Really? I’m glad to know that. I thought everyone was required to read every post in every thread. Actually, I have quit reading all but the threads that interest me. However, I also read some others just to see what nonsense someone has posted.
LOL yes some entertaining posts.
Most of the MQA discussion has been the same discussion going in circles for years now but as @Graeme_Finlayson mentioned, the discussion recently got some new life mainly because of some new technical analysis. So that was interesting reading (for me).
They can start with just pulling up all my posts 
1 Like
Whoever posted the Monty Python “Argument Sketch” clip absolutely nailed it. Like my kids in the back of the car on a 1200 mile trip to the South of France every year.
2 Likes
No worries!
When you write “Let’s talk about music, kit, and pets” I guess you’ll respect that some people have no interest in posting about those topics.
If people are only interested in MQA discussion and nothing else, then there’s no need for anyone to whinge. They can simply go find another topic.
1 Like
Not according to the new forum rules. The days of the constant tit for tat MQA arguments are over.
Would that it were so simple…
Interesting discussions can and do happen without ‘tit for tat’.
My point is, if those moderated discussions are still not interesting to someone, instead of whinging “There is nothing left to say IMHO. Let’s talk about music, kit, and pets” , then that person can just go to a different discussion.
Sorry mods for my little tit for tat here LOL. Now that I clarified my point I won’t repeat it again.
So, to be clear, any post in any discussion that brings nothing new to the discussion is likely to be moderated. Is that correct?
I am just trying to understand this new world we are in here.
I note that the revised Community Guidelines link posted earlier in this thread by @Geoff_Coupe has only been clicked through once.
All the information you need should be there. Please read (or re-read) the guidelines and, if there is something in there which is still unclear, point it out to us and we will do our best to clarify.
Thanks.
1 Like
I asked my question because what I got from Carl’s comments seemed to go further than what I recall the posted guidelines said. I looked at them again and my memory is indeed good.
There is nothing in them that says each post must bring something new to the discussion.
I suggest that you re-read the sections on Endless Contrarianism, Axe-grinding, and Persistent Negativity. Frankly, the behaviour that @Carl alluded to, and you are struggling to understand, is implied in the spirit of those three definitions.
A new poster is entitled to bring a fresh opinion – for example, “I did some AB tests and found that I could/could not tell the difference between bit rate X and bit rate Y”, but existing posters need to back off if they have nothing new to offer.
2 Likes
Ok. So, a person that has never posted about MQA before starts a thread saying that they think MQA is lossless and sounds better than any other PCM format. Anyone that has posted previously in another MQA thread a contrary view about the compression or the sound quality, should not post in this new thread unless their position has changed. Correct?
If the prior poster wants to refer a new poster to existing discussions that might interest them they can link to those discussions. The guidelines are intended to stop people recreating previous discussions. Intention is important. If a user is clearly trying to be helpful to the new poster that is one thing. If they are taking the opportunity to climb onto a soapbox and serve it up all over again and provoke those who they disagree with then that is another.
Similarly there is a difference between asking questions about the guidelines that a user genuinely doesn’t understand and trying to ‘catch out’ or troll Roon staff.
Mods and Admins have nudged and warned users on all sides of the MQA arguments. If you see something you think infringes the guidelines, flag it.
1 Like
That should encourage a few enthusiasts.
It can be an issue. We look at the stats for flags agreed and rejected. Flags agreed are not a problem, almost by definition. A user who builds up a significant proportion of rejected flags, however, is either an over zealous flagger, in which case we ask them to back off as they are not seeing things the way we do, or possibly carrying out some campaign or vendetta.
The autohide system works off trust levels which are affected by agreed/rejected stats. If you flag inappropriately your flags won’t autohide.
We have had instances where people engage in a flurry of flagging as a result of being Moderated. If that builds up to significant rejected flags then we ask them to stop, give a warning or, if a warning doesn’t change behaviour, ultimately suspend. This sort of conduct is now also described as unacceptable in the guidelines.
2 Likes
I wish life was that simple.
2 Likes
Can we at least try?
If only we could focus our attention and seemingly boundless energy on something that really matters, such as global health equity, gun control or ridding the world of landmines. If we did this, then we might actually accomplish something worthwhile!
MQA pales into significance by comparison, wouldn’t you think?
2 Likes
I am not trolling. I want to make sure I know what the rules are so I don’t run afoul of them as I have been warned I am on my last leg.
3 Likes