rrichard63
Perpetual Novice
I suspect there's a difference between us. The really important word in that sentence was "try".
[OLD] Rules Regarding New Members, Anonymous Members, and Drama Magnets
- Thread starter Mike Greene
- Start date
Paul Grymaud
Active Member
Anonymous Members
Catch me if you can...
Catch me if you can...
Arthur Lewis
Member
The issue here is that there are, in fact, differing cultural expectations about what's right and wrong in many cases. There are certainly things that are universal, but I think a decent amount of conflict, especially in online communities where people come from different places, comes from differing ideas of what behavior is and isn't appropriate.
Markus Kohlprath
Senior Member
I'm not sure if different cultural expectations is what we are talking about. I think it's more about a "jerky" kind of destructive behavior that was the reason for the new rules. I don't have a lot of experience with online communities but I doubt that there is a place where this kind of behavior is appropriate. And if there is such a place it is certainly necessary to keep it out of the forum. IMO
It seems to me a little bit like in a school class where sometimes one jerk can take the energy from the whole class. Not necessarily coming from a different culture. Just messy family circumstances maybe.
As far as I witnessed threads where misunderstandings because of culture or language or whatever occurred they are most often solved pretty fast and usually don't lead to the drama zone.
Arthur Lewis
Member
I don't know enough about this specific case to know whether or not that's true, but I believe you. I was responding specifically to your larger point about the world's problems and priests and whatnot.
Arthur Lewis
Member
Actually no, let me double down on this a bit. I used to co-admin a Slack with thousands of members, where the only rule was "Be kind", and we often found that the folks who caused the drama would claim that other folks were the ones being unkind to them. And then that would escalate, and people would start arguing about each other's values and perspectives and yada yada yada, and most importantly, everyone involved would think they were in the right. There were certainly clear cut cases where one person was just being a jerk, but there were also cases where people were behaving in ways that were accepted and encouraged in other online environments, but not in ours. I think it's often not as simple as just being able to separate things into Good People and Bad People.
Markus Kohlprath
Senior Member
It seems to me that the small little nastiness between individuals relates a lot to the larger "world" problems. But I really want to avoid a discussion on world problems, politics. It's not the place for this kind of stuff here and far to complex. But I understand what you are trying to say.
Arthur Lewis
Member
Yup, I'm with you on both counts! 
Markus Kohlprath
Senior Member
This is very true.
Polkasound
Senior Member
It's not appropriate behavior most anywhere, but one thing that makes forums different from each other is the extent to which such behavior is tolerated. There is a lot that one can freely say on sites like Craigslist, YouTube, or LiveLeak that is not acceptable here.
People who cuss like sailors at their local tavern tavern will naturally act different in church, but online forums don't have the benefit of steeples and stained glass windows identifying them as places of better conduct. So, when people who are used to lambasting on other forums join VI-Control to continue their behavior, their first VI-Control experience is usually getting moderated.
When that happens, depending on the thickness of their skin, they will:
- Read the rules and accept them (albeit begrudgingly) or...
- Decide this forum is not a good fit and leave, or...
- Launch a non-stop, multi-post, dramatic tirade against the forum citing censorship and favoritism, and declare Mike Greene to be the world's most arrogant, pompous, self-righteous, self-centered, egotistical, haughty, conceited, domineering, imperious, overbearing, overweening, cocky, sanctimonious, moralizing dictator better known in the Book of Revelations as the Antichrist.
I posted a critique of StaffPad recently. I thought it was even-handed and apropos. Where does something like that fit? If the forum is just for companies to offer their wares without any critical response, then wouldn't this just be an advertising forum and not a forum for discussion? And this post that I'm posting now, is this allowed? Just trying to get a feel for what's really allowed and what's not.
OP
OP
You're overthinking this. As I said in Rule 1: "Critiques on products are okay, but be cool about it." "Even handed and apropos" fall under the umbrella of "be cool about it," so you're fine.
There are lots and lots of post critical about products by Spitfire and just about every other company here. (Except Realitone, of course, which would get you banned immediately!
) Totally fine. Honest opinions (both good and bad) about libraries is probably the biggest function of the forum. In fact, it's how the forum got started. (Check out the masterfully written "A Short Forum History" post on the Portal Page.)The purpose of the new rules isn't to stop critiques, the purpose of the new rules is to get people not to be jerks when they do it.
You're overthinking this. As I said in Rule 1: "Critiques on products are okay, but be cool about it." "Even handed and apropos" fall under the umbrella of "be cool about it," so you're fine.
There are lots and lots of post critical about products by Spitfire and just about every other company here. (Except Realitone, of course, which would get you banned immediately!
