# An idea to address forum toxicity in VI-C



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

As everyone knows, there's been a lot of toxicity in this forum in recent days/weeks. *I hope we avoid repeating it here*. But Christian's latest vlog posed a really interesting question I thought is worth discussing. Indicating that he frequents VI-Control, but finds it increasingly toxic, he wondered about the possibility of starting some sort of hub, and asked his YouTube viewers for their thoughts.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, with yet more toxicity (please don't!), I wonder if it's a debate that can be had here. On his YouTube video, I raised a comment, and a suggestion. I've posted both below in the interests of expanding the discussion here as I think people on this forum will have interesting and useful contributions to make, but I'm also hoping that the discussion can be civil.

*Comment*: Love the idea of a hub - the community that you are building and leading would be of great interest. Also, you seem to have managed to create the only corner of YouTube comments that is actually supportive and engaged, but agree that it's transient and not a good format for communication. Also agree entirely about the toxicity of VI-C. HOWEVER... the annoying thing about free speech is that people speak freely: sometimes that will be well considered, polite, respectful and supportive, and sometimes quite the opposite. Well, what to do about those people? Well, you could ban them from your hub (hey, it's your hub), but then (a) it becomes a lot of moderating work, and (b) it becomes an echo chamber - if people feel they will be banned for saying things that might be unwelcome (but sometimes might be useful too). So, while I love the idea of a hub, and would be an immediate subscriber, I think you have to think about what aspect of the toxicity you can/want to avoid from VI-C, and what are the consequences of doing so - the positives ones are easy to identify and endorse, but the negatives, not so much.

*Suggestion*: @christianhenson , I have an idea for the hub (maybe this, or something like it already exists; if so, I'm sure someone will inform us). Imagine if in a forum, you could only add comments as video, limited to say, 2 minutes maximum per posting, 1 posting per day. The loss of anonymity I think would cause people to lose the bravado that the internet otherwise affords them. Other forums have tried to do this by insisting on real names, but no one knows if people have provided a real name, and even if they have, it's still largely anonymous. Video is very identifiable. It would be ideal, because it would be inspired by your vlog, which is itself a man-to-camera conversation. The limited posting would prevent trolling, with endless, circular and repetitive discussions. You could then block IP addresses from users who made any attempt to conceal their identify (masks, hoods etc), or who abused the forum (requires moderation, but I imagine much less than the typical forum). It would be a true conversation between Spitfire and its customers. What do you and the people reading these comments think?

*So, could something like this work on Vi-Control?

EDIT: *that is, not the version that Christian may/may not set up, but here, with this community. Setup up in the same way, alongside or partnered to VI-C, with the same open membership, but the difference being (i) video-based contributions, and (ii) limited number of posts per day.


----------



## ghobii (Apr 6, 2018)

I think, in theory, this has a lot of merit. A big problem with conversations on the internet, is the limiting factor of text as the medium. The nuances of how something is said can be very important, and is often lost, or misinterpreted on forums like this. Especially with a large multicultural user base, many who are not native English speakers.

But practically speaking, it's much more of a pain in the ass to take the time to record a video.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 6, 2018)

If Mr. Henson or some other person wants to have his private (or business) chatroom, good for them, but what does that have to do with a public forum such as VI-C?

As for your suggestion #2: fantastic idea, I should do something like that right away. Not only do I have my own little bubble where I only talk to the people I like, I also get to regulate how often they get to speak. They've been doing that in jail with telephone calls for decades now and it seems to be working out great. I think I should do something like this is real life!


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

ghobii said:


> But practically speaking, it's much more of a pain in the ass to take the time to record a video.



Yes I think you're right, and that's almost a feature, rather than a bug, right? Would people tend to consider whether they have something interesting/significant to contribute, rather than quickly adding some toxic comment (particularly if they're limited to only say <5 comments per day)?

Also, whilst I agree that it is more impractical to record video, I doubt anyone on here doesn't own a smartphone, so recording a <2min is really no problem.


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> If Mr. Henson or some other person wants to have his private (or business) chatroom, good for them, but what does that have to do with a public forum such as VI-C?



Who said anything about it being private? Perhaps Christian's will be (who could blame him), but I bring it up here for discussion with VI-C members as a possible extension to this forum. I have no idea if/how that would work, hence my bringing it up.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> As for your suggestion #2: fantastic idea, I should do something like that right away. Not only do I have my own little bubble where I only talk to the people I like, I also get to regulate how often they get to speak. They've been doing that in jail with telephone calls for decades now and it seems to be working out great. I think I should do something like this is real life!



No one said limit who can talk (with the exception of kicking out trolls, as many fora do); the number of posts is meant to have a practical implication, so that people give consideration to what they post, since it will be more limited; the number of posts would of course be decided by that community.

Anyway, seems like you don't like the idea then? Ok, fair enough. I presume you won't be returning to this thread, as it's of no interest. No problem, thanks for your contribution to the discussion.


----------



## Phillip (Apr 6, 2018)

If people are toxic towards Spitfire there must be a reason for this. May be, just may be, there is something wrong with Spitfire? To avoid any toxicity Mr. Henson should open his own private forum - for him and his coworkers at Spitfire. That would be the most positive forum on Earth.


----------



## Kony (Apr 6, 2018)

I get the sentiment Garry but perhaps it would be good if you didn't like nasty vindictive posts just because it came from a famous composer


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 6, 2018)

Garry said:


> Who said anything about it being private?



Private as in "their own", not "hidden". Seriously, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. OK, Christian Henson finds VI-C toxic, and then there's this idea of some "hub". Logic tells me: it's a place where CH can talk to people that's not VI-C. Which means it's a Spitfire forum. Or generally another forum. Which leaves me with repeating my question: what does that have to do with a public forum like VI-C?

What's your line of thinking here? Apparently, VI-C community can be divided into a toxic and a non-toxic part, and the former is apparently comprised of SF customers. Is that what it is?


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Kony said:


> I get the sentiment Garry but perhaps it would be good if you didn't like nasty vindictive posts just because it came from a famous composer


Fair point - I don't know why that was 'liked' - maybe it was by mistake when I hit reply. If you read my 2 replies, you will see what I actually think. In my first reply, I tried to get HZ to endorse future trial demos/license transfers, and in my second, I lamented his treatment of Daniel. That tells you much more about what I think of HZ's comment, more than a 'like' (which I've now removed - thanks for pointing it out).


----------



## Phillip (Apr 6, 2018)

Because of VI criticism Spitfire and Zimmer have a chance to grow as human beings. They will be thanking us later.


----------



## Kony (Apr 6, 2018)

Garry said:


> Fair point - I don't know why that was 'liked' - maybe it was by mistake when I hit reply. If you read my 2 replies, you will see what I actually think. In my first reply, I tried to get HZ to endorse future trial demos/license transfers, and in my second, I lamented his treatment of Daniel. That tells you much more about what I think of HZ's comment, more than a 'like' (which I've now removed - thanks for pointing it out).


Thanks Garry - I had already read your other posts so I was confused by the like. Thanks again for clearing that up


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Private as in "their own", not "hidden". Seriously, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. OK, Christian Henson finds VI-C toxic, and then there's this idea of some "hub". Logic tells me: it's a place where CH can talk to people that's not VI-C. Which means it's a Spitfire forum. Or generally another forum. Which leaves me with repeating my question: what does that have to do with a public forum like VI-C?
> 
> What's your line of thinking here? Apparently, VI-C community can be divided into a toxic and a non-toxic part, and the former is apparently comprised of SF customers. Is that what it is?



Christian's 'hub' I'm assuming would be private (in the sense that he sets it up - I have no idea what rules, if any he would prescribe for people to join, so it could be entirely open to all, I don't know, he hasn't set it up yet). But I'm NOT talking about this one that Christian may set up. I'm saying that the suggestion I made to Christian, of it being a video-based community, might equally work here on VI-C, or some extension of this community.


----------



## NoamL (Apr 6, 2018)

This would all have been over 5 days ago *if people didn't try to have the last word.*

If people post something you disagree with, ask yourself if you really need to "correct" them. Have you said your ideas enough times, and clearly enough, that others can understand your view? Are you really in mortal danger of being "misrepresented" by someone else's words?

I stopped posting in HZS threads days ago and I sincerely suggest that everyone else stop too.


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Phillip said:


> Because of VI criticism Spitfire and Zimmer have a chance to grow as human beings. They will be thanking us later.


Yes, I agree - they received very useful feedback. The problem is, it's often buried in a ton of shit to wade through too. I can't be alone in wishing we could somehow improve the standard of discussion around here? By all means, provide them negative feedback (I've strongly supported Daniel's right to do so in multiple threads), and Daniel's comments have been constructive and should be useful to Spitfire. Actually, his video-response on here was one of the things that gave me the idea: what if all posts were done in this way; obviously, they can't all be 3hrs long, but the basic principle as a format is perhaps worth considering...


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

NoamL said:


> This would all have been over 5 days ago *if people didn't try to have the last word.*
> 
> If people post something you disagree with, ask yourself if you really need to "correct" them. Have you said your ideas enough times, and clearly enough, that others can understand your view? Are you really in mortal danger of being "misrepresented" by someone else's words?
> 
> I stopped posting in HZS threads days ago and I sincerely suggest that everyone else stop too.


This isn't about starting yet another HZS thread. It's about seeing if we can raise the standard of discussion. 

Can I suggest we refrain from the tendency to bring up that discussion again here - there are multiple ongoing threads to do so if people want to continue that discussion.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 6, 2018)

I think this place just needs some more stringent moderation. It's OK to argue over sample libraries. Or even put up unqualified or incompetent reviews. The community, as well as the developers - especially the developers - need to be able to handle that, or they're in the wrong business. But once someone starts calling others names or takes it to an obviously personal level, they get a time out and that's it. That doesn't have anything to do with "censorship".


