This is a fair question by @crenca and I’ve opened this thread to explain.
The guidelines relevantly say:
“You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
Name-calling.
Ad hominem attacks.
Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.
Knee-jerk contradiction.
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.”
A statement that someone has been duped is on the margin here, but the Admins have asked us to be careful of the marginal comment that draws an inflamed response. To avoid an impression that we are allowing the cause and moderating the effect, marginal comments that draw an emotional response may themselves be moderated.
Rather than leaving a comment hostage to an emotional reaction, it is better to rephrase it. In this instance the question to ask is: am I trying to say something about MQA, something about myself, or something about another poster.
We can certainly criticise MQA. We can explain why we don’t share someone else’s beliefs or conclusions. Where this remark crosses the line is in the implicit attribution of gullibility to the other poster.
As to “you are in error”, it would depend on context. It has one flavour if said about a logical proposition and another if about my favourite band. Personally I would avoid saying it and talk about why the proposition doesn’t follow or why I don’t like that band.
I appreciate your reply. However, I wonder if you (and/or Roon as a company) are not being a bit over sensitive on what is or is not “marginal”. MQA in particular is (among other things) a claim about the highly subjective notion of “sound quality”. In the context of “audiophiledom” were there is more than a little nefarious practices and products, and where there is a real and significant debate/disagreement between the so called “objectivists” and “subjectivists”, MQA is naturally going to be “right in the thick of it” so to speak.
Given what we know about its actual technical merits, how would you approach the subject in general and those in particular like Richard who claim a subjective experience, and then go on to use that experience in a vague way to accuse others of ill will, “smugness”, “empty paradigms”, (need I go on?). Indeed, I noticed you moderated “duped” but these more direct allegations are more significantly emotive and were left as is.
However, I am a big boy and I am not particularly offended by Richard’s position (it is really a non-position) about HOW his experience is connected to the actual technical claims of MQA. Although it appears to me (and obviously others - WiWavelenght’s response is just one example) that as soon as someone like Richard is asked “but why?”, these folks claim to be “offended” and you as a moderator step in shut down the discussion.
Given all this I am going to ask some hard questions of you and the Roon team:
Is Roon trying to sidestep the controversy, the debate around MQA in any way (I don’t think so, but I think its best to clear the air, so to speak)?
How are you going to allow discussion of MQA, as your business obviously puts you right smack in the middle of the debate, without appearing to bend to those who claim significant subjective experiences yet are immediately offended any questioning of the source or significance of the experience and how their experience is related to MQA?
Ok, why? I do ask direct questions from everyone - but why is it that those who like and support MQA based on their own subjectivised “experience” are immediately offended when asked to connect their experience to MQA’s technical claims?
to accuse others of ill will, “smugness”, “empty paradigms”, (need I go on?). Indeed, I noticed you moderated “duped” but these more direct allegations are more significantly emotive and were left as is.
Thats the problem with marginal remarks. Where to start ? The Mods don’t see everything and we make mistakes. We are more likely to remove marginal remarks that prompt an inappropriate response than those which pass through to the keeper (or catcher). If you see it happening, drop a flag.
Is Roon trying to sidestep the controversy, the debate around MQA in any way (I don’t think so, but I think its best to clear the air, so to speak)?
I should note that the Mods are volunteer users and we don’t represent Roon. “Hall monitor” is probably an apt metaphor.
My experience of how MQA discussions have been handled is the opposite of what you describe. There is a range of views about MQA among Admins and Mods. In the past I’ve moderated and defended both pro and con MQA posters. The Admins have asked us to tread lightly in MQA threads, meaning to let discussion flow. I intervened in this one when I thought the posts following yours were well outside the lines and likely to deteriorate.
How are you going to allow discussion of MQA, as your business obviously puts you right smack in the middle of the debate, without appearing to bend to those who claim significant subjective experiences yet are immediately offended any questioning of the source or significance of the experience and how their experience is related to MQA?
I can only answer on my own behalf and I’ll try to call them as I see them. I would suggest responding to subjective view comments by explaining that while entirely valid to that person they’re not persuasive to you because of ABC etc.
Thanks for the explanation on yours and Roons position. If I had your job, I would have reacted differently but that’s expected. I hope in the future this community can discuss MQA in a way that allows all aspects, including the subjectivised “I hear what I hear and you dare not question it” position to be examined thoroughly.