Unfair treatment

[Vaughan]

I recently created a thread concerning vent operation that seemed to be constructive and helpful. It later turned into a "port resonance being audible" debate.

Every step I defended my points without attacking the member but I'm told by Timber (the moderator and the one debating the points) to tone down. Now I read the forum rules and I don't see any infringement. As soon as I attempted to defend my argument was the second that I got policed.

I think a different moderator should have looked after the thread. He was biased in his views and any view conflicting with his is given the boot. Another issue is that Timber made inflammatory comments towards me as his final post. I didn't appreciate that at all. My contributions on this forum have been helpful and I accept that my debating style is a little aggressive at times but I don't attack people; just the arguments. I referenced a paper in support of my position that Timber quite frankly didn't understand. But he throw in a line or two to dismiss it and of course I can't say anything because he decided to close the thread which was convenient.

So I'm not happy with the outcome because I never attacked any members and yet I'm told to keep quite otherwise I'll be silenced. Also not happy that he acted as moderator of the thread when participating in the discussion as his bias, I felt, effected his moderator skills. So I thought I would make this post to describe the way I feel. It's so easy to make a final post and misrepresent the position of the one debating when I can't even defend myself.

Regards,

[kay]

Vaughan, I've got your PM but I will reply here and invite others to do so as well. I have read the entire thread from the start and do not agree that it was biased against you. There were four moderators posting in there already, besides some long-term and well respected members of our community. That is enough of a peer review for me.

A moderator can not be prevented from posting, and subjectivity will always play a factor. Timber_MG clearly indicated when he was making a moderator comment, however, to differentiate from his own views on the topic matter.

I would feel inclined to unlock the thread after a week or so, and continue the debate but I will leave that decision to the board's moderators. I think that both sides were somewhat guilty of missing the other's points, thus going in circles. Yes, forum threads have a tendency to do so. I will readily confess that most of the arguments went completely over my head so I can't take a side in the technical argument. That does mean that I am, in a way, not biased - at least when it comes to the technical argument - but I found Timber's points more convincing

I also disagree that Timber_MG's remarks towards you in his closing comment were inflammatory. I think he made some good points but, once again, my understanding of the matter is fairly superficial. That is why he is the moderator and not I. I did not see a well-reasoned counter-argument from yourself to the points raised by Hennie and Timber. And the fact that those arguments were deviating from the original topic is yet another good reason to lock the thread as it were.

[Vaughan]

Kay,

Thank you for posting. I wanted to make it clear that my position was not to attack people but the arguments which I am entitled to do. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of my points were technical so I am at a loss as to why I was asked to tone down. One of the moderators told me to tone down otherwise I would be silenced based on the arguments put forth.

In my opinion, I think the lines were blurred with Timber acting as moderator and debater, his bias, overall effecting his judgments. Hennie never offered a counter-argument using evidence in support of his position. It was a case of "I am an EE, therefore I don't need to defend my statements" position. I asked that he please read the paper and he dismissed it as evidence without even looking at it.

The main issue is that neither Timber nor Hennie offered actual evidence in support of their positions but just declared that I was wrong and that was the end of it. So it seemed very one-sided given that we have a moderator who is biased in the discussion who is also calling the shots and declares when the thread starts and finishes.

Finally, the inflammatory comments I mentioned from Timber is that I "always engage other views in a manner resulting in various threads going down the drain, conflict or generally to the detriment of the avforums community" is not an accurate one. I've been more than helpful in a number of cases which he neglected to mention but only painted me in a negative light. It misrepresents my position here.

I freely admit that my posting style is a little aggressive at times but I get the impression that dissenting views are not allowed. Since I've joined, I haven't seen any actual debates around here which, to be honest, doesn't surprise me based on my dealings with a few. I think dissenting views are healthy for discussion because not everything is black and white despite what someone on a message board claims.

Regards,

[AudioEngineer]

Hi goneten,

I've been following that particular thread with interest without getting involved. Based on what I've seen there I'd like to make some honest observations based upon my perceptions of the whole episode. I do this without knowing or ever meeting you in person, but from what I've seen in this forum I can see you are a true enthusiast, that you like to contribute your knowledge and experience and also that you like to learn new things. All that is to be commended and encouraged. So, here goes, and for reference, I have a Master's degree in Electronic Engineering with many years of experience in the field...

- Some highly experienced, knowledgeable and educated people have contributed their insights to that thread.

- The information that these people have contributed aren't based on conjecture or their personal opinions - it is based on theory that has been well established for decades and which is taught in 101-level courses in the engineering or physical science courses.

- You come along and then dismiss these contributions as fluff or nonsense in quite an aggressive way just because you've read a paper on the subject, but making it obvious in the process that you don't yet have a grasp on the underlying theory and principles of the subject at hand. Just dismissing knowledgeable people like that while showing complete ignorance is considered very rude.

- There was nothing left to be debated any further in that thread. The last few postings contributed *facts* based on well-known theory and principles, but yet you dismiss it as fluff. Just imagine your reaction when knowing a fact about one of your products, and then one of your clients attack you in a public forum dismissing your statement as complete hogwash and that you don't know what you are talking about!

So, based on the above I can understand why the thread was closed. I can maybe offer the following advice for taking part in discussions in these (and other) forums: Healthy discussion and learning is always a good thing. However, rather than thinking you know all about a subject and then dismissing experts in an aggressive way, rather try to find the reason for the difference in opinion in a civilized way. Either person may be wrong because of incorrect assumptions that have been made. but rather try to understand and clear up these differences without being aggressive about it. That way we can all learn from the discussion. Hell, even I admit that I don't know everything! I take the approach I'm preaching even with subjects that I'm very knowledgeable about. And then, most of the time, I learn something new in the process, just because different people think differently and make different assumptions.

