Suggestion...

[kojdogg]

Now that signatures are back, I would suggest that any/all members should have to disclose any professional affiliations-- including, but not limited to endorsements, pro audio equipment or software companies that they work for or have any sort of financial interest in, etc.

This will help increase transparency and avoid any perceptions of conflicts of interest.

[Dogbreath]

Not a bad idea.

I've seen something along these lines in a few other sites and it helps the OP AND the ones posting.

If you're from (insert company) and sell (insert product), the OP can take the wisdom from the guys product knowledge and disregard the sales pitch and the guy who works for (insert company) doesn't get slammed for trying to move a product cuz it's right there in his info that he works there.

er...

yeah...kinda what YOU just said.

[Sirnothingness]

I don't really care for the idea but I do like the word insertion.

[rory]

I think W-2s, driver's licenses, and social security cards be verified too. Oh, and a mandatory criminal check.

I don't care for that idea either, how are you going to make people do that? You guys have loads of members buying stuff from those group buys, if a guy from audix or shure comes in here and convinces a noob to buy one of their mics for more, that's great.

[kojdogg]

Originally Posted by rory

I think W-2s, driver's licenses, and social security cards be verified too. Oh, and a mandatory criminal check.

Come on-- these are very different things.

Originally Posted by rory

I don't care for that idea either, how are you going to make people do that? You guys have loads of members buying stuff from those group buys, if a guy from audix or shure comes in here and convinces a noob to buy one of their mics for more, that's great.

The idea is to take a position of discouraging covert spamming or the exercise of other kinds of influence with ulterior motives. A lot of folks come here and have $100 or less to spend on something and that's all they'll have for a while-- some post, some don't. The idea isn't just to keep someone from Audix or Shure from convincing a noob who posts a "what should I buy for x" thread to buy one of their mics, but also to keep someone from some pro audio related company from convincing the many other people who might happen to read the threads here to not participate in a group buy, to avoid some particular company, etc. because they are in direct competition with those kinds of efforts or vendors. It's naive to think that those kinds of things don't happen.

My suggestion is intended to protect those who aren't quite as seasoned as you or some of the other veteran folks here. You don't need that kind of protection, but it doesn't mean that others can't benefit from it. If members do post their affiliations and post meaningful, helpful content, it will likely lead to increased attention to their endorsers or companies. That seems to be what happens on the other pro audio/recording message boards that maintain similar policies.

[rory]

Originally Posted by kojdogg

The idea is to take a position of discouraging covert spamming or the exercise of other kinds of influence with ulterior motives. A lot of folks come here and have $100 or less to spend on something and that's all they'll have for a while-- some post, some don't. The idea isn't just to keep someone from Audix or Shure from convincing a noob who posts a "what should I buy for x" thread to buy one of their mics, but also to keep someone from some pro audio related company from convincing the many other people who might happen to read the threads here to not participate in a group buy, to avoid some particular company, etc. because they are in direct competition with those kinds of efforts or vendors. It's naive to think that those kinds of things don't happen.

My suggestion is intended to protect those who aren't quite as seasoned as you or some of the other veteran folks here. You don't need that kind of protection, but it doesn't mean that others can't benefit from it. If members do post their affiliations and post meaningful, helpful content, it will likely lead to increased attention to their endorsers or companies. That seems to be what happens on the other pro audio/recording message boards that maintain similar policies.

It sounds like a fair suggestion, I just fail to see how one is going to implement it. The only way is on good faith, which will work for some, but the people willing to admit they work for an industry company would likely not be ones who would likely cause those problems to begin with.

[kojdogg]

Yeah it depends on good faith and it's about good faith. Policy doesn't control behavior-- it just tries to set standards and articulate philosophy. If the "new management" sets some guidelines like this, maybe they can invite more pros-- from gear manufacturers, trade writers, retailers and studio owners to hang around here. Then again, there may be a conscious decision to avoid doing that kind of thing.

Either way, it's just my humble opinion that folks should know if the posts that they're reading are more than just the honest opinions of fellow end users and home recordists, but rather statements and/or the covert marketing (or smear tactics/anti-marketing) of people with financial interest in shaping potential consumer opinions.

[dgatwood]

FWIW, where I work, the policy is that, marketing folks notwithstanding, we are not supposed to use the company's name in the way you suggest because too many people will interpret posts by employees as being representative of the company's position when it isn't more often than not.

Not that this matters much, though, really. I started working where I work because I love the products, and if I didn't, I wouldn't keep working there. And I've steered many people towards other products (often cheaper products, and occasionally, even competitors' products) when I felt they would be better served by them. I'd rather see someone walk away happy with somebody else's product than unhappy with something my employer makes. I'd like to think that's true of most people on the board.