----------



## NoamL (Apr 6, 2018)

Fair enough Garry. I just brought that up an example of one thing that's driving toxicity now. It's certainly not the first time we've had 20+ page posts of people chasing in circles though. I agree with @Jimmy Hellfire that at some point a moderator needs to say "Okay everybody had their say, we're done." When people start entering the conversation purely for entertainment value, to get their kicks in at the protagonists, etc. that is a good sign that productive conversation is done. When things get personal that's a sign that the party is way over.

Regarding the idea of a hub, I like VIC despite all of its flaws because it isn't run in the interests of any one company. I again agree with Jimmy that developers taking criticism (even unfair, uninformed criticism) is just part of the deal. I think developers should not be so scared of this because people build up "reputational profiles" already e.g. do you trust _my_ advice based on what I've posted and what music I've shared, etc.


----------



## Johann F. (Apr 6, 2018)

NoamL said:


> This would all have been over 5 days ago *if people didn't try to have the last word.*
> 
> If people post something you disagree with, ask yourself if you really need to "correct" them. Have you said your ideas enough times, and clearly enough, that others can understand your view? Are you really in mortal danger of being "misrepresented" by someone else's words?
> 
> I stopped posting in HZS threads days ago and I sincerely suggest that everyone else stop too.



You know what really pisses me off... all this havoc caused by one member and we lost headshot for way way way less. Please get rid of Daniel James and bring Sam back.


----------



## synthpunk (Apr 6, 2018)

Spitfire has had a forum with VERY low traffic for many years. I never seen Christian or Paul take much part in it tbh but I wish them luck if they give it another go. 

As for the vitriol around here this week, several members have mentioned to me if it continues they will not be active anymore and I agree 100% with that sentiment.


----------



## Confuzzly (Apr 6, 2018)

This just isn't a good idea.

Like others have said, it is impractical.

What about those who do not speak English well, or are simply uncomfortable speaking it? Are they no longer allowed to voice their opinion?

What about people like me who are simply not super comfortable speaking at all? Do I now have to overcome my own insecurities just to make a post on a music forum?

There are other reasons why this is simply not a good idea, but I think I got my point across.

The "solution" to the toxicity seems pretty obvious to me. Have some form of moderation. The lack of moderation on this forum has baffled me for years. A thread like the recent HZS threads would have been shut down and locked the moment they got derailed into personal attacks on any other forum I've ever visited, music or otherwise. Yet here, threads like that are allowed to exist days and days beyond the point of reasonable imo.

I simple lock alongside a post saying why a thread was locked can do wonders to a derailed topic.


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

synthpunk said:


> several members have mentioned to me if it continues they will not be active anymore and I agree 100% with that sentiment.


My thoughts exactly - would be great if there's a better way, but if not, I look forward to leaving and joining Christian's hub (or Daniel's Twitch!). Hopefully, this forum can be turned around; it can be great at times and really helpful and informative, and at others, it can be no different to every other comments section or chat forum - the pits of the earth.


----------



## synthpunk (Apr 6, 2018)

"Boy, you gotta carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time
Boy, you gotta carry that weight
You're gonna carry that weight along time"


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Confuzzly said:


> This just isn't a good idea.
> 
> Like others have said, it is impractical.
> 
> ...


Agree, it won't suit everyone, and for those it doesn't, well you can't please everyone all of the time. So yes, if it's an English-speaking forum, and you don't speak English, it does mean you can't participate directly - unfortunately, it's difficult to do anything about that, but I'm not sure its sufficient reason not to think if it could work. It doesn't of course mean that non-English speakers can't continue to use a text-based forum, such as this, so for someone like you, it would mean exactly zero change - you continue to use what have been doing in the past.


----------



## Johann F. (Apr 6, 2018)

synthpunk said:


> several members have mentioned to me if it continues they will not be active anymore and I agree 100% with that sentiment.



We had great casualties already... Verta, gone. Piet, gone. Guy, gone. Carles, gone.


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Johann F. said:


> We had great casualties already... Verta, gone. Piet, gone. Guy, gone. Carles, gone.


Interesting that (for the first time?), Christian didn't post his vlog here on Vi-C; perhaps an oversight or delay, or that may mean Christian gone too?


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

NoamL said:


> Fair enough Garry. I just brought that up an example of one thing that's driving toxicity now. It's certainly not the first time we've had 20+ page posts of people chasing in circles though. I agree with @Jimmy Hellfire that at some point a moderator needs to say "Okay everybody had their say, we're done." When people start entering the conversation purely for entertainment value, to get their kicks in at the protagonists, etc. that is a good sign that productive conversation is done. When things get personal that's a sign that the party is way over.
> 
> Regarding the idea of a hub, I like VIC despite all of its flaws because it isn't run in the interests of any one company. I again agree with Jimmy that developers taking criticism (even unfair, uninformed criticism) is just part of the deal. I think developers should not be so scared of this because people build up "reputational profiles" already e.g. do you trust _my_ advice based on what I've posted and what music I've shared, etc.


Yes, I'm not proposing this on behalf of developers. Again, I'm separating out what Christian might do with HIS hub, and what COULD be done here on VI-C. 2 different things. The discussion is useful and helpful, but not if it's had in the tribalistic way that recent discussions have been. So how do we improve that, so that we continue to get the best from the community, but avoid the conversation degenerating to name calling and taking sides. If people's comments are made via video, and they are identifiable by the comments, I think the standard of discussion would quickly be raised. I could be wrong.


----------



## synthpunk (Apr 6, 2018)

Would not be the first time they left tbh. Maybe the 4th ?

Christian's temper has gotten him taken off the help desk, and banished to Scotland.

And to call the environment toxic here and give his camera a dirty look is a insult to all the members that spend time helping people and not flogging product like some childhood actors.



Garry said:


> Interesting that (for the first time?), Christian didn't post his vlog here on Vi-C; perhaps an oversight or delay, or that may mean Christian gone too?


----------



## patrick76 (Apr 6, 2018)

Long live VIC. I am not so interested in new forums. People come and go here and not just because they don't like certain threads. If people want to bash it out and beat a dead horse I think it is fine. Agree however that maybe the threads we are talking about should possibly be locked at this point or in the near future.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 6, 2018)

If Christian is talking about a hub for his videos so he can maintain those discussions and comments for historical reasons like he mentioned in his vlog I am 100% behind him. Its a great idea, and a great way to engage directly with your audience, without having to deal with people who for some reason don't like it yet watch and complain afterwards. He has amazing content and his community really gets involved, I see no issue with him creating an enviroment for those people to chat with his vlogs being the centre of it all.

It he is suggesting a Vi-Control alternate where dissenting views, or views that don't agree with the moderators personal opinion or removed in the name of 'toxicity' then I am against it. The problem with a new hub like that is you have to have really unbiased people in charge, because who decides what is toxic and what is just a dissenting view. Like as others have mentioned, the HZS threads got really into it discussing a product. If this new 'hub' was ran by Spitfire then I would have been banned most likely, and possibly those who tried to agree....however if there was discussion on a competitors product, lets say Orchestral Tools release something...would the comments against them be regarded as 'toxic' so quickly. Also how and who determines to what degree a personal attack becomes toxic, like if someone thinks Christian isn't a very good vlogger, is that toxic? what if one member starts criticising another reviewers style or ability to do videos, is that more or less toxic than doing it to the forum owner.

I think VI Control is one of the most open and free places to discuss all things music creation focused. This place has its moments of negativity but very rarley would I use the word Toxic. And the speed at which people these days actually reach for that word 'Toxic' to describe it worries me about how much freedom would be permitted if they had control.

-DJ


----------



## Geoff Grace (Apr 6, 2018)

The most civil forum I participate in is also the most heavily moderated. There's still room for engaging discussion, but ad hominem attacks are absolutely not allowed.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## leon chevalier (Apr 6, 2018)

This is really toxic


----------



## ka00 (Apr 6, 2018)

I have an idea. An 'ignore threads' feature. As much as we'd like to think we have the will power to not get dragged into certain threads where all hell is breaking loose, a feature like that would go a long way to reducing traffic to such threads. You click ignore on the thread and it disappears from view unless you disable that feature.

By the way, is there a feature like that already and I just can't find it??


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 6, 2018)

There are over 66,000 threads in this forum and 866,700 posts. Sometimes a few threads and posts—which probably make up less than 1% of all the threads at VIC—slip into drama for a few days and afterwards everyone will forget it, or it will become a running joke on the forum.

People are getting worked up over random posts by random people about random products in a random forum in a random corner of the internet? If you're that weak-minded, you have major psychological problems and do not belong anywhere on the internet. No one is being forced to participate in any thread. You can't jump into the snake pit willingly and claim you've been pushed in.

The very notion of "toxicity" is so vague that it could mean anything. It is usually the case that the people screaming about toxicity are the most toxic elements in the discussion. "Addressing forum toxicity" is nothing more than a call for censorship disguised as some kind of moral/ethical imperative.


----------



## muk (Apr 6, 2018)

ka00 said:


> By the way, is there a feature like that already and I just can't find it??



There is. It is called 'Ignore Thread'. Open the thread you want to ignore, and at the top right there is a button 'Thread Tools'. That's where to find it.


----------



## ka00 (Apr 6, 2018)

muk said:


> There is. It is called 'Ignore Thread'. Open the thread you want to ignore, and at the top right there is a button 'Thread Tools'. That's where to find it.



Amazeballs. Thanks, muk!

Does everyone know about this already? I feel like it would solve so many problems.


----------



## Paul Owen (Apr 6, 2018)

leon chevalier said:


> This is really toxic



You baited. I clicked. Shoulda seen it coming!


----------



## ka00 (Apr 6, 2018)

muk said:


> at the top right there is a button 'Thread Tools'



Weird. I don't see this 'Thread Tools' option anywhere.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Apr 6, 2018)

This has got to be the LEAST TOXIC forum bar none in my experience. It rarely gets out of control and your skin is a little TOO thin if you can't handle the latest HZS controversy. The anonymity of the internet has people saying things without regard of consequences sometimes that they would never say to someone in person, that's the nature of the beast. YouTube is really the absolute lowest...


