit of navel gazing and parroting the phrases of their idols and heroes. But for once, try focusing on the messages presented and if you have to, do some independent research to verify claims that are presented here on this forum. Satisfy your own curiosity with research that bolsters or denigrates the claims of others. Science is not as bad as what all the subjectivists have been telling you. It won't bite you. You may actually learn from the experience and be able to share that knowledge with others - something to be satisfied with and proud of. We all are searching for purpose in this world on one level or another. You don't have to confine that purpose to being a "believer" all the time. Being an explorer can be rewarding too.
Instead of focusing on me and the style or form of my attempt at communication, why not try following the "golden rule" of forums and enumerate the specific errors, omissions, or mischaracterizations contained in the thread that bother you so much. In other words, instead of attacking the messenger, attack the message if you have any ammunition to effectively launch such an attack. In the context of this forum, that is acceptable and expected. Labeling the thread a rant without offering any evidence to contradict the information presented is typical "subjectivist" propaganda BS.
Back to the subject of the thread. Archimago is not an individual affiliated with the audio or recording industry. If you or Mr. Atkinson have information to the contrary - BRING IT and dispense with the rheems of personal attacks on other's credibility. If you continue with personal attacks, you and your company will get them in return. And take my word for it, you live in a very large glass mansion.
No one is manipulating or controlling anything here. And John Atkinson, by censoring Archimago, "called no one out" other than himself. I would expect people in the cable industry who have relied very heavily on the whitewash pass they've gotten from Stereophile to come running to Mr. Atkinson's defense....et voila....here they come....
....Welcome to Teo Audio - Welcome to the "new physics of cables"
No offense Mr. Teo_Audio, but this thread is a "BS free zone". You will not get a "free pass" from me - either with respect to the mumbo jumbo garbage you peddle about cables or about a knowledgeable, well intentioned forum member (Archimago) who values his privacy and does not wish to be a big fat target for crooks in the recording industry.
One last thought, your rambling rant of a post above is one of the worst examples I've seen of hundreds of words slung together that say absolutely nothing. "Be professional?" " Be real?" What a joke.
How about hosting a double blind study that backs up any of the myriad of wild claims you have attributed to your products over the years. How about a scintilla of evidentiary proof by way of experiment or some kind of reproducible process that can verify anything you have to say about the products you sell? Professional??? Real???? Seriously? We're now going to get lectured by a cable manufacturer on the subject of reality, authenticity, integrity? Is this supposed to be a lame attempt at humor on your part?
By all means....throw out some more useless rants defending the indefensible. It only serves to draw more deserved attention to who you are and what you represent.
the above was an obviously biased and non factual rant.
I don’t like to ’take sides’ in these internet arguments (but it does not mean that I don’t!), as the best that can be done for a manufacturer..when doing so..is to lose market share, lose potential customers, or lose prior customers.
People bend/shift subconsciously in the face of pain/dislike more than they consciously bend in the face of reason/like. That they emote their way to a narrow path more than they think their way to clear skies. In clever hands, this unrealized (by most) aspect of humanity is a doorway for manipulation. Expect it to be used, and used often. As it is. It is a standard tool in the propaganda toolkit.
In the final analysis, forum anonymity is a backward premise that has to go. Bad actors require loopholes in order to be bad actors, and they will quite logically gravitate to places that allow for the bad acting to take place and be of service to them.
Wordsmiths aren’t automatically innocent nor clear of conscience. They are merely good wordsmiths. And since everyone does not know everything about all subjects, nor is intelligence in perception and scope of view equal in all people... then...the good, intelligent, quick witted ’wordsmith’ can bend the word in order to service an agenda, be the agenda correct and humane --- or not.
This sort of wordsmithing has been the stock and trade of the Machiavellian psychopath for as long as humans have gathered and had societies. Socially, culturally, politically, etc...wordsmithing is at the heart of manipulating, shifting and enthralling groups of people in the given varied directions. the number of wars that have been launched and fought, in the wake of directed wordsmiths are, realistically....nearly uncountable. The aspects of human life that have been manipulated by the same sort of wordsmithing are also..uncountable.
Psychopathology is everywhere and is particularly rampant-and self feeding accelerating and spreading as the methodology of commonality among forums and contentious subjects ---forums where the authors and participants are allowed anonymity.
Essentially, John is right in calling the person out.
Be professional, be real when speaking on subjects that have the fortunes of others attached to it.... be as a known entity, >> or.... shut the heck up<<<, as your words come from behind a curtain, a curtain where any motivation and agenda may be going on. Your value to the conversation must be weighted in it’s full context otherwise the missive is meaningless and/or weighted by hidden motivations and drives. Forums deserve no exemption that public speaking in groups is not entitled to. In public (in person) groups, you receive exactly zero anonymity. And bad behaviour almost never takes place there. No space for it to exist.
Importantly...Psychopaths have done incredibly well with their faces and names known. Imagine what happens when you give them a curtain to hide behind. Imagine what happens when they program AI bots. (cutting edge technology is generally -at least- a generation beyond your given public perceptions and knowing..that's just the way things are)
Thus, forums are where the psychopathic tendencies will show themselves, as they are one of the only public avenues where it can comfortably thrive..so the forums will be overloaded with such.
A clue for you, is that when you read on forums, you speak the words in your own head, and this involves the ego and the internal voice. Which is a direct doorway to the unconscious in you, the subconscious and drives/motivation system. It’s a form of auto-hypnosis.
There’s a lot more to it, but suffice it to say, when manipulating groups, forums..now that they exist..forums have become excellent tools to systems of oligarchy with respect to manipulating masses. They are difficult to control, these forums and manipulations of them... but the cheddar/opportunity of total manipulation is there in spaces, in taste, feel, and reality.... so expect it (ie, AI bot posting armies from black entities and bad actor government branches, etc) to not improve, but to worsen. Raise your game or lose it all.
"
It would seem to me that any one in the industry or with commercial
ties to it should also use their real names (unless there is some
'whistleblowing' aspect to their activities)
" whart
@whart
Yes, whistleblowing and the fear of reprisal is very much a problem with a lot of industries - not just this tiny segment of the consumer electronics industry. The trade "press" salespeople like those employed by Stereophile are looked upon as a necessary evil. It's no secret that a number of manufacturers avoid them like the plague as much of what is said in reviews bears no relation to any kind of reality. It is and has been a pay to play system for a very long time. It's not difficult for anyone with a technical background to see through most of the ridiculous smoke screens they call "reviews". Case in point (without mentioning names of people or products). A loudspeaker with an off the shelf 10 inch driver mated to a 1 inch dome tweeter was given high praise a while back. It was clear from the review/write up that a cozy relationship existed between the "manufacturer" and the editors/writers. And it was also clear that the loudspeaker had massive, highly predictable problems, which were born out in the measurements. A faint reference to poor integration between the two drivers was given without acknowledging it was a basic design flaw resulting in very uneven off axis response. The conclusion given was along the lines of "despite design challenges/compromises, the designer achieved what he set out to accomplish and with some careful setup/adjustment, the end result can be good. " What should have been said is that the designer violated some very basic principles, needlessly crippling performance because of a lack of knowledge/experience, resulting in a product that can't be recommended - especially considering there are many properly designed speakers costing many thousands less that outperform it in just about every category.
When was the last time you heard that kind of a review about anything from the likes of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound? Throughout its history, I can think of only one or two such reviews from Stereophile.
To educated professionals in the business, these trade magazines offer the illusion of integrity and honesty and nothing more. Mr. Atkinson's blatant censorship policy with respect to an unknown who has no industry affiliations - a person like Archimago - is a shining example of just how corrupt the "audiophile trade press" really is. Sadly, this pay to play game has helped decimate what was at one time a much larger market segment. The focus shift to ever more costly "audio jewelry" in recent years has accelerated the demise - to the extent that there really no longer is a presence at the CES. This year was a disaster. And the trade press have no one else to blame. With their greed, they brought it on themselves.
Perhaps you should write to Mr. Atkinson and express directly to him the concerns you are raising here. I quit reading magazines long ago so have no sense of the current editorial tone of Stereophile. If the staff is obnoxious on other fora, that doesn’t reflect well on the publication in my estimation. I do believe that disclosure of professional or commercial interests is appropriate, but if you say that Atkinson is not even-handed in imposing such requirements, you should bring that to his attention as well. Do they still publish a "reader" "Letters" section? PS: I think the real danger in not disclosing industry or commercial interests isn’t necessarily the heavy-handed sales pitch, but the presentation of information, as such, without revealing possible bias (or the appearance of bias). I don't think such bias is a foregone result of an industry or commercial affiliation. Valuable information can be provided by those involved in product development, particularly since I doubt there is much funding available outside of industry applications for such research. It would seem to me that any one in the industry or with commercial ties to it should also use their real names (unless there is some 'whistleblowing' aspect to their activities), but perhaps I'm in the minority.