The purpose of the new rules isn't to stop critiques, the purpose of the new rules is to get people not to be jerks when they do it.
That seems fair. No desire to be a jerk, but I do use the forum to get a feel for new products, so honest opinions which don't come from a place of financial gain are important to me.
Rory
Amateur Auteur
I think that there are things going on here that are quite a bit more damaging than Westworld posts. I'd like to know why people who are being paid to market products while posting here are not required to state that in their posts. I have a lot of respect for the one participant on this forum - yes, one - who states as a matter of course that he has received free product from companies that he talks about. It's amazing that that is not the norm, especially in cases where people are actually being paid. This is a matter of basic ethics and transparency. When people hide these business arrangements, it hurts the credibility of this forum and badly serves participants. I don't know about this forum, but on some platforms, such as YouTube, failing to disclose such relationships is believed to actually be against the law, and for good reason. Why is a blind eye turned to this here? Who gains from turning a blind eye to this?
Last edited:
Polkasound
Senior Member
I've seen other members do that. They'll add something like "I received a free product for review." (In fact, one member posted it so often that other members politely asked him to stop. LOL) But if a reviewer doesn't post that, it really doesn't matter to me, because the requirement to do so assumes the reviewer is corruptible and may not be delivering an objective review. I honestly don't think that's the case 99% of the time. The VI-Control members who receive free libraries for review, in my opinion, don't obscure the libraries' weaknesses. If there's a problem or a major shortcoming, they'll mention it.
In my opinion, it would be creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I think requiring people to mention free/discounted products on Amazon, eBay, YouTube, Facebook, or other major websites used by millions and millions of people is standard fare, because the potential for financially-influenced reviews is inevitable.
VI-Control is made up of only a few thousand members, which is so insignificant compared to those other sites that individual problems are still manageable and handled personally by a small group of moderators. If the disclaimer rule were added to reviews, all of the honest reviewers would follow it, but it would be ignored by anyone wanting to post a deceitfully positive review for financial gain.
By default, I read ALL reviews with skepticism... not because I believe the reviewer's opinions may have been influenced by financial gain, but simply because no two reviewers are the same. Every reviewer has a different set of ears, different set of skills, different musical background, different needs and expectations from a library, etc. Ultimately it's up to me to make an informed decision by vetting the reviews I read the same as the demos I hear and the walkthrough videos I watch.
Rory
Amateur Auteur
@Polkasound I’m talking about people who have a paid business relationship as well as people getting free product, although I regard that as a distinction without a difference. If you don’t know that the former is happening here, that underscores the problem.
The thing that’s interesting is that some people oppose transparency about receipt of financial benefits in money or in kind. Why? What legitimate basis is there for the opposition?
If it doesn’t matter, why do legislatures routinely require that these payments be disclosed on public platforms? Why do legitimate newspapers pay for their critics’ tickets and meals instead of accepting freebies.
This is a pretty straightforward issue.
The thing that’s interesting is that some people oppose transparency about receipt of financial benefits in money or in kind. Why? What legitimate basis is there for the opposition?
If it doesn’t matter, why do legislatures routinely require that these payments be disclosed on public platforms? Why do legitimate newspapers pay for their critics’ tickets and meals instead of accepting freebies.
This is a pretty straightforward issue.
Last edited:
It doesn't even have to be disruptive - just a universal flag on any post where there's a relationship.
I agree that people are review savvy these days, but it's the more subtle stuff like making helpful recommendations that aren't a great fit, or constantly bumping things to the centre of attention. This seems kinda dirty. Hype from genuine users also happens but it's nice to be able to separate the two at a glance.
I agree that people are review savvy these days, but it's the more subtle stuff like making helpful recommendations that aren't a great fit, or constantly bumping things to the centre of attention. This seems kinda dirty. Hype from genuine users also happens but it's nice to be able to separate the two at a glance.
Brambleclaw
Morgan's Bitch
You mean arbitrary justice.
Arbitrary justice. A despotic regime where people are punished without rhyme nor reason and no one knows where they stand. The laws are so malleable you can be charged with a crime for merely existing.
Dworkins theory was more nuanced tbf.
The teleological approach is a gross offense to basic logic and morality. But hey ho.
If this was truly a principle based approach, then he wouldn't need such a lengthy set of rules, he could sum it up for this forum as "don't cause drama and don't be a dick".
Arthur Lewis
Member
People causing drama tend not to believe they are the cause of the drama.
JohnG
Senior Member
You don't have any idea what I'm talking about. It is not arbitrary at all, any more than your suggestion would be.
Speaking of which....