----------



## Ron Kords (Apr 6, 2018)

Block user (not thread) would be a means to sort a lot of this out with a button at the foot of each comment.

Not sure if ignore user is the same? Probably is but never used it. It should be more prominent and accessible on every comment.

No-one gets hurt, trolls and idiots hate it.


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> If Christian is talking about a hub for his videos so he can maintain those discussions and comments for historical reasons like he mentioned in his vlog I am 100% behind him. Its a great idea, and a great way to engage directly with your audience, without having to deal with people who for some reason don't like it yet watch and complain afterwards. He has amazing content and his community really gets involved, I see no issue with him creating an enviroment for those people to chat with his vlogs being the centre of it all.
> 
> It he is suggesting a Vi-Control alternate where dissenting views, or views that don't agree with the moderators personal opinion or removed in the name of 'toxicity' then I am against it. The problem with a new hub like that is you have to have really unbiased people in charge, because who decides what is toxic and what is just a dissenting view. Like as others have mentioned, the HZS threads got really into it discussing a product. If this new 'hub' was ran by Spitfire then I would have been banned most likely, and possibly those who tried to agree....however if there was discussion on a competitors product, lets say Orchestral Tools release something...would the comments against them be regarded as 'toxic' so quickly. Also how and who determines to what degree a personal attack becomes toxic, like if someone thinks Christian isn't a very good vlogger, is that toxic? what if one member starts criticising another reviewers style or ability to do videos, is that more or less toxic than doing it to the forum owner.
> 
> ...




I don't think Christian was aiming to squash all dissent - I think we should in general avoid trying to attribute mental states and infer intentions to people all the time, when none such were stated; he just said he was thinking of creating a hub, and asking for feedback as to whether that would be welcome. He was clearly also exasperated, and I get his frustration. There is no doubt, to me at least, Christian and Paul are decent people, who try to create decent products for a community and industry they care deeply about. They have definitely made mistakes with their latest one, both with the product itself, and its rollout, no doubt. But none of this was done with mal intent. He was simply asking the question if there is a way of capturing the conversation in a format which is less toxic. I don't object to the word 'toxic': it's clear what he means: the number of posts who clearly just revel in the name-calling, and are ecstatic when a conversation turns ugly, because they see it as entertainment, and get out the popcorn. I despise this. People can call me thin skinned all they like, but if that's what people come here for, and find it acceptable, then I disagree. It doesn't mean I have psychological issues (see how quick people were to start throwing insults - this thread itself is an indication of how much a problem there is) if I see the childish behaviour of some as unproductive, even from our more famous VI-C members.

I do agree with you Daniel that the value of such a hub would depend how it is run, and how dissent is addressed (I say this in my 'Comment' part of the opening post. Indeed, this is why I would be more interested in a VI-C approach if my suggestion were to be adopted of using video-based, rather than text-based contributions. If a company owns it, it is hard to see how it wouldn't become too restrictive, particularly when their customers have genuine grievances that they want to express. In my mind, this new suggested hub in the first instance would be the same structure and premise as VI-C, just accepting video-only input, not text.

But the video suggestion was just that, a suggestion, to open up discussion about how to raise the quality of debate here, so that we don't have to wade through 20+ pages, >70% of which is, yes, _toxic_, to get to the remaining parts which are useful information, whether or not they're supportive to a particular product or developer. I think there's mileage in it, but if people have better suggestions, it would be great to share them.


----------



## rottoy (Apr 6, 2018)

Johann F. said:


> Please get rid of Daniel James and bring Sam back.


Why stop there? Bring back waterboarding and execution squads as well.


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Jay Panikkar said:


> If you're that weak-minded, you have major psychological problems and do not belong anywhere on the internet.



You are proving my point.



Jay Panikkar said:


> No one is being forced to participate in any thread. You can't jump into the snake pit willingly and claim you've been pushed in.



Yeah, but I wasn't looking for a snake pit, I was just looking to discuss sample libraries with other people who share a common interest, that's all. Perhaps learn from others who have been at this game longer than me and can shed some light on questions I might have.



Jay Panikkar said:


> The very notion of "toxicity" is so vague that it could mean anything.



To me, it simply means that the value of the discussion is degraded, such that the real pieces of information become difficult to find, hidden amongst numerous posts from people who have no interest in the topic, and are only interested in ridiculing others. I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to find an example...



Jay Panikkar said:


> It is usually the case that the people screaming about toxicity are the most toxic elements in the discussion. "Addressing forum toxicity" is nothing more than a call for censorship disguised as some kind of moral/ethical imperative.



...There you go, great example. No need for it, makes entirely unwarranted assumptions, adds nothing to the main objective of the discussion. Toxic.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 6, 2018)

(noir dick voice): "Look, awright? Dis might be the seedier side 'o town, but we're not talkin' broads taking baths in their socks or anything..."


----------



## Zhao Shen (Apr 6, 2018)

Let's just step back and consider - why are talking about toxicity _now_? And what do we define as toxicity?

Because the answer to those questions can be extremely telling. Is it extreme language and blatant disrespect for the opinions of others that characterizes toxicity? If so, yes that exists here, and it has for a while. So is it the poor reception to HZS that makes it a problem now?

Let's be absolutely clear - it is *not *toxic to publicize your negative opinions on a product. Let's assume I fucking hate HZS with all my heart. I can rant about it. I can tell you why it's awful. I can tell you why you should never buy it, not in a million years, and why I'd rather buy literally any other string library first. None of what I just said is inherently toxic. It's my own opinion, and I believe it wholeheartedly (or I would, if I actually thought that). If Christian sees those opinions as toxic, rather than the way I convey those opinions, then he's just worried about Spitfire's reputation, not toxicity.

I think we can all agree that the negative response toward HZS isn't some random concerted effort to spew Spitfire hate. There are many issues with the product and many people are truly disappointed. Do some people go too far? Yep. That's a problem. But I hope everyone is seeing toxicity as a general attitude that manifests clearly with the response to HZS, not as an issue with the response itself.

Bottom line: toxicity is not a result of opinion, but of attitude. Toxic Spitfire fanboys exist. Toxic Spitfire haters exist. If you find something toxic because it does not align with your own beliefs, you are the problem.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 6, 2018)

Garry said:


> I don't think Christian was aiming to squash all dissent - I think we should in general avoid trying to attribute mental states and infer intentions to people all the time,



I know, thats why I started with what I think Christian was suggesting about it being a place for his vlog viewers to chat. I think thats a great idea.

An alternative to Vi-Control I think is a bad idea. The level of toxicity here is actually pretty low compared to the internet as a whole. And the mods here have proven to be pretty unbiased in most regards. A company run hub would not be a place for free discussion. Look at the old SoundsOnline (EW) forums. They end up as little echo chambers of people agreeing which never helps to push any discussion or concern forward.

I am not saying _Christian_ was implying an alternate Vi control, I am saying the notion of if thats what people think when they hear hub is a bad idea.

-DJ


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Zhao Shen said:


> Let's just step back and consider - why are talking about toxicity _now_? And what do we define as toxicity?
> 
> Because the answer to those questions can be extremely telling. Is it extreme language and blatant disrespect for the opinions of others that characterizes toxicity? If so, yes that exists here, and it has for a while. So is it the poor reception to HZS that makes it a problem now?
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree completely. Dissent is not toxicity. To be clear: I didn't buy HZS, I defended Daniels criticisms, rebuked HZ for his comments, I noted that Daniel's unboxing/first look was largely confirmed by Reuben's review, and I encouraged Spitfire users to vote with their wallets to insist that trials demos and/or licence transfers are mandatory on their products. I'm also a Spitfire customer, and think they make great products, a couple of which I own.

I have nothing against dissent. I come from a Trade Union family - dissent is in my blood.

This is a broader question about the nature of Internet forums. We can either just roll over and accept that people's most base instinct is unavoidable in a faceless medium in which comments can be made and conversations derailed with no consequence. Or we can try to remove the aspects of this that facilitate the cowardice that underlies people's confidence in making statements they wounldn't dream of doing if they were identifiable. I'd like to remove the planks that support such cowardice, that's all.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 6, 2018)

@Garry

No, _you_ are proving _my_ point.



Jay Panikkar said:


> The very notion of "toxicity" is so vague that it could mean anything.



Anything and everything can be deemed toxic according to your standard. Anything posted in jest will be toxic. Any general statements and observations will be toxic. Any critique will be toxic.



Jay Panikkar said:


> It is usually the case that the people screaming about toxicity are the most toxic elements in the discussion. "Addressing forum toxicity" is nothing more than a call for censorship disguised as some kind of moral/ethical imperative.



My previous comment is clearly not aimed at _you_ specifically but you sought to tactfully quote a very specific part of my comment to make it look like a personal attack for maximum effect.



Jay Panikkar said:


> People are getting worked up over random posts by random people about random products in a random forum in a random corner of the internet? If you're that weak-minded, you have major psychological problems and do not belong anywhere on the internet. No one is being forced to participate in any thread. You can't jump into the snake pit willingly and claim you've been pushed in.



And then deem it "toxic" and part of some grand problem in which you—and only those you agree with—are the moral arbiters. Only those opinions which you have deemed in advance to be appropriate are to be allowed.

What a primordial way of thinking!

This forum is not about _you_. There are thousands of people here from diverse backgrounds who hold diverse viewpoints and interests. By your own logic, it's toxic to suggest that those with certain viewpoints and interests should be filtered from the forum.



Garry said:


> There is no doubt, to me at least, Christian and Paul are decent people, who try to create decent products for a community and industry they care deeply about.



What is particular telling here is that this thread exists only because a random person dared to critique a product from a premium brand in which you're personally invested in and and many others dared to agreed with his critique.

We can go around in circles all day.


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Jay Panikkar said:


> @Garry
> 
> We can go around in circles all day.



We can, and you'll continue to prove my point. 

