What's new

Muzzle on Daniel James?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saxer

Senior Member
I'm seriously very sorry Daniel James feels bad about all the comments he gets that hurt him. On the other hand he made himself a public person and shouts out his opinion in a personal way too, obviously not reflecting he also could be hurting others by doing this. Communication is a boomerang. It has nothing to do if I share his opinion (sometimes I do, sometimes not) or if I like him (I do, often spent hours with his entertaining videos). It's not about being on ones side or who was right or wrong. It's nothing about facts at all. It's all about the way how to communicate. Every bad feeling happening here is home made. If you want to feel better: treat other people the way you would be treated too.
 

Parsifal666

I don't even own a DAW, I'm just a troll.
i guess i'm lazy then when i loaded up HW woods and most of what i heard were dull lifeless shrills. maybe i should have read the manual more?
Absolutely. There's a lot good about Hollywood Woodwinds, and they are still used by paid composers today (including me, who barely makes the designation "paid" btw lol!). I should mention, having that extra microphone that Diamond gives you is especially awesome.

When it comes to woodwind ensemble mockups, I use Hollywood Winds as default (for solo wws I use Chris Hein). But I'm one of those people whom prefer dry libraries...I don't even use my super fun Met Ark 1 for mockups that often (despite still being in the honeymoon phase), both the Hollywood and Chris Hein series are far more malleable.
 

Geoff Grace

Senior Member
While I have great sympathy for Daniel's feelings, I'm glad that he's getting a break from painful arguments. As dramatic as they may have become, they're a distraction from what's really important. We each have searched at some point for our purpose in life, and I seriously doubt product debates are it for any of us. This can be an opportunity to get centered and reconnect with our primary focus—not just for Daniel, but for each of us.

I believe we each have an intrinsic worth, and that goes for Daniel, Mike, Christian, Paul, and Hans. In fact, it goes for everyone here. I may not agree with all of you all the time, but I know you are valuable as human beings.

@Daniel James, I see your value. Please don't leave this world before your time. Go within. See your value too. The judgments of others can't affect our intrinsic worth, only our perception of it.

Best,

Geoff
 
Last edited:

Lex

Senior Member
Just so we're all on the same page, Daniel's two videos were fine. And it's still fine if he posts similar videos again. The videos, positive or negative, were not the problem. I need to be really clear about that: The videos were not the problem. I need to make that clear because some people (robgb, for instance) seem to have this idea that critical comments or reviews are no longer allowed. That's completely incorrect.

The problem was not the videos. The problem was the endless fighting with people afterwards. Post after post after post after post. The topic for Daniel's fighting was always Spitfire, eventually devolving into what gave me the impression that Spitfire was becoming his mission. I admit I could be wrong, but when it go the point where he got into a heated debate about how Labs amounts to illegal predatory business practices, I felt this was indicative of a deeper problem and not good for the forum. I honestly don't see how anyone could feel I should have let that keep going.

In any event, I'll clarify one more time: Product criticism = fine. Endless arguing = not fine.
Sorry Mike, but if there was no negative reaction to the VIDEOS , Daniel wouldn't have who to "fight", no?

alex
 

Grizzlymv

Active Member
Sorry Mike, but if there was no negative reaction to the VIDEOS , Daniel wouldn't have who to "fight", no?

alex
Well. That applies on both side. Reactions to Daniel's video, reaction to reactions on Daniel's video... At some point you have to learn when you've said all you had to say. And you also have to learn to accept critics when you expose yourself publicly, no matter how much efforts you've put in the work you've done. One thing that will always exist is that you can't please everyone. And that's fine. As long as the debate is civilised and respectful and constructive. Which is something a few people outside of the main antogonist also have to learn. I used to love that forum. But that whole melodrama of the past few weeks turned me off big time. It's kind of depressing coming here nowadays rather than being inspiring.

Hopefully everyone will be able to move on, including the main actors in these late dramas, and make this place what it used to be again. A great resourceful place with great minds helping each other's. Its not just the job of moderators. It's up to each and everyone of us to ensure we get there.
 

Kyle Preston

I accidentally do things on purpose
In defense of DJ, it seems like he’s being singled out precisely because he has an audience. I’ve read so much worse from people on this forum (sometimes directed at me) than anything Daniel said in the charity thread. I wish he wouldn’t present his opinion as business fact (that’s how it reads anyway), but I think his points are inventive and honest - and at the very least, worth considering as potential consequences to the new SF labs, even if it is a cynical perspective. None but the parties involved have all the details and I wish some of us on the forum would stop reacting with little to no information and just process what’s happening, or just ignore it. That’s really the issue here. I wish we could bond over our uncertainty and not be so goddamn sure of everything - but that continues to be my wish.