I truly hope to see more of you in these forums, but I hope you take some of what I said above to heart. We are all enthusiasts and passionate about this subject - after all we are all here to learn and have fun!

Kind regards
Jaco

[Timber_MG]

Just for the moderator's perspective; Vaughan has been instructed on many occasions to adjust his attitude and approach to argumentation by both moderators on that forum after a series of complaints. This had absolutely nothing to do with the content of his arguments but his approach (and from the communication that I saw that had been very clear throughout)

His engagement with Stuart of late had been most abrupt, causing a potential contributor with years of experience to simply turn around and leave. He had been warned for exactly this modus operandii on multiple occasions(thinking back to a certain cable thread and others). Some people just couldn't care to be dealt with in such a manner on this forum and we want to prevent such hostility towards them (hence the repeated attempts to try and guide Vaughan to contain himself in his approach and attitude from Gert and myself)

The thread was locked in that manner not because of any disagreement (many people disagree with me on many points and that makes for learning), but because yet again Vaughan turned on members, in this case who were at pains to try and exlain the principles. The thread was going nowhere in a hurry yet again so instead of escalating yet another ego fueled situation (this was not the first time us moderators have had ths experience with Vaughan) I decided it was better to lock the thread.

As was seen in other threads where he had caused a stir he called for moderator intervention. With his attitude us moderators really find it tedious to clean up or represent the mess he caused for himself so many times already.

A good night to all

Martin

[chipwelder]

For the most part you seemed plain rude when someone argues the case against you, whenever the mods tried to lighten things up - mostly in a fairly unbiased way - you went on to attack them. Whenever someone obviously never does or says something wrong in any sort of relationship i find i have little time for discussions with that person, i am not surprised the others get Pd of with you.

[Vaughan]

Hey Jaco,

Thank you for posting. One thing I've found is that if one declares something to be true (even if experience is on ones side) that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. The "fluff" comment I made was a bit bold, I admit that, but the claim made was bold itself.

The claim that vented subwoofers have audible port resonances (within the passband of the design) is not a credible one, in my opinion. Telling someone with years of experience that he is wrong sure sounds rude. But conversely, telling someone that they are wrong without showing or demonstrating how seems, to me at least, just as rude especially when no credible evidence is cited.

I don't think the thread is nearly as clear cut as Timber and Hennie made it out to be. But in future I'll try to tone down my aggressive stance and perhaps try to avoid miscommunication, if indeed, there is. Thank you again for offering your views, I appreciate it.

Regards,

[Vaughan]

Timber, you need to understand something; I participate in several audio forums, each of them I am a respected member and I debate these concepts time and time again; the debating style can be aggressive. But it appears that my debating style is not welcome in this forum. It's too aggressive. I should apologize. This place seems completely different to every other forum I've been in so the transition is not as smooth as it should be.

Regards,

[Timber_MG]

I feel ill at ease to raise the technical issues here, but Jaco has summarised the situaion pretty well.

[Hennie]

The claim that vented subwoofers have audible port resonances (within the passband of the design) is not a credible one, in my opinion. Telling someone with years of experience that he is wrong sure sounds rude. But conversely, telling someone that they are wrong without showing or demonstrating how seems, to me at least, just as rude especially when no credible evidence is cited.

I don't remember seeing anybody making a claim that vented subwoofers have audible port resonances inside their passband. The whole purpose of Timber's write-up and simulations was to show that port resonances outside the passband can be excited by harmonics (also outside the passband) of signals lying inside the passband. This is valuable work, showing his knowledge, insight and experience. You should be thankful, having had the opportunity to be made aware of this, because this phenomenon is overlooked by many designers, either due to ignorance or cost cutting.

I responded by confirming his explanation from a practical experience point of view, and argued that pre-driver filtering (an electronic low pass filter ) cannot alleviate a problem that originates on the acoustical side (the driver / port interface), and that post-driver filtering i.e. an acoustical filter would be necessary. And with that I conclude this argument.

[AudioEngineer]

@Timber_MG

I'd like to offer a suggestion - unlock the vented subwoofer thread and let's see how things progress from this point onwards....

I'm sure nobody there has taken offense so far (there may be some ticked off people, but that is what happens in life in general   ). It's an interesting and lively discussion and I'd certainly like to see it continue and hopefully result in some useful insights and/or conclusions for all involved...

If the situation in that thread doesn't improve, or even degenerates further then you have very right to close it down, but I always prefer to give people a chance, and most of the time I'm pleasantly surprised...

[Timber_MG]

Now, now Hennie, unfortunately I cannot edit away such un called for flattery.

[Byrd]

I participate in several audio forums, each of them I am a respected member and I debate these concepts time and time again; the debating style can be aggressive. But it appears that my debating style is not welcome in this forum. It's too aggressive. I should apologize. This place seems completely different to every other forum I've been in so the transition is not as smooth as it should be.

Regards,

Really?

[a bunch of links to AVS threads removed]

I dont see any respect and it looks like others also take offence at this "aggresive" approach. It doesnt look like this is unique to our forum

[Vaughan]

Ag please.  Some of it is light hearted. . .others were a bit heated. So what. Not all discussions end merrily. I've been posting there for over six years and I'm afraid a few threads won't capture my posting history there.   But I think it might be a tad inappropriate to link threads from another forum to this one.

Regards,

[Vaughan]

I would kindly ask that those threads be removed from this thread. Bryd, hope you had fun. 

Regards,