Unquestionably, the editor at Stereophile can "do what he likes" with the forum he closely moderates. Not a lot of insight in that statement. Whether or not he goes on other forums and receives criticism/praise from others is equally irrelevant and lacking in pertinence or insight with respect to this thread. Factually, he has done little to curtail the excesses of some of the well known writers that appear on the Stereophile website and in print. Some of the most offensive swearing and vitriol I've witnessed in forums over the past five years has come from regular Stereophile writers and staff responding to criticism in a variety of forums on the net. The bottom line of this thread is to point up the hypocrisy of a "policy" that censors well qualified, well intentioned, and yes, WELL BEHAVED private individuals from posting information on their site simply because the information disagrees with what Stereophile and its staff are pushing - under the guise of the poster's failure to disclose his/her personal identity and possible affiliations. Mr. Atkinson may indeed be a pleasant fellow to deal with in person. That's not the subject of this thread. His errant "policy" is. You will never find him demanding such disclosure from posters who agree with his often times erroneous, misleading, or agenda ridden statements. Only those who present opposing views/evidence. If that were not IN FACT the case, you can be sure this thread would not exist.
If you go over to the Audio Asylum forums, John Atkinson is a regular in the Critics forum where most members bash various audio brands and people associated with the industry. Mr. Atkinson has been very forthright in his answers and many times he is called names, etc. I find him to be one of the most honest people in the industry and he has more integrity than most others. No, I am not affiliated with Stereophile or any other magazine or audio manufacturer. I actually feel bad for him at the beatings he takes from very unkind people and he always answers in the most professional manner.
Regarding the Stereophile forum, since it is essentially his magazine, he can do what he likes in that forum. That is my humble opinion.
Very interesting bit of info there. Thanks. For what it's worth, I don't doubt for a minute that sites requiring full disclosure have a tendency to force participants to be on their best behavior. Human nature being what it is, no real surprise there. I don't know what the percentages are. In my own personal experience (all I can base it on), "full disclosure" sites are very rare and like Nonoise eloquently stated, both approaches certainly have their strengths and challenges.
Take a trip through wineberserkers.com , a wine forum that allows anonymity. It gets every bit as childish as any other internet forum. I submit (respectfully) that you are wrong to think that wine is a topic above the fray...
I think some people use internet anonymity as an excuse to be the jerk they always wanted to be in real life. I don’t think it does the world much good, and I really would be more interested in a "real name" and "full disclosure" audio site.
I agree with everything stated so far as there are many ways a forum can be handled. It seems to all boil down to the integrity of the individual. Forum members can be anonymous and maintain levels of civility but that is not always the case, as seen here on A'gon.
Anonymity can give one license to be abusive, mean, and uncivil. Being up front about who you are demands otherwise, as if you were conversing face to face.
Demanding full disclosure from someone can be a device to intimidate and silence voices you don't want to hear from, no matter the validity of their views.
You can always find examples for both schools of thought, which doesn't make it easier to decide how to proceed. In the case you cite, I think JA went too far in trying to silence a voice he didn't want to hear.
Yes Cedar, but then, how often do you run into someone on a wine forum that blurts out something along the lines of "that merlot truly sucks!". Deep down, I think they know that being that frank would leave them high and dry on that company's next wine tasting line... Civil behavior and decorum is pretty much a requirement to play the game, no?
I think we've all witnessed that first hand on one forum or another. When the salesmanship or torpedoing gets too obvious, in most well moderated forums, the moderator steps in to either curtail the behavior or demand disclosure. I think in the fairly well known case of Archimago, however, you can see my point. Not everyone who happens to be knowledgeable and possess a contrarian viewpoint or experience, wants to have his/her name bandied about the internet. And this fact can be used as a crutch for censorship. Sadly, I think that is what has happened in Archimago's case.
While I see your point, I've also witnessed poster's here on Audiogon that have regularly withheld their professional affiliations, and ergo their potential biased conflicts of interest.
I belong to one forum (a wine forum) where real names and industry affiliations must be disclosed. It is far and away the most civil internet forum I've ever participated in. It is also the only one that has resulted in friendships outside the forum (e.g., meeting in person to enjoy wine together).
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