On top of it, SF didn’t ask to ‘muzzle’ him. I applaud you Mike for your transparency in sharing those details and your thought process - I realize you’re doing what you think is best and maybe limiting what DJ is allowed to discuss around here is the only solution to less drama (at least on this topic). But it doesn’t add more nuance to the discussion, it singles out and silences one perspective. And I’m sure you’re taking some heat for it. It’s a privately-owned forum but it is a forum. And it feels like a bad precedent to set, restricting topics from specific individuals (without applying that to all members), especially with free speech under fire in so many other pockets online. If no one valued DJs perspective, than I doubt his opinions would attract so much controversy. That and he keeps driving traffic here from his Facebook and Twitter, which does create an echo chamber, or it did in previous threads.

Anyway, I’m not offering solutions, I don’t have enough information to do that. But if you need someone to talk to DJ (or anyone), I’m here. I’ve dealt with mental health shit most of my life, I know in my bones that anxiety and depression are motherfuckers. You’ve done a lot of good for a lot of people man, I hope you know that :).

Kumbaya or whatever.
 

Voider

Came from the future
I wish he wouldn’t present his opinion as business fact
You mean here where he said it's just his opinion?

The things I dislike, and I talk about, are my opinions
Or here?

Daniel James said:
And I obviously I don't work there so anything I say will be how things could potentially go, not how they have written down in plan.
Or here:

Daniel James said:
This is how LABS now looks to be set up to me.
Notice the "how it looks to be set up to me", a pretty clear hint that we're reading just a personal opinion, not a fact.

Followed by:

Daniel James said:
And sure it may never go that way, but if Usian Bolt steps up to the blocks and gets into starting position, you expect him to start running sometime soon. And while LABS might not be 'running' yet, its boots are laced and its waiting for the starter pistol.
I really don't get why it's so hard for people to correctly reproduce statements and not to spread misinformations.
 

Voider

Came from the future
That being said, Daniel didn't start the drama or continued it. I've read a few posts here from people who apparently didn't follow the whole thing and act like it's 50:50 both sides fault. No, it's not. Most of the time other people started to quote and attack Daniel to start a discussion and he was simply only replying, or they made random stupid jokes about the HZS debate / DJ where he came across and just asked them to stop to be like that because we wouldn't need more hate and drama here after that whole thing was positively resolved.

Everything else in this charity thing was just an idea, nothing more. Daniel stated many times it's just a view on a possible trend that he'd like to talk about and that we should be able and allowed to discuss about, which I completely agree with. No one is gonna be harmed if we just talk about "if" cases, even if it's an unpopular one.

That's very simple. We do discuss things here every day, good and bad ones. But then Garry needed to actually start a new thread quoting Daniel, he came back and bumped the thread after just 4 hours without a reply from DJ with a provocative "Still no reply?" post like DJ wouldn't be a busy professional who probably takes work and life a bit more important than immediately responding to a forum post. Followed by personal attacks from Garry, a very rude sarcastic writing style and blame on DJ for statements he never made.

Wanna have a little taste?

DJ in the original thread before:

Daniel James said:
As for the conspiracy comments....we will see. Like I said they may not be planning hurting smaller devs but if LABS keeps growing and adding things that compete with the smaller devs then they will be in direct 'competition' to which Spitfire is undercutting by offering for free, which comes carefully close to qualifying for Predatory Pricing (read the wiki to save me having to drag it all up over and over)
Pretty clear point, they may not be planning that, but it simply could happen as a sideeffect if labs grows and becomes larger in content.

Garrys response:

Garry said:
The evidence you claim is that LABS used to be for charity, and now it's not, therefore, QED - IT'S A CONSPIRACY TO UNDERMINE SMALL DEVELOPERS! I mean really, that's the best you've got? That is pure inference on your part, and baseless speculation; it barely amounts to an argument.
- Still claiming that DJ would say that it would be Spitfires intention to underminde small developers on purpose
- Finally spotting that it's just a speculation like DJ stated before like 100 times, but making it look like DJ would have not said that by highlighting the obvious this way.