At best, disclosing affiliations in signatures is little more than advertising. At worst, it's a policy that I would have to either violate or stop posting on the board entirely. I think all you can really do is trust that people will do the right thing and not act like a bunch of corporate shills. If you can't, then no amount of disclosure (which the real shills will ignore anyway) is going to change that. All that a mandatory disclosure policy is going to do is make people like me uncomfortable about posting here.

Just my $0.019365, adjusted for inflation.

[kojdogg]

I definitely respect your opinion and as I've stated above that this is just my opinion and a suggestion (which has been apparently met with largely with indifference and otherwise with ambivalence).

All I'm saying is that disclosure would help people put posts that recommend one product over another, disparage certain products, etc. where the poster has some interest in doing so into appropriate context. I imagine that of the almost 89,000 members here that people with pro audio manufacturer, retailer or other related business affiliations are in the vast minority of that number.

[Sirnothingness]

Originally Posted by kojdogg

I imagine that of the almost 89,000 members here that people with pro audio manufacturer, retailer or other related business affiliations are in the vast minority of that number.

So are the people that still come here.

[kojdogg]

Originally Posted by Sirnothingness

So are the people that still come here.

...as members-- and that just reinforces my point. A lot of people probably stumble across this board doing a web search on a particular piece of gear that they're considering-- they find threads/posts about particular pieces of gear. They don't have any context around or background about the various members here or the people posting in those threads.

[omtayslick]

I like the idea. period.....

[gecko zzed]

Let's examine this idea a bit more.

My first thought is "what is the problem for which this idea is the solution?"

The problem, as I understand it, is double-barrelled:

1 some people may be fooled into buying something on the recommendation of someone's advice, where that second person is really touting a product for a particular company; and

2 the converse . . . some people may be fooled into not buying a product because it is disparaged by someone from a rival company, but the advice seeker doesn't realise this.

My second thought is "is there any evidence to suggest this happening?"

I have been a member only since 2005. During that time I have seen products being praised and damned across the board. For example, consider the hammering that Behringer gets continuously. Consider the praise that RNC compressors get. It would be silly to think that the Behringer haters are all employees of or associated with Mackie, likewise that RNC praisers are all employed by or associated with RNC.

I suggest that if someone has a vested interest that they are pushing through the board surreptitiously, their voice is overwhelmed by the myriad of other opinions contributing (either for or against).

But it is not just representatives of a company that have an interest. There are things such as group think and 'buyer remorse' that also have influence. Again, take Behringer as an example. You have to be increasingly brave to come out in support of Behringer because there is such a group atitude in this forum against that brand. (The reality is that Behringer performs the same as any other budget brand, and is no better or worse than them. They do, however, have the temerity to be affordable). With 'buyer remorse' a person can encourage someone to buy what they've got so that they feel better about their own purchase.

For a rule to be effective it must be enforceable. Conceivably you could have a mandatory field when registering for this site. However, that field must contain an option for 'no affiliation' because that's what the bulk of particpants would have. Which means that you immediately negate the value of this field. The rule is unenforceable, and for just that reason, should not be adopted. It is unworkable.

But in any case, while there are many people who are new to this forum, they are not necessarily new to recording or music or whatever, and importantly, they are not ne necessarily new to wisdom. We should not downplay the ability of people to exercise their own judgement.

Furthermore, it doesn't take long to know where the wisdom lies in this board. I know who the wisecrackers are, who the flippant ones are, who the sarcastic ones are, who the angry ones are. I also know who to heed for good balanced advice. Their words reveal themselves. And it doesn't take long.

More importantly, there is no need for anyone to play mummy and daddy here. People are capable of looking after themselves, and should be allowed to do so. This has two aspects. Firstly, we should trust that people are contributing to the various forum honestly and with integrity. If they have a vested interest, then we would expect them to declare it (and in fact I have seen that happen). Secondly, people taking advice are going to make mistakes. That's just life. We are allowed to get it wrong.

So perhaps there are participants acting dishonourably. Does it matter? Are they really making any difference? Let them play their games, because their shallowness soon becomes evident.

[kojdogg]

wow-- that's a lot of thought

Well, I would caution against deeming that something is or isn't a problem based only on your experience.

I would also caution against deeming that something shouldn't be done because it is hard to do (impossible of course is a different matter).

I would finally note that this isn't just about imposing arbitrary rules, nor is it solely put out for consideration to protect the naive and/or uninitiated, but this could also be a prudent step in the direction of embracing the professional gear manufacturing and even retailing community much as other recording/pro-audio message boards have done with great success (rather than being "mummy and daddy" to just them) and an opportunity we may be missing out on. It could be roughly analogous to the end of prohibition in terms of increased membership, more smart folks posting about their areas of expertise, etc.