So here's a test: since you don't like this idea I've proposed, then I won't see you back here on a thread that you think is flawed from the start, since it's definition of the toxicity it seeks to remedy is fundamentally flawed, in which I, and others like me, place myself as the 'moral arbiter', and that the very fact of me starting this thread is indication itself that I have major psychological problems and can't take the pressure in the snake pit. Surely with all that, you would have no interest in returning, or commenting further.

However, if instead your next post makes the same points repeatedly again, throwing further insults, then we'll know that you're here purely for the argument, and not for the discussion, and you will again prove my point for me. Only this time, you'll be shouting into a vacuum.

Yup, no toxicity on VI-C.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 6, 2018)

Garry said:


> We can, and you'll continue to prove my point.
> 
> So here's a test: since you don't like this idea I've proposed, then I won't see you back here on a thread that you think is flawed from the start, since it's definition of the toxicity it seeks to remedy is fundamentally flawed, in which I, and others like me, place myself as the 'moral arbiter', and that the very fact of me starting this thread is indication itself that I have major psychological problems and can't take the pressure in the snake pit. Surely with all that, you would have no interest in returning, or commenting further.
> 
> ...



This is a forum in which I participate in. If anyone suggests that it be censored because they don't agree with certain things—especially an undemocratic and dangerously biased individual like you—then I will absolutely argue it.

Predictably, and once again, you are now attempting to play the victim so you can portray this as a personal attack. And in doing so, you have created the "toxic" thread that you wanted all along. Pathetic!


----------



## Garry (Apr 6, 2018)

Jay Panikkar said:


> This is a forum in which I participate in. If anyone suggests that it be censored because they don't agree with certain things—especially an undemocratic and dangerously biased individual like you—then I will absolutely argue it.
> 
> Predictably, and once again, you are now attempting to play the victim so you can portray this as a personal attack. And in doing so, you have created the "toxic" thread that you wanted all along. Pathetic!



Yup... no toxicity here folks.


----------



## Robo Rivard (Apr 6, 2018)

Toxic people should be used as human shields.


----------



## KEM (Apr 6, 2018)

How about everyone grows some thick skin and quits getting upset over what a random person on the internet says. This is forum, and from what I’ve seen the most of the people here are respectful. This isn’t a forum like KanyeToThe where it’s all out brawls on every thread. Wherever there’s a lot of people there will always be arguments and a few bad apples, but that’s just the way things go. This forum isn’t even toxic.


----------



## davidgary73 (Apr 6, 2018)

Use the ignore thread and ignore user function. This will help to cut off reading useless meaningless trolling post.


----------



## Arbee (Apr 6, 2018)

I'd just like to add my 2 cents. I suspect like many others, I'm not happy about being "an audience" at VI-C or "a sitting duck for social media sales and marketing, or to help sponsor the building of online celebrities and proclaimed experts". I just come here to get a balanced view of normal folk's experiences with ALL of the major sample libraries and synths, and any new gems that have entered the market. That simple. Level playing field. No sponsored opinion. No posturing or positioning. Edit: just to clarify, I'm perfectly happy with open and fully disclosed advertising.

Some people and some businesses need to get over themselves and their perceived branding on this forum, that's not why I come here. I feel better now......


----------



## yhomas (Apr 6, 2018)

Garry said:


> As everyone knows, there's been a lot of toxicity in this forum in recent days/weeks. *I hope we avoid repeating it here*.
> ...
> the annoying thing about free speech is that people speak freely



Christian is a genuinely wonderful human being, and I can see how he might feel that VI-Comtrol is "toxic", but I disagree with that premise. 

The fact is that VI-Control has thousands of threads, only a relative hadfull of which some _might_ consider "toxic". It's not that hard to simply choose to not read threads that one considers counterproductive. 

In my opinion, a lot of very nice, well intentioned people have difficulty tolerating it when other people misbehave with their speech. These sort of people tend to use what power they have to stop the misbehavior, and if they can't stop it, they eject--epitomizing the phrase "take their toys and go home". To justify their own intolerance, they label the whole thing as "toxic"/counterproductive/etc. 

Nonsense. VI-Control is not toxic; calling it such is objectively unreasonable and an insult to this fine community/resource/"hub".

If you go back and look at Christian's history, he's a heavy VI-Control participant (and great contributor)--making around one post per day going back quite a while. Has he spent the last X years bemoaning the toxicity here? Probably not. 

Even among these recent ostensibly "toxic" threads, there is a good deal of _excellent_ content and entertainment, and lots of good points made by all sides in their cross examination of one another.

Did things get taken too far? Sure, but it is easy enough to stop reading once one thinks things have gone far enough. The fact that a few people may have gotten their feathers ruffled in a few threads doesn't at all impair the virtue of this forum as a whole. 

(In the same way, neither does an occasional bit of intolerance cause a genuinely wonderful human being to cease to be such.)

If one accepts the ethical prerogative of free thought/speech, one must also generally embrace tolerance for what one finds disagreeable.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 6, 2018)

It all started with HZ calling someone a twat and getting away with it.


----------



## Phillip (Apr 6, 2018)

Being rude is different to free speech.


----------



## yhomas (Apr 6, 2018)

Phillip said:


> Being rude is different to free speech.



Nevertheless, for freedom of speech to exist in practice, there must be a healthy level of tolerance for rudeness--even to the point where tolerance it's self is viewed as an ethical prerogative. 

For example, what if I am "rude" about the king/president/PM? Should such be tolerated? Probably so.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Apr 6, 2018)

While I don't find this site to be toxic, I think I can understand why *Christian* would at this point in time. After all, HZS was by far Spitfire's biggest project ever with a massive number of strings and a newly minted software host for the library; and after all that work, he was met with a powerful wave of criticism leveled at the product, the company, and even at *Christian* himself—some of it personal. It must have been terribly frustrating.

We can set aside whether or not this was merited as it's been discussed ad nauseam. I'm just trying to imagine his perspective, to consider why he would describe this place as toxic.

It's to our benefit not to chase off people from the top of our industry who share their knowledge with the community. I've seen it happen repeatedly in other forums, and it's a significant loss. Granted, there's a lot we do to help each other; but *Christian* has a rare vantage point and he's been very generous about sharing his experience. I hope he'll decide to stick around.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## nulautre (Apr 7, 2018)

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 7, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> he was met with a powerful wave of criticism [...] even at *Christian* himself



Has he really though? I wasn't in for the whole shit show so I might have missed something. Don't see why anyone would see the need to criticize the man himself.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Apr 7, 2018)

Nor do I. *Christian* alludes to such examples, though, in this post:



christianhenson said:


> (snip)
> 
> My ‘troll’ comment if you read my post above is directly aimed at people who have stated HZS as some form of marketing stunt. It is unfair ridiculous and trolly in my mind. As it is dissonant with the way that HZ, PT myself and the whole Spitfire team work, how our parents brought us up... it’s a core criticism that just hurts too much to be ignored.



Best,

Geoff


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 7, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> While I don't find this site to be toxic, I think I can understand why *Christian* would at this point in time. After all, HZS was by far Spitfire's biggest project ever with a massive number of strings and a newly minted software host for the library; and after all that work, he was met with a powerful wave of criticism leveled at the product, the company, and even at *Christian* himself—some of it personal. It must have been terribly frustrating.
> 
> We can set aside whether or not this was merited as it's been discussed ad nauseam. I'm just trying to imagine his perspective, to consider why he would describe this place as toxic.
> 
> ...



Also its worth mentioning that toxicity goes both ways. For example check the comments section on say Christians newest vlog or Homeys Spitfire walkthrough. You will find on one side that you have people commenting on the video or the product for good or bad, its a discussion about the video and its contents. On the _other_ hand you have comments about me as a person, being called all sorts of names and commenting on my abilities as a composer. Totally irrelevant to the point of the videos but nothing more than a toxic response to defend their particular camp. I get the feeling that is the exact kind of Toxicity Christian hints at. Yet there seems to be little action being taken on their own videos. I feel a little practise what you preach wouldn't go a miss. I always tend to remove comments that are just trying to start a fight with someone or are attacking a person directly. If they disagree with me I will challenge it, but if they just leave Daniel is a douchebag, I am gunna remove it.

If comments against me as a person are allowed to stand in the _current_ hub of their Youtube comments, I fear that this one sided 'toxicity' will continue to propagate in their 'protected' hub. Thats why I think VI-Control is important as it is. Sure you will get similar snarky comments like Christian + Spitfires youtube comments sections...in both directions. But here they can be called into question with more accountability, with an unbiased moderator to step in should things get either too off topic or too personal.

At the end of the day its up to Christian and Spitfire if they want their own hub for comments, but as it currently stands it seems like they should check the toxicity of their own community before labelling others as such. I did nothing other than take a first look at their product. I have not attacked any of them personally. I even engaged my social media audience specifically not attack anyone but to argue the points and to not take their comments outside of the Vi-Control debates. It would be nice to see a similar gesture from the other side of this whole thing, but I imagine seeing me get such a personal public lashing from their supporters feels good. Which I get, but I really expect companies and personalities of their caliber to rise above a _little_.

-DJ


----------



## Kony (Apr 7, 2018)

Garry said:


> The loss of anonymity I think would cause people to lose the bravado that the internet otherwise affords them. Other forums have tried to do this by insisting on real names, but no one knows if people have provided a real name, and even if they have, it's still largely anonymous. Video is very identifiable. It would be ideal, because it would be inspired by your vlog, which is itself a man-to-camera conversation.


Just to clarify, this is what DJ did yet it attracted a lot of opinions stating that it was toxic. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that a man-to-camera conversation doesn't prevent what some might consider negative commentary. I don't think the anonymity and bravado link is correct btw - I see people everyday in real life exhibiting the same amount of bravado with their opinions in the interests of saving face. Ricky Gervais addressed this perfectly when he said that people on the internet treat their opinions as facts.... But this can be extended into real life face-to-face conversations.

For what it's worth, I post on VI-C exactly what I would say in person although I have been accused of hiding behind an alias. As others have mentioned in another thread about identity, some post here under an alias in the interest of privacy. In terms of debate, I tend to favour the Bertrand Russell or Socratic form of dialectic enquiry - ie exploring all aspects, from all sides, negative and positive. Wiki sums it up better:

"A discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments".

The hub idea is an interesting one - but why wouldn't it be better (in the Spitfire example) for them to put more effort into social media to address any perceived negativity? I only ask because if, as it would appear, this is an exercise in brand management and damage control, then that would surely have to focus on this forum - ie hiving off to a Spitfire hub is not going to change anything over here at VI-C. And it's not going to change anything in terms of reviews posted by others on YouTube or Twitch and elsewhere. So why not tackle any perceived negativity head-on. I also have concerns about censorship in a company-owned hub....

If the hub idea is being floated to tackle recent events and to manage them in the future, that's not going to stop a YouTuber's 30,000+ followers from seeing his first look videos. I mentioned in another thread that Spitfire's efforts surely could and should have been focused on engaging with all of its customers to alleviate any issues and negativity surrounding the HZS release for example - and this should have been done prior to and after launch. 

And all of this also depends on what the definition of toxicity is, and I think that would have to be defined first....


----------



## NoamL (Apr 7, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> Also its worth mentioning that toxicity goes both ways. For example check the comments section on say Christians newest vlog or Homeys Spitfire walkthrough. You will find on one side that you have people commenting on the video or the product for good or bad, its a discussion about the video and its contents. On the _other_ hand you have comments about me as a person, being called all sorts of names and commenting on my abilities as a composer. Totally irrelevant to the point of the videos but nothing more than a toxic response to defend their particular camp. I get the feeling that is the exact kind of Toxicity Christian hints at. Yet there seems to be little action being taken on their own videos. I feel a little practise what you preach wouldn't go a miss. I always tend to remove comments that are just trying to start a fight with someone or are attacking a person directly. If they disagree with me I will challenge it, but if they just leave Daniel is a douchebag, I am gunna remove it.



I hear ya completely DJ.

It's a matter of trusting people to see through the shitstorm, no matter how attacked you feel. For example, can you trust people to take "Daniel can't write music LOL" in the context of it's an anon YouTube troll attacking someone whose music shipped in more than 6 million copies of MGS TPP? I think you absolutely can! Take pride in your work and achievements mate! These venomous comments cannot hurt you.

Not having the last word against everyone who attacks you, is not about "being the bigger man" or "turning the other cheek" or anything like that, it's just that you can trust other people to build their own models of what statements are credible & not credible. Sometimes some statements are so venomous and irrational that they're self defeating.





Kony said:


> For what it's worth, I post on VI-C exactly what I would say in person although I have been accused of hiding behind an alias.



A really good rule to follow!


----------



## dflood (Apr 7, 2018)

So far I have found this forum to be relatively tame, but in case we ever need a new motto:




(comments left on Christian's latest YouTube post)


----------



## Desire Inspires (Apr 7, 2018)

Confuzzly said:


> What about people like me who are simply not super comfortable speaking at all? Do I now have to overcome my own insecurities just to make a post on a music forum?



Yes, do it!


----------



## chapbot (Apr 7, 2018)

Would anyone care to succinctly explain to me what the fuss is over the HZ library? I read lots of rants but didn't feel like scrolling through a thread with 1,000 posts or watch a 5 hour youtube video to get a clear understanding lol


----------



## Geoff Grace (Apr 7, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> Also its worth mentioning that toxicity goes both ways. For example check the comments section on say Christians newest vlog or Homeys Spitfire walkthrough. You will find on one side that you have people commenting on the video or the product for good or bad, its a discussion about the video and its contents. On the _other_ hand you have comments about me as a person, being called all sorts of names and commenting on my abilities as a composer. Totally irrelevant to the point of the videos but nothing more than a toxic response to defend their particular camp. I get the feeling that is the exact kind of Toxicity Christian hints at. Yet there seems to be little action being taken on their own videos. I feel a little practise what you preach wouldn't go a miss. I always tend to remove comments that are just trying to start a fight with someone or are attacking a person directly. If they disagree with me I will challenge it, but if they just leave Daniel is a douchebag, I am gunna remove it.
> 
> If comments against me as a person are allowed to stand in the _current_ hub of their Youtube comments, I fear that this one sided 'toxicity' will continue to propagate in their 'protected' hub. Thats why I think VI-Control is important as it is. Sure you will get similar snarky comments like Christian + Spitfires youtube comments sections...in both directions. But here they can be called into question with more accountability, with an unbiased moderator to step in should things get either too off topic or too personal.
> 
> ...


*Daniel*, I can understand why you would find those YouTube comments to be toxic. I'm really hard pressed to see any value to ad hominem attacks in any medium, and it's easy to see the harm. You've weathered your own powerful wave of criticism in this matter. I imagine you must be quite frustrated as well.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## MatFluor (Apr 7, 2018)

Forums are nice for "storing" information. Bit I personally think that we have more than enough forums already.

I'm a guy who grew up with the early Public Internet (I was born in '85). BBS and Pater IRC was the way to go. Meanwhile it shifted to discord. I love live chat for various reasons - and there's immediate moderation, because the mod can simple directly talk to the person in real time - "Hey, stop it" is often enough.

We on the linked discord have a friendly community, but we also keep trolls and toxicity at Bay - hard offenders get kicked or even banned if needed. Our "side community" grows and very very rarely had something like this. And if some opinions suddenly peak, a day later it's gone unless you want to scroll up like crazy. It's like a fight in a bar - a few hours later nobody cares about it. In forums there toxic threads float around for days, and some guy who thinks he's funny bumps the thread up again and the onslaught continues. Not so with Discrod/Live chat.

So @christianhenson my suggestion is simply a live chat. Preferably discord (text, but also voice chats in groups as well as direct video and audio calls) since they already habe a well working infrastructure and means for great control (channels and roles) and much more. Discord is free to use, you can use it with an Installateur Program or with the Webbrowser.

I'm happy on the VI-C discord server, great people, great community, learned tons since I joined many moons ago and had very good conversations. I don't tag the forum members who are on there, but we're a nice bunch. I don't need "yet another" community from CH, I'd rather get more people in our discord and do meaningful and quick moderation - the way it's done now. (I'm not a mod myself over there)


----------



## yhomas (Apr 7, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> Also its worth mentioning that toxicity goes both ways. For example check the comments section on say Christians newest vlog...



I can agree about the bidirectional aspect, but at the same time, I think you would be the first to agree that CH's vlog is not a "toxic" atmosphere.

I totally understand CH being insulted--not denying that; I just think that being occasionally insulted by detractors is a normal part of life.


----------



## mc_deli (Apr 7, 2018)

Moderate!
Move the rubbish into OT
Move the reviews, promotions and shilling out if Sample Talk.
Delete insults
Warn about posters who think they know what others are thinking - there's a lot of that.
And yes, take responsibility for our own part in the toxicity.
Musicians helping musicians, not this drivel, please.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 8, 2018)

An in depth topic that:

1. AGAIN is about Spitfire Audio in some way
2. Involves people arguing about whether they're arguing too much or "wrongly". Oh the irony...

Btw, I skipped to the end to make this pithy comment, as the idea of reading yet another 5 page self righteous thread was more than I could bear.


----------



## Dr Belasco (Apr 8, 2018)

Larry, aren't we a little too old to be in thread like this.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 8, 2018)

This "discussion" is deviating from the actual issue here.

A developer releases an overhyped and broken product that cannot be returned, or resold. A critic points out its flaws in a forum. The developer gets scrutinized by members of the forum for releasing an overhyped and broken product. And then the developer has the gall to point fingers at the critic and members of the forum when it is their fault—and theirs alone—for releasing an overhyped and broken product in the first place? This is utterly ridiculous!

That's the most annoying aspect of all this drama.

This has nothing to do with @Daniel James, his supposed evilness and "toxicity." Spitfire Audio has purposefully painted a giant bullseye on @Daniel James to distract from their bad release and deflect the negative feedback. If SA is actually concerned about "toxicity," they should address their own first. Or better yet, they should be subject to their own rules on "toxicity" and confined to the Commercial Announcement space with all their other content thrown out of VIC.

VIC has more than enough moderation to deal with actual issues. What makes VIC special is that individuals can agree to disagree all day without being destroyed by communist moderation. In the vast majority of cases, disagreements don't break out into a larger issue. In fact, more issues have been caused by developers making a scene than by the members at VIC. The current situation is no different.

@Arbee, as usual, is spot on.



Arbee said:


> I'd just like to add my 2 cents. I suspect like many others, I'm not happy about being "an audience" at VI-C or "a sitting duck for social media sales and marketing, or to help sponsor the building of online celebrities and proclaimed experts". I just come here to get a balanced view of normal folk's experiences with ALL of the major sample libraries and synths, and any new gems that have entered the market. That simple. Level playing field. No sponsored opinion. No posturing or positioning. Edit: just to clarify, I'm perfectly happy with open and fully disclosed advertising.
> 
> Some people and some businesses need to get over themselves and their perceived branding on this forum, that's not why I come here. I feel better now......



On a larger note, the media/entertainment business is an extremely competitive market loaded with all kinds of rogues, iconoclasts, narcissists and worse. This is because weirdness, madness and creativity greatly overlap. It is an inescapable and inevitable part of any creative endeavour. You will meet people who may be radically different from you, who come from widely different backgrounds, who may be rude, belligerent and eccentric. If you can't tolerate diversity—especially in this creative endeavour—this may not be the field for you. Anyone unable to take the heat from a random post in a random forum in a random corner of the internet will be stepped on like an insect in this industry.

Stop playing with Play Doh and crayons.


----------



## rottoy (Apr 8, 2018)

Jay Panikkar said:


> This has nothing to do with @Daniel James, his supposed evilness and "toxicity." Spitfire Audio has purposefully painted a giant bullseye on @Daniel James to distract from their bad release and deflect the negative feedback. If SA is actually concerned about "toxicity," they should address their own first. Or better yet, they should be subject to their own rules on "toxicity" and confined to the Commercial Announcement space with all their other content thrown out of VIC.
> 
> V


This part especially has been made evident with their open enthusiasm for @reutunes review of Hans Zimmer Strings, which covered a lot of the points Daniel made, while being openly spiteful of @Daniel James take on the matter.

Rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 8, 2018)

yhomas said:


> Christian is a genuinely wonderful human being



All respect to you and CH, but how do you know this? Do you know this person personally?

Some people would opine that kind of classification shouldn't be bandied about in an offhand manner. I'm guessing

a) you do know him personally

or

b) you're one of the most obeisant members here or

c) both of the above

I'm betting it's b) which means you think he's a wonderful human being because of his videos and appearences here. Wouldn't more variables be needed for that kind of declaration? Because if my theory's true, try to grab a quick breath of real air before you go back up.

There was a movie called Yonkers Joe, which wasn't the greatest but it had a scene where some kid who worshipped Mickey Mantle was laughed at by the local Mafioso. When asked why he was laughing, said Don asked him if his father couldn't pay the rent, does he think MM would foot the bill, or help in any way? No, in fact he would probably laugh and/or try to get away from you or call his security guard to escort you out.

That scene is one of the things that helped get me get out of the worshipping thing.

Henson is making money doing what he's doing. If he didn't he wouldn't be putting up videos and pushing things here. Everything else, including possible feelings of satisfaction over helping another, is a cherry on top. No more, but to be fair, no less.

Keep in mind, this is not a knock against someone trying to make a buck at all. It's simple reality.

You want heroes? There are far more deserving.

Again, no offense or disrespect meant to anyone here or CH (or Daniel James for that matter). I just dislike seeing misdirected fanboyism. If you just _have_ to worship someone, go sing the praises of Mahler, Bach, Goldsmith...there are far more things you'll learn overall. Better yet, once you've absorbed what you need to know as far as handling your libraries, stay _off_ this forum for awhile so you'll have enough time to study up on the latter three. That way you can become great for yourself (and probably know one heck of a lot more than the average Spitfire Sycophant here...no offense to the outright Sycophants either).

SF employees are just that. They work for *you*. There are things you might learn from them (hopefully at least some of which has to do with handling your sample libraries). But if they're your primary focus of admiration (or even fourth tier), you are climbing up the wrong hole, baby.

Better yet, do your own thing and not care about all these other people. The hero worship thing can be a very stifling rabbit hole if left unchecked by reason. To paraphrase Kreator "be careful who you choose to believe".

I predict that only folks who just got caught up in there will mock this post. If you dismiss this as cynicism, you'll only continue to go further up until any real creativity on your part is completely suffocated.

Make _*yourself*_ your only hero.


----------



## DavidY (Apr 8, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> Also its worth mentioning that toxicity goes both ways. For example check the comments section on say Christians newest vlog or Homeys Spitfire walkthrough. You will find on one side that you have people commenting on the video or the product for good or bad, its a discussion about the video and its contents. On the _other_ hand you have comments about me as a person, being called all sorts of names and commenting on my abilities as a composer.


Not just aimed at you - when I looked a little earlier there were people telling others to "f*** off, fanboy"



Daniel James said:


> Yet there seems to be little action being taken on their own videos.


Maybe the general toxicity has caught them by surprise and there hasn't been a need up to now to moderate the comments on their videos? Also, the SF ethos seems to be to have downtime at the weekend (which is healthy, of course). Perhaps when folks get into work on Monday they will prune out the bad stuff?


----------



## NoamL (Apr 8, 2018)

Jay I would love to hear a VI mockup by you. One of these days perhaps.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 8, 2018)

Sometimes I wonder exactly how much the influence of, say, Starbucks has on some of the forum posts here...and even in the impulse buys (and some of the demo and review videos) here. I've certainly seen at least one CH video where I'm not even sure he had any idea what the heck he was really talking about (I'll let you decide which one, unless it was rightfully taken down already). And tbh I kind of got that vibe from James' video as well.

I think there are at least a few folks here who are pounding down Red Bulls, with credit cards just burning a hole in their collective pockets.

Once more, no malice or condescension meant toward anyone, I'm simply speculating (and to some degree, on some points, playing Devil's Advocate for the sake of discussion).


----------



## jamwerks (Apr 8, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I think this place just needs some more stringent moderation.


This!


----------



## Phillip (Apr 8, 2018)

We should learn moderate ourselves by ourselves.


----------



## jamwerks (Apr 8, 2018)

I've had a few exchanges with @christianhenson here. Out of that, reading him here and tuning into some of his videos, I see a pretty consistent personality in all that.

He's seems an incredibly nice guy, probably a kind and fair boss at SF, with lots of other personal qualities. But he also seems to be adverse to any conflict. If a post (mine) goes against his way of thinking, or calls in question something he seems attached to, he just disengages... which is of course totally his right.

When I heard him talk about the need (or not) of education, I again got that impression. Seems he avoided educating himself for "fear" of confronting himself with others (other great composers, frustrated music theory teachers, not knowing, etc.). Someone with his evident natural gift, didn't even want to learn to read music?! Had he been able to plow through scores from Schumann to Debussy, and make all those tools his own, he'd very probably be an Hollywood A-lister today. All off this imo of course!

Why are people toxic here?

1) not getting enough sex
2) not producing enough meaningful music


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 8, 2018)

jamwerks said:


> Why are people toxic here?
> ​2) not producing enough meaningful music



Or maybe: being more interested in buying something they think will basically write music for them, and subsequently being disappointed/alienated/self-hating when it doesn't happen and they can't resell.

I think buyer's remorse feeds more of those toxic posts than some people like to think.

This forum overall seems more about buying sample libraries than making music....


now, doesn't it.


----------



## Wake (Apr 8, 2018)

I find the "toxic" content fun to read.

It's so interesting to follow what money makes people say and do
in this field of work.

On one hand, companies that produce tools which are supposed
to help composers grow while getting jobs done, and on the other,
composers who are supposed to one day outgrow the need for the 
newest and flashiest toys and stop investing almost completely.

A paradoxical situation, isn't it? For most companies, the promise
of financial success obviously lies within catering to perennial 
hobbyists, or the, whatcha call it, "prosumers." Easy money.
The musical instrument industry has been doing it for decades.

Most budding composers would do well to practice identifying
into which group they've placed themselves by using their money
the way they do. Is your purchase truly a gesture that aims to
augment the musical quality of your output, of your life?

Meanwhile, a criticism turns into chaos, and out of chaos comes
more publicity. Egos run rampant, cries for moderation (censorship?)
ring out... But they are not musical.

Just rambling, please disregard.


----------



## JEPA (Apr 8, 2018)

jamwerks said:


> Why are people toxic here?
> 
> 1) not getting enough sex
> 2) not producing enough meaningful music



3) frustration


----------



## rottoy (Apr 8, 2018)

JEPA said:


> 3) frustration


4) Not having enough True Legato samples.


----------



## Garry (Apr 8, 2018)

For me, I've come to realise (in the few short months I've been a member here) that there is real value in this forum for certain things:

I've asked questions (based on my ignorance and early stages of learning in much of this area), and received incredibly helpful replies, really quickly, from people far more knowledgable than me.
I've heard about library releases that I would likely have missed had it not been for this forum.
I've seen demos/mockups that people have done that have really inspired me to continue to improve.
I've learned of new people (Daniel James, Ashton Gleckman etc) that give overviews on Youtube in entirely different ways that I find really informative, and have helped me learn watching their process.
I've found out about new tools (eg audioswift, pen2bow) that make the process more enjoyable.
I've learned the flaws in certain products, and that has helped my decision-making, and saved me buying things too early, or things that would likely not have worked well for me.
So long live VI-C; on balance this is an incredibly useful resource for anyone interested in music creation.

_However_... I've also learned that, for me at least, this too frequently isn't a good place for open, respectful, reasoned discussion, and all too often quickly degenerates into trolling, taking sides, questioning and undermining people's intentions, and generally discrediting their view. Others seem to accept this as inevitable, if not revel, in the 'snake pit'. As Synthpunk mentioned earlier in this thread, it has made several people (I include myself) think about leaving the forum, as apparently many others have already done previously for similar reasons.

Well, for the reasons I listed above, I will continue to read (more than post) on this forum, and I'll continue to learn from others, and as my knowledge grows, share that with those that want help. But for me, it's time to withdraw from the conversational-style discussions. No big loss of course (to me, or to you) - I'm a new member here, and net-taker rather than net-contributor. However, for those that have been here longer, and by the amount of time they spend on here, really value this resource beyond simply as an informational exchange, perhaps you might want to consider that the continued value of this will be entirely dependent on the environment you create. If, after recent events, whether you agree or disagree with their positions, the likes of Paul Thompson, Christian Henson, Hans Zimmer, or Daniel James were to say, 'this is not worth my time', you will have devalued this resource for you and everyone else (don't go accusing me of fanboyism here - I was not on SF's 'side' of the recent discussion, and frequently defended Daniel directly to Paul and Hans' comments; but I completely understand and respect Christian's exasperation with this environment, and respect his honest intentions seeking a better form of communication). For the Spitfire haters, perhaps again, to you it's no big loss; but it will likely also have the consequence of encouraging other developers to stay away. You reap what you sow.

The snakes in the pit will no doubt use this for yet more belittling and ridicule, to which I say - enjoy. I won't be around for the replies, as I don't come here to discuss such things anymore. To me, this is a place to gain knowledge, but mostly not for open conversation. After just 3 months here, I reached that conclusion. If there are more who get this impression, you'll soon be screaming your anonymised bile at yourselves.

Peace out.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Apr 8, 2018)

Entropy always increases with time. Taken from Sean Caroll's lecture at The Royal Institution


----------



## JEPA (Apr 8, 2018)

i have an idea:

*a star system like ebay*
if somebody feels well treated by you in any issue, he/she could give you a yellow star 
if somebody feels disrespectfully treated by you, he/she could give you a red star 
stars can only be given attached to a post that shows the good or bad treatment 
stars can only be given by persons with real names 

you can watch with which people are you talking, if this person has too many red stars you can think twice how you communicate with him/her

if somebody is a saint this person become a white star, me beginning.

Thanks
Jorge


----------



## InLight-Tone (Apr 8, 2018)

HZ & Spitfire should put out a choir together...


----------



## Rv5 (Apr 8, 2018)

Parsifal666 said:


> All respect to you and CH, but how do you know this? Do you know this person personally?
> 
> Some people would opine that kind of classification shouldn't be bandied about in an offhand manner. I'm guessing
> 
> ...



For whatever it's worth, I met @christianhenson some years ago when Spitfire sampled my brother (Beatboxer), and for full disclosure I've received free products from them. What really struck me from those brief encounters and chats about sampling and the sampling world was someone very passionate with a strong work ethic. A very excited Christian showed me what would be eDna, it was great to see someone that passionate about something in a work capacity. The as-it-was-then small team were a great bunch of people and humble when receiving praise on Iceni, which I was enjoying at the time. And there were loads of biscuits. It is what it is, just my humble experience.


----------



## markleake (Apr 8, 2018)

Here's my 2 cents:

As someone who has grown up with and spent most of my life using forums, this latest stuff doesn't seem all that bad. VI-C in general is pretty tame. Sure there are problems, but there are always problems in forums. Plus in this case I actually thought it was good and healthy to see a bit of honest discussion/dissagreements around a Spitfire product. Often Spitfire seem to get a lot of positive focus, so this kind of more balanced discussion was bound to happen sometime.

The main problem I see is really just due to those threads becoming too popular. There were too many people contributing for it to remain easy to track and for the usual forum norms to keep things in check. So the people reading it begin to get more aggressive when they respond to get their voice heard, etc. In a very un-moderated forum like this one, it just snowballs. Where many people are contributing their own views like that, some of them are bound to become more radical and off the mark, or personal even. Generally though, I think people tend to overstate the drama of some of these threads. Really there was nothing all that outrageous happening in any of them (and yes, I was there reading most of them).

On the positive side, there were actually some very good and useful conversations in those threads. Especially closer to the start and mid sections of the threads. There's plenty of noise also (mostly people commenting more about the thread or people, and making obvious statements or observations that probably didn't need to be made), but there were plenty of people who had thoughtful conversations also. Daniel makes a bit of noise sometimes, but why shouldn't he? He didn't really have anything much controversial to say, and pretty much always kept his tone well reasoned and conversational. Many other people didn't, including Hans at some point. He doesn't need my defending him, but really, I just don't see much that was controversial.

Regarding these ideas, I can't see any of the main ones working very well. I know they are well intentioned. But if someone somewhere in the world had come up with a better way of doing a forum, then yeah, we'd probably be using it already. Other ways of structuring things, eg. like Reddit, solves some problems, but introduces others. And the idea of using video responses only is obviously going to have a very small number of people contribute to it. The only real option is to move to a more moderated kind of setup, but that is really against the philosophy of this forum.

One probably more plausible solution that may work, is to set up a section of this forum that is deliberately more moderated than the rest of the forum, and label it as such. I've participated in very well (and aggressively) moderated forums that work really well. If you aren't a troll or prone to annoying, off topic or meaningless posts, then that usually works well. The downside is by its nature you make the conversation a bit stale. Personally I'd rather have a bit of excitement sometimes than to have things more controlled, but I'm probably a bit more used to forums maybe.

So my thoughts are:
a. What controversy?
b. People won't behave better in any other kind of forum either (not with the same number of people anyway).
c. Any better approach doesn't really exist, unless you move to a Reddit or Discord or more moderated style forum.
d. Most people are nice people (including developers). The Internet is just a hard place to communicate that well.
*e. If you don't like a conversation/thread, don't read it... and for God's sake, don't participate in it.*

(e) is the age old answer to this one. And for the life of me I've never understood why people don't just do that. You don't need to leave the forum or anything (that to me is just being emotional and over-reactive, unless maybe you have some fundamental issue with the forum you can't get past, but it's still kind of like throwing the baby out with the water).

Just simply stop reading and responding to the stuff that you aren't interested in.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Apr 8, 2018)

NoamL said:


> Not having the last word against everyone who attacks you, is not about "being the bigger man" or "turning the other cheek" or anything like that, it's just that you can trust other people to build their own models of what statements are credible & not credible.



Beautifully said man. This should be a disclaimer that pops up anytime trollish language or name-calling is detected in a post.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 8, 2018)

I think Mark sums things up very well, especially his thought "e."

Ironically (but not unexpectedly), this thread contributes just as much "toxicity" to the forum as the two or three other threads that have been the drama magnets. I'm all for letting people have their say, but this entire drama is getting beyond tedious, so I'm moving this thread (as well as any similar new ones people may feel tempted to post) to the Forum Complaints section.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Apr 8, 2018)

Certainly "e" is a useful approach when the conversation is primarily a fight; but when "e" is a product announcement thread, you stand to lose out on a lot of useful information if you simply avoid the thread.

Of course, there are other places one can go for that sort of information; but then, you're driving traffic away from the site. And that traffic is often people who prefer a more civil discussion, while those who stay are more likely to enjoy a fight.

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but it's worth mentioning this one last time while I may have @Mike Greene's attention: I've been posting on music forums for over twenty years; and while VI-Control is less combative than most, it's not the most peaceful site in existence. In my experience, the best way to have a civil, yet engaging, discussion is a zero tolerance policy for ad hominem attacks.

Of course, I realize that requires a lot more moderation—especially at first before the people who enjoy name calling give up and leave—but in the end, you have a more welcoming site.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Farkle (Apr 8, 2018)

Johann F. said:


> We had great casualties already... Verta, gone. Piet, gone. Guy, gone. Carles, gone.



You don't know the half of it... this forum 12 years ago... the people on it... there are some legends out there that have gracefully exited, and our forum is poorer for their absence.

Mike


----------



## yhomas (Apr 8, 2018)

Parsifal666 said:


> All respect to you and CH, but how do you know this? Do you know this person personally?
> 
> Some people would opine that kind of classification shouldn't be bandied about in an offhand manner.



Your point has merit, but if I was actually a lifelong best friend of CH, I would actually still be in no position whatsoever to make a definitive claim about him being a "wonderful human"--no person one can actually know that about another person. 

So clearly, I am, in fact, making a preposterously unsupportable claim as you rightly point out. 

Nevertheless, I was making a rhetorical argument and IMO making the presumption of CH being a wonderful human is a reasonable starting point. 

If we take the alternat position that CH's toxic comment was made from a person beset by spite, malice, etc. then the argument can be taken in a direction, but the end result is the same either way:

The idea that VI-Control is a "toxic" environment is unreasonable. What is 100% reasonable is that in most any public forum, there is going to be occasional misbehavior and people are going to occasionally be insulted. If one can't handle such, stay away from others except perhaps within the confines of a carefully curated group-thing bubble/hub.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 8, 2018)

yhomas said:


> I can agree about the bidirectional aspect, but at the same time, I think you would be the first to agree that CH's vlog is not a "toxic" atmosphere.
> 
> I totally understand CH being insulted--not denying that; I just think that being occasionally insulted by detractors is a normal part of life.



Oh for sure I get its not always that....nor is there often any toxicity heading in his direction either. Toxic attitudes tend to bubble up around certain catalysts. The most recent example being HZS. One can't suggest that any toxicity was only heading in one direction (that being towards HZ and Spitfire) when even the most basic of searches would show similar toxicity heading in the opposite direction to me as a person. Its not the forum that creates toxicity, its toxic people. Again it might not always be that way for him but one look at teh comments section shows its nothing to do with VI - its just VI has lots of people in the industry, toxic and not.

So yes while this or CH's communities are not _usually _toxic, you can see the exact thing he is complaining about in his own 'hubs' already. But as I was saying earlier he may not see things aimed at himself or his company as toxic. Which is why we need places like VI which has no dog in the fight so to speak and can curtail things when they get too bad in either direction.

-DJ


----------



## yhomas (Apr 8, 2018)

jamwerks said:


> I've had a few exchanges with @christianhenson here. Out of that, reading him here and tuning into some of his videos, I see a pretty consistent personality in all that.
> 
> He's seems an incredibly nice guy, probably a kind and fair boss at SF, with lots of other personal qualities. But he also seems to be adverse to any conflict. If a post (mine) goes against his way of thinking, or calls in question something he seems attached to, he just disengages... which is of course totally his right.



In my experience (I've been involved in a lot of online debates/arguments), many of the nicest and kindest people (in my judgment) are not very capable of tolerating/handling interpersonal conflict very well. 

One might hypothesize that for these lovely individuals--so kind, caring, and pleasant to be around--they operate in a bubble of positivity and happiness, so a rare instance of interpersonal discord/criticism/attack is kind of a big deal to them. 

On the other hand, for those with a more thorny disposition (I would put myself in that category), personal attacks are of little significance.


----------



## yhomas (Apr 8, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> Oh for sure I get its not always that....nor is there often any toxicity heading in his direction either. Toxic attitudes tend to bubble up around certain catalysts. The most recent example being HZS. One can't suggest that any toxicity was only heading in one direction (that being towards HZ and Spitfire) when even the most basic of searches would show similar toxicity heading in the opposite direction to me as a person. Its not the forum that creates toxicity, its toxic people. Again it might not always be that way for him but one look at teh comments section shows its nothing to do with VI - its just VI has lots of people in the industry, toxic and not.
> 
> So yes while this or CH's communities are not _usually _toxic, you can see the exact thing he is complaining about in his own 'hubs' already. But as I was saying earlier he may not see things aimed at himself or his company as toxic. Which is why we need places like VI which has no dog in the fight so to speak and can curtail things when they get too bad in either direction.
> 
> -DJ



I agree 100% about VI-Control. A bit of ostensible toxicity here and there is vastly preferable to the totalitarian control that some well intentioned and nice people might prefer. 