Then he instantly started to move off topic with attacking Daniel instead of talking about the subject:

Garry said:
As I pointed out, as a small developer yourself, you have a dog in this fight - there is cause for you jumping to such inference. Reading this situation as an impartial observer (I laid out my impartiality credentials in the first post - you can't dismiss me of simply being malicious towards you, as I've completely supported you up to now), then it is YOU Daniel who looks nefarious in this situation.
Look at this, same post still:

Garry said:
This seems to reveal the true nature of your objections. Jealousy, pure and simple. As a developer who, by your own admission, is not in Spitfire's league, you look over the fence with your green eyes of envy at what they have, and it colours your perception.
Finished by this sentence:

Garry said:
It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other: I find it mildly perplexing why people feel the need to instantly criticise Spitfire, and assume ill motives where there is no reason to do so.
DJ has made like tons of absolutely positive reviews and statements about Spitfire products, and only two not so positive things in the close past, which were about Hans Zimmer Strings and the Labs, if you can count HZS even in since it was misinterpreted a lot. But why keep that in mind if you can just act like someone does "instantly criticise Spitfire" by default, everywhere, anytime. If you don't have good arguments, just create your own reality. Let's just ignore that DJ's relation between positive and negative things said about Spitfire is like 20:2

Garrys post was - sorry to say so - full of shit, twisted "facts", personal attacks and false accusings . And Garrys initial postings pretty much show off that he was aiming for bad blood from the very beginning:

Ok - thread opened in the Drama Zone here to discuss your assertion regarding Spitfire's charity donations, as you proposed @Daniel James. Look forward to your reply there. Challenge accepted. Bring popcorn!
I think this was a good idea from Daniel, rather than derail an existing thread. However, it's awfully quiet down there! No reply from Daniel as yet... Does he fear to tread... into... the Drama Zone! :crying::ninja::sneaky::P:whistling::shocked:
If you ask me, if anyone here should get muzzled then Garry. Mods should watch out for people who start wars on purpose and who are out for bad blood. This is the source of the problem. Not normal users like DJ simply getting dragged into fights by trolls like Garry, who let out their frustration at the cost of others.
 
Last edited:

Kyle Preston

I accidentally do things on purpose
I really don't get why it's so hard for people to correctly reproduce statements and not to spread misinformations.
It's not, when you don't overlook statements that don't support your opinion.

Daniel James said:
its their gateway drug to Spitfire.
Or this one
Daniel James said:
I am happy to be proven wrong but I have been around business all my life and I know a business strategy when I see one.
Or this one
Daniel James said:
LABS now exists purely to hook customers into the Spitfire eco system
Or this one
Daniel James said:
(see gateway drug. They are not doing it 'for the fun of it' they are doing it to get people into the Spitfire eco system). Like I said given all the info we have now, they absolutely are heading in that direction.

He might be right about all of this btw, we should value that skepticism. And I think trusting businesses to be a reliable catalyst for social change is naive. But his statements contradict his this is just my opinion followups. It's like a less-extreme example of how Glenn Beck used to talk about Obama - he'd accuse him of having "a deep-seated hatred for white people" and then defend it as mere "opinion" or "asking questions".

Anyway, I'm not gonna keep dissecting the dude's statements, they're there for everyone to see and read for themselves. I'm glad he shares his opinions around here, even when I don't agree. Confirmation bias and blind nitpicking started this drama anyway.

Voider said:
I've read a few posts here from people who apparently didn't follow the whole thing and act like it's 50:50 both sides fault. No, it's not.
I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think DJ is being singled out because he has an audience.
 

Mike Greene

Senior Member
Moderator
I wish he wouldn’t present his opinion as business fact
You mean here where he said it's just his opinion?

The things I dislike, and I talk about, are my opinions
Or here?

Daniel James said:
And I obviously I don't work there so anything I say will be how things could potentially go, not how they have written down in plan.
Or here:

Daniel James said:
This is how LABS now looks to be set up to me.
Notice the "how it looks to be set up to me", a pretty clear hint that we're reading just a personal opinion, not a fact.

Followed by:

Daniel James said:
And sure it may never go that way, but if Usian Bolt steps up to the blocks and gets into starting position, you expect him to start running sometime soon. And while LABS might not be 'running' yet, its boots are laced and its waiting for the starter pistol.
Voider, I think you're missing the point. It's not whether Daniel is saying definitively that Spitfire is trying to put other developers out of business. The damage is already done by just by putting the thought into people's heads. Sort of like saying, "I can't say for sure that Paul beats his wife, so this is just my opinion, but here's why I'm pretty sure he does."

Look, I'm going to spell this out for you as best as I can. Paul and Christian have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity through Spitfire. They're justifiably very proud of that. Then they decided to donate an even larger amount by restructuring their charity formula. And then, to take it a step further and make things cool for us, they decided to make Labs free. Sounds to me like win, win, and win.

They were hoping to make a celebration out of this. After all, what could possibly be controversial about charity and free stuff? These guys work hard, so this was their chance to celebrate a good thing and bask in the sun. This was supposed to be a happy event.