We do in fact already have a moderator who is the owner/proprietor of a relatively small, yet highly respected pro audio company.

[gecko zzed]

Originally Posted by kojdogg

Well, I would caution against deeming that something is or isn't a problem based only on your experience.

You are quite right. My experience may be neither deep enough nor wide enough to judge whether something is a problem or not.

So . . . is there a problem with participants not knowing the 'credentials' of posters? If so, what is the evidence that I should be aware of so that I can be more informed? And, indeed, be on the look out for it.

Originally Posted by kojdogg

I would also caution against deeming that something shouldn't be done because it is hard to do (impossible of course is a different matter).

Again, you are quite right. Something being difficult to do is not a justification for not doing it. However, this statement can't remain unqualified. We also need to take into account the benefit of doing it or the risk of not doing it. It's quite possible that surmounting the difficulty is an effort that produces insufficient compensatory benefits.

For example, I've got weeds in my lawn. Is it easy to get rid of them? No, not really, but it could be done with a lot of effort. Is that expenditure of effort worthwhile? Only if I really want a weed-free lawn. But as it happens, I don't care if there are weeds amongst the grass, and there are other activities that would realise greater benefits for me were I to devote my effort to them instead of the lawn.

On the other hand, if keeping the lawn weed-free was easy, then I might be tempted to do it, because I would still have time left for those other things.

Originally Posted by kojdogg

I would finally note that this isn't just about imposing arbitrary rules, nor is it solely put out for consideration to protect the naive and/or uninitiated, but this could also be a prudent step in the direction of embracing the professional gear manufacturing and even retailing community much as other recording/pro-audio message boards have done with great success (rather than being "mummy and daddy" to just them) and an opportunity we may be missing out on. It could be roughly analogous to the end of prohibition in terms of increased membership, more smart folks posting about their areas of expertise, etc.

We do in fact already have a moderator who is the owner/proprietor of a relatively small, yet highly respected pro audio company.

I found this paragraph a bit hard to unravel. I'm pleased that the idea isn't about "imposing arbitrary rules", though it does have that flavour about it. Mainly because the benefits aren't clear to me. I am not sure why it would be a "prudent" step. And what opportunites could we be missing out on? The bit about "prohibition" lost me completely, I'm afraid. But . . . increased membership? This forum has 90,000 members, which doesn't sound like a small number to me (accepting that there will be a large number of past and inactive members). As I type there are 121 active users. So it doesn't seem as if the forum is stagnating.

My reference to being "mummy and daddy" was in relation to the administration of this forum and how it deals with naive and uninitiated. I don't see a need for a paternalistic, protective treatment of them.

[kojdogg]

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

You are quite right. My experience may be neither deep enough nor wide enough to judge whether something is a problem or not.

So . . . is there a problem with participants not knowing the 'credentials' of posters? If so, what is the evidence that I should be aware of so that I can be more informed? And, indeed, be on the look out for it.

Again, my OP is just a suggestion-- one for improvement. It is titled "Suggestion..." not "Here's what I think is a problem that needs to be solved."

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

Again, you are quite right. Something being difficult to do is not a justification for not doing it. However, this statement can't remain unqualified. We also need to take into account the benefit of doing it or the risk of not doing it. It's quite possible that surmounting the difficulty is an effort that produces insufficient compensatory benefits.

For example, I've got weeds in my lawn. Is it easy to get rid of them? No, not really, but it could be done with a lot of effort. Is that expenditure of effort worthwhile? Only if I really want a weed-free lawn. But as it happens, I don't care if there are weeds amongst the grass, and there are other activities that would realise greater benefits for me were I to devote my effort to them instead of the lawn.

On the other hand, if keeping the lawn weed-free was easy, then I might be tempted to do it, because I would still have time left for those other things.

I found this paragraph a bit hard to unravel. I'm pleased that the idea isn't about "imposing arbitrary rules", though it does have that flavour about it. Mainly because the benefits aren't clear to me. I am not sure why it would be a "prudent" step. And what opportunites could we be missing out on? The bit about "prohibition" lost me completely, I'm afraid. But . . . increased membership? This forum has 90,000 members, which doesn't sound like a small number to me (accepting that there will be a large number of past and inactive members). As I type there are 121 active users. So it doesn't seem as if the forum is stagnating.

My reference to being "mummy and daddy" was in relation to the administration of this forum and how it deals with naive and uninitiated. I don't see a need for a paternalistic, protective treatment of them.

I am happy that you are pleased. Obviously debating this issue through metaphors robs it of some of its nuance (something I did as well in my response)-- the metaphor, on my part, of prohibition is a bit of a clumsy one I admit. What I'm getting at is that if we allow manufacturers, retailers to participate and discuss their products with transparency (i.e. full disclosure of their relationship to any products) this place may be richer for it. That seems to be the case on message boards like Gearslutz where there is robust participation by such people which is great for the membership. Personally I really appreciate the opportunity to interact with the people who are designing, manufacturing, modifying, distributing, servicing, etc. the gear that I use. Having such interactions posted and memorialized on a forum creates a knowledge base can be beneficial to people beyond those who posted in the original thread and well beyond the initial set of postings. Anyone who views it will know exactly who posted the information-- this helps with transparency and accountability and also helps the reader have some perspective by knowing when people who are posting about particular products have financial interests in doing so (e.g. they make the product, they are in competition with the folks who make the product). Right now there is very little transparency here around this. I think that could be improved. Can you ensure that there is 100% compliance around this? No, but if societally we only set up rules, regulations, laws, morals, etc. when we could guarantee 100% compliance we would live in complete anarchy.

That might rock though

[gecko zzed]

Originally Posted by kojdogg

Again, my OP is just a suggestion-- one for improvement. It is titled "Suggestion..." not "Here's what I think is a problem that needs to be solved."

But in fact there is a perceived problem to be solved, and you mention it here:

Originally Posted by kojdogg

Right now there is very little transparency here around this. I think that could be improved.

So the problem is lack of transparency. If it is not a problem, why bother improve it?

Originally Posted by kojdogg

Can you ensure that there is 100% compliance around this? No, but if societally we only set up rules, regulations, laws, morals, etc. when we could guarantee 100% compliance we would live in complete anarchy.

We are now delving into philosophical realms. None of the rules, regulations and laws we have in society enjoy 100% compliance (otherwise we'd have no need for a police and justice system). However, most laws can be defined reasonably unambiguously, and can be policed efectively and practically. As you say, without this, we would live in anarchy. My argument is based not on compliance, but with identifying and dealing with non-compliance. If this can't be done cost effectively, then there is no point to it.

However, I can see this debate continuing with neither party changing his mind, so perhaps we can agree to differ on this.

[kojdogg]

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

But in fact there is a perceived problem to be solved, and you mention it here:

So the problem is lack of transparency. If it is not a problem, why bother improve it?

There is room for improvement in a lot of things that aren't necessarily problems. Would you disagree?

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

We are now delving into philosophical realms. None of the rules, regulations and laws we have in society enjoy 100% compliance (otherwise we'd have no need for a police and justice system). However, most laws can be defined reasonably unambiguously, and can be policed efectively and practically. As you say, without this, we would live in anarchy. My argument is based not on compliance, but with identifying and dealing with non-compliance. If this can't be done cost effectively, then there is no point to it.

However, I can see this debate continuing with neither party changing his mind, so perhaps we can agree to differ on this.

Your arguments seem to be continually based on the semantical margin created by any of my statements that are not absolute. I am enjoying this though

There is no cost involved in this-- zero cost is cost effective. My suggestion is not one I'm making just for the sake of having more rules. There is a deliverable benefit which could come out of it-- again, the idea of having more meaningful and transparent involvement by the professional community here. Do you think that is a bad idea?

[gecko zzed]

Originally Posted by kojdogg

I am enjoying this though

If you are enjoying this, I am happy to keep playing, because I do like being forced to think hard about things. It's also a pleasure to be able to debate things at a level that is a step above the banal "yes it is"/"no it isn't" level.

Originally Posted by kojdogg

There is room for improvement in a lot of things that aren't necessarily problems. Would you disagree?

I admit that I did ponder upon this at length. I think I do disagree, but I could be convinced otherwise.

There are two main reasons for introducing change; to fix something or to prevent something happening. When I take my car in for servicing, both reasons come into play. So my brake pads are replaced, fixing the problem of poor stopping power, and the general servicing is a preventative measure, reducing the risk of breaking down.

Accepting, though, that the car is well maintained and runs highly acceptably, I might wonder whether I could improve its performance generally. Accordingly, I might kit it up with better suspension and other modifications. I might then relish its improved handling and performance. So this looks like a change where no problem existed before, and one intrdouced neither to fix something or to prevent something happening, but I've got something better for it.

On the basis of this, I would have to agree "there is room for improvement in a lot of things that aren't necessarily problems". But because I like being contrary, I will find a way to disagree. So I will introduce another type of problem, which I will call "retrospective dissatisfaction". Having made my performance inprovements to the car, I look back and say "I don't know why I didn't do this before and I don't know how I put up with the previous situatin for so long".

So there is a question of motivation here. What prompted me to seek better performance in the first place? Curiosity, maybe, and the feeling that somehow the car could run better? What prompts anyone to seek inprovements in their life, their work or whatever? This is not readily identified as a 'problem' as such, but a vague and maybe unidentified, dissatisfaction with the way things are is something we try to fix by changing what we do. By defining it as a problem I can therefore quite happily continue to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by kojdogg

There is no cost involved in this-- zero cost is cost effective. My suggestion is not one I'm making just for the sake of having more rules. There is a deliverable benefit which could come out of it-- again, the idea of having more meaningful and transparent involvement by the professional community here. Do you think that is a bad idea?

I would say that there is not "no cost" involved in this. For example, we've already been spending time and intellectual effort discussing this (when I should really be out mowing the lawns or something), and if a change is to be made to the forum, someone has to do something. But I agree that it is not a major cost.

However, my reference to 'cost effectiveness' was probably not quite the right term to use, because my main concern was at what I believe to be the biggest hurdle to the idea, which is the difficulty in establishing compliance. If we ask people to do something, and we can't tell whether or not they're doing it, then I'm not convinced of the value of asking them in the first place.
If we then seek to introduce something (though I don't know what this is) to establish compliance, the penalties involved with this (cost, time, intellectual effort, whatever) may not be worth the benefits obtainable from doing it.

Perhaps other forums have done this successfully. You mentioned Gearslutz. I will now drive down another avenue and say that if these other forums have done it, well, best luck to them, and if I want to hear what specialists and experts and company representatives have to say, then I'll go there. Is there any need for this forum to replicate what's already available?

I should tell you, though, that I am not opposed to change. When I used to work in a 'normal' job, my motto used to be "if it ain't broke, break it", and I was always seeking out new and better ways of doing things. However, I did pick my targets, so it wasn't simply "change for change's sake". And with all these changes, there was an underlying drive to decentralise and to distribute power and responsibility downwards and outwards. I have a highly jaundiced view of authoritarianism, centralised control and regulation, but a profound respect for the capacity of people to be rational, autonmous beings if given the chance to do so.

[kojdogg]

I'm happy to keep bumping this thread up

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

I admit that I did ponder upon this at length. I think I do disagree, but I could be convinced otherwise.

There are two main reasons for introducing change; to fix something or to prevent something happening. When I take my car in for servicing, both reasons come into play. So my brake pads are replaced, fixing the problem of poor stopping power, and the general servicing is a preventative measure, reducing the risk of breaking down.

Accepting, though, that the car is well maintained and runs highly acceptably, I might wonder whether I could improve its performance generally. Accordingly, I might kit it up with better suspension and other modifications. I might then relish its improved handling and performance. So this looks like a change where no problem existed before, and one intrdouced neither to fix something or to prevent something happening, but I've got something better for it.

On the basis of this, I would have to agree "there is room for improvement in a lot of things that aren't necessarily problems". But because I like being contrary, I will find a way to disagree. So I will introduce another type of problem, which I will call "retrospective dissatisfaction". Having made my performance inprovements to the car, I look back and say "I don't know why I didn't do this before and I don't know how I put up with the previous situatin for so long".

So there is a question of motivation here. What prompted me to seek better performance in the first place? Curiosity, maybe, and the feeling that somehow the car could run better? What prompts anyone to seek inprovements in their life, their work or whatever? This is not readily identified as a 'problem' as such, but a vague and maybe unidentified, dissatisfaction with the way things are is something we try to fix by changing what we do. By defining it as a problem I can therefore quite happily continue to disagree with you.

If this is truly your perspective, then I think you might find yourself in the minority in this kind of a board and indeed in a Western Capitalistic society in general.

Here, many people logon to ask advise on what kind of equipment might yield better results. They might dislike something about the sounds they are getting, but often they are getting better results than they probably imagined were possible, or at least results that are good enough. In any case they are striving for better results that sound more like they hear on their favorite recordings or in their "mind's ear." It's not just about equipment. Folks also read about new techniques for mic positioning, mixing, etc. which may lead them to try new things that they haven't thought of even if they're happy with their results to that point. They may post mp3's of songs that they have recorded and mixed for both praise and constructive criticism. Even when they are satisfied with the results they got, they may incorporate suggestions they get into a reworking in the hopes of getting even better results. All very relevant examples of seeking to improve things that aren't broken.

Also, unless you are a Communist, Socialist, Rastafarian, I have to think that your home and daily life are filled with