IMO the argument and cross examination that some dismiss as "toxicity", still actually often serves a legitimate and valuable purpose. 

This points toward the value of generally maintaining freedom of ideas/expression as an ethical prerogative.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 8, 2018)

markleake said:


> e. If you don't like a conversation/thread, don't read it... and for God's sake, don't participate in it.


----------



## ism (Apr 8, 2018)

A couple of thoughts:


1) How about, in addition to a 'like' button, a 'disagree ... but moving on' button?


I think in many cases it is felt that to not reply to critique or misrepresentation is to risk creating an impression that you've conceded the point. 




2) Perhaps there could be a mechanism to flag a thread as teetering on the edge of descend into toxicity. Instead of taking it down, when someone navigates to it a such a thread, they might see a fullscreen:

'WARNING: moderators have flagged that this thread may not represent the community's ideals of 'musicians helping musicians' at their best. Do you still wish to proceed?" 

In less extreme case, maybe require all posters to check a box reading "I have read and understand the ideal of 'musician helping musicians' of this forum. In more extreme cases perhaps a moderator could make it mandatory to watch a certain Britney Spears video before every post.



3) I wonder if it would be possible to build into the community standards a principle of:

'prioritize the substantive over the combative' 


The problem with certain recent threads isn't that they were worthless and toxic, but rather that ~20% of the content actually was extremely valuable (not least, ~80% exchanges between Hans and Daniel). If it were merely toxic threads, I would have happily ignored it and thought no more about it. But there was really, really good stuff there. 

(Although, if I might respectfully disagree with Daniel, I think that, on certain recent threads, if you take all the mean things people were saying about Daniel alone, then this absolutely falls into what I consider "toxic.")


I see a dynamic that contributes to creating these 'death spirals of combativeness' as going something like this: 

Suppose someone says something with potential for, lets say, strong disagreement. You might reasonably expect to get, say, 5 responses and while 4 of them might be substantive, one will be inevitably be combative. 

But it's the combative one - disproportionally - that gets responded to first, while all substantive ones get - disproportionately - ignored. Perhaps this is because reputation is the currency of the internet, or perhaps its something endemic to human discourse as a whole. But not only does it happen, but rewards people who write combatively in that they get responded to more often. 

And there is clearly a dynamic where combative exchanges multiply more quickly that the substantive ones (And there's something like a principle of entropy at work here somewhere, in the sense that its always easier to burn a something down than to construct it).

So here is one place where I wonder if a 'disagree ... but moving on' button (or some similar mechanism) might mitigate the need for excessive defensive replies, and maybe even disincentivize combative posts in the first place. 



The general principle underlying all of this is that by introducing a number of small speed bumps working to slow the dynamics of the 'death spiral of combativeness', you might, in aggregate, encourage a more substantive and less combative environment.

On most of the internet I'd say that such ideas are hopelessly naive. But as has been pointed out, this is *far* from the most toxic corner of the internet. 

4) I'd also like to just put it out there that if you take a slightly more theoretical view of the nature of the medium we're talking about here, there's a good argument that given the dynamics of the evolution of the internet, we should expect that the pressures towards toxicity are only going intensify in the foreseeable future.

The war on toxicity in new media has been an arms race raging already for some decades. And it's an arms race that I'd argue, we, as a society, are collectively loosing rather badly. 

So its worth taking the topic seriously. And there's a significant literature on the phenomenon throughout the disciplines of media studies, literary studies, interaction design, human computer interaction, sociology, social psychology - and I've even seen reference to work in psychiatry that sounds perfectly relevant our current situation.


For instance, a touch of media/literary theory: I've been trying to argue (although at too great a length for anyone to actually read, I do realize) that a significant part of the dynamic of recent death spirals comes not from any individual, but in misunderstandings and tensions emerging between the traditional 'forum discussion' and the inherently more chaotic medium of youtube videos. 

I really think a lot of recent unpleasantness came from people on both sides interpreting content from one medium and/or genre through the social conventions of another.



5) New rule: @Rctec is allowed to call anyone he wants a twat. Personally, I'd love to be able to say Hans Zimmer called me a twat. I just don't see any downside in allowing this. I'd also like to extend the same courtesy to John Williams, if he happens to be around.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 8, 2018)

ism said:


> Personally, I'd love to be able to say Hans Zimmer called me a twat.



I can't tell if you're serious or not.

I'm going to assume you are. In which case, this is why "The Meanies" got away with firing snot rockets on people in the front row; idolatry giving celebs a free pass to be a dick.

Celebrities are people just like everyone else and should be held to the same standards. Because right now, somewhere...maybe it's Tom Cruise or Kate Beckinsale, they are taking a dump.

and I assure you, it too stinks.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 8, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but it's worth mentioning this one last time while I may have @Mike Greene's attention: I've been posting on music forums for over twenty years; and while VI-Control is less combative than most, it's not the most peaceful site in existence. In my experience, the best way to have a civil, yet engaging, discussion is a zero tolerance policy for ad hominem attacks.
> 
> Of course, I realize that requires a lot more moderation—especially at first before the people who enjoy name calling give up and leave—but in the end, you have a more welcoming site.


I hear you, but there's no way I could put together a moderation team to monitor the forum carefully enough to keep the forum free of nonsense. It's too big a job.


----------



## ism (Apr 8, 2018)

Replicant said:


> I can't tell if you're serious or not.
> 
> I'm going to assume you are. In which case, this is why "The Meanies" got away with firing snot rockets on people in the front row; idolatry giving celebs a free pass to be a dick.
> 
> ...



Ok, wrong room, I get it.

I apologize if anyone really though I was seriously engaging in sloberingly mindless celebrity worship. I though it would be clear enough that this was a bit of silliness to lighten a post that is, this being the internet, already likely to be attacked as as over-long and over-serious. 

Neither do I think that John Williams should ever be excused for going around randomly calling people twats just because of Star Wars. 

And I complete agree that it would never, under any circumstance, be even the slightest bit funny to for anyone to be called a twat by Tom Cruise.

That said, I’m completely serious that I’d dearly love to be able to start a sentence in a pub some day with “Then there was this time that Hans Zimmer called me a twat...”


----------



## yhomas (Apr 8, 2018)

ism said:


> The problem with certain recent threads isn't that they were worthless and toxic, but rather that ~20% of the content actually was extremely valuable (not least, ~80% exchanges between Hans and Daniel).
> ...
> 5) New rule: @Rctec is allowed to call anyone he wants a twat. Personally, I'd love to be able to say Hans Zimmer called me a twat. I just don't see any downside in allowing this. I'd also like to extend the same courtesy to John Williams, if he happens to be around.



IMO, it is wonderful to have someone like HZ here, and I personally would indeed show someone like him a bit of deference. But if you make treating him extra nice, a "rule", then the conversation isn't free and real any more.

Now, if VI-Control wants to make a HZ subforum moderated by HZ, I would certainly read it, but it probably wouldn't ever generate the kind of dialog that we recently witnessed regarding HZ Strings, nor would it really be the most interesting source for info on the product in question. 

I've seen many times where one person is making legitimate and important (but perhaps uncomfortable) points, whereas the other side makes the accusation that the discussion is "combative" or "counterproductive" (or maybe even "toxic") as a way of basically shutting down discussion/debate. IMO, in a modern and scientifically minded culture, we should all naturally appreciate the intrinsic value of actually testing things out. 

As you point out, the recent cross examination of HZ Strings pulled out some excellent content from HZ himself (and others), but with various rules to detox VI-control, that content would probably have never happened. 

So, IMO, we need less forum innovation and more human tolerance.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 9, 2018)

Dr Belasco said:


> Larry, aren't we a little too old to be in thread like this.


Speaking for myself, I am well over 100 years old, yes.


----------



## DavidY (Apr 9, 2018)

ism said:


> In more extreme cases perhaps a moderator could make it mandatory to watch a certain Britney Spears video before every post.


Suits me - I always liked that song!


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 9, 2018)

I think all of you are right.

*** *STAMP OF VALIDATION* ™ ***


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 9, 2018)

yhomas said:


> Your point has merit, but if I was actually a lifelong best friend of CH, I would actually still be in no position whatsoever to make a definitive claim about him being a "wonderful human"--no person one can actually know that about another person.
> 
> So clearly, I am, in fact, making a preposterously unsupportable claim as you rightly point out.
> 
> ...



Some would question whether that last part was very realistic (especially in this few and far between era), however it's not a big deal and neither is calling CH wonderful. 

I'm just a cynical old bastard who's barely able to pay the rent with his music. So don't listen to me.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 9, 2018)

NYC Composer said:


> I am well over 100 years old, yes.



Aye.


----------



## elpedro (Apr 9, 2018)

It seems to me that spitfire and HZ strings are getting into every forum,almost feels like clever marketing, this thread included??????????


----------



## KMA (Apr 9, 2018)

elpedro said:


> It seems to me that spitfire and HZ strings are getting into every forum,almost feels like clever marketing, this thread included??????????



It might be. But only if you believe that all publicity is good publicity. Apart from the rather generous use of a word like "game-changer", I don't recall SF receiving such negative feedback in the past.


----------



## KMA (Apr 9, 2018)

ism said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 1) How about, in addition to a 'like' button, a 'disagree ... but moving on' button?
> 
> I think in many cases it is felt that to not reply to critique or misrepresentation is to risk creating an impression that you've conceded the point.



I don’t know if that’s a bad thing. Maybe I could just be content with my contributions and accept that some people will simply not agree with me. My ego is the only one worried about conceding a point.

A "disagree... but moving on" button seems like another way of trying to have the last word. The best way to move on is…... to just move on.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 9, 2018)

KMA said:


> A "disagree... but moving on" button seems like another way of trying to have the last word. The best way to move on is…... to just move on.


​


----------