Except ... someone shit all over their party. To your point, it doesn't matter whether Daniel says LABS is definitively illegal and unethical, a turd in the punchbowl is still a turd in the punchbowl. Why do that? Seriously, why? Is it really that important to have a discussion on the ethics of a company giving away free products, right in the middle of what they thought was going to be their celebration? And then keep fighting that battle?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but there are responsibilities that go with that. On this forum, consider it a "rule" that one of those responsibilities is that you need to be aware of how your words are affecting other people.
 

Garry

Senior Member
@Voider - I'm going to answer you once, and then drop it without further reply (I doubt you'll do the same, but therein lies all the advantages and the disadvantages of free speech).

I have no wish to rehash this debate. People are adults here, they can read the discussion for themselves, and reach their own conclusions. They don't need someone to selectively quote mine, because it makes your inflammatory cherry-picking all too obvious.

As to your jumping to Daniel's defence, feel free to do so, but I wish instead, you would take a more adult view of the broader situation. The impact of the discussion on Daniel was disturbing, to me and I'm sure to others. It was good to see the community rally around and offer him support. Your perpetuation of the dispute, despite @Mike Greene's multiple attempts to calm the situation, puts your need for salacious and incendiary posts above those of Daniel's well being. I hope you take note of the potential seriousness of the current situation, and instead of fanning the flames and ignoring the potential consequences that exacerbating the situation may have for Daniel, you will instead take a step back, and aim your contributions truly in his best interests, and realise that the more compassionate thing to do is to allow this to settle. This is what I'm about to resume doing now.
 

robgb

I was young once
It's not, when you don't overlook statements that don't support your opinion.
Regarding Daniel's "gateway drug" comment, if you look at Henson's video about this kerfuffle, he shows excerpts of a UI concept video that was made for their designers. In that video is a screen that looks as if it was meant to be edited out, because it plays for only a split-second, but shows a list of "Mindful Considerations" for LABS:

Limit Use of English
Limit Jargon (Tech and Music Theory)
Universal Access - Kids, Girls, Poorly Sighted
Users will spend hours using our stuff

Now maybe that last line is a warning about user fatigue in the design or some such, but it does lend credence to Daniel's remark. And I point this out not to start an argument (this whole thing has been beaten to death, yet here we continue), but to point out that Daniel's ideas aren't necessarily just random thoughts he's pulling out of his ass and perhaps he should be given a bit of a break and not be considered some kind of boogie man.

As for Spitfire, I think that list is something to admire and I do appreciate what they're attempting to do. I get so tired of the "club" atmosphere surrounding music and music theory and am frankly glad that they hope to open music up to people who haven't necessarily had the "requisite education" that some members of the club seem to think they need.

So even if LABS is meant to be a gateway drug, I see no problem with that considering everything else on that list.
 
Last edited:

Voider

Came from the future
Its their gateway drug to Spitfire.
That's actually a fact and not even a negative statement. The Labs products are taster, like the little perfume you get for free when you go shopping, in hope that you come back and purchase the big version of it. That's what tasters are for.

I am happy to be proven wrong but I have been around business all my life and I know a business strategy when I see one.
So how can he claim it to be a fact if he would be happy to be proven wrong? Facts are facts. The last part explaining where his confidence comes from doesn't negate the initial part leaving room for other possibilities.

The damage is already done by just by putting the thought into people's heads. Sort of like saying, "I can't say for sure that Paul beats his wife, so this is just my opinion, but here's why I'm pretty sure he does."
Afaik Daniel never said he is pretty sure about that Spitfire wants to hurt smaller developers. He said the tasters are made for catching peoples interest for Spitfire products, that was a second topic apart from the other one with the smaller companies. I quoted DJ above where he wrote "They may not be planning to hurt smaller developers" - it was all about the potential side effect. A concern about the future, if it grows. Anyway, I absolutely can understand that you as admin and friend of all parties are caught in the middle, and I didn't mean to judge your decision. I simply didn't agree with that Daniel would've stated his opinion as a fact only.

@Mike Greene I edited this part of my post to make my point more clear, just that you know :)

People are adults here, they can read the discussion for themselves, and reach their own conclusions. They don't need someone to selectively quote mine, because it makes your inflammatory cherry-picking all too obvious.
Right, they don't need me. I still can choose for myself to discuss your asshole-behaviour if I want, and so did I. You gotta deal with it. And this is another frantic try from you to make content look like another, because that post you're complaining about was mainly about you and how people of your kind harm forums, not about DJ nor this debate.

I'm not answering to the rest of your post because you're not worth anymore of my time than that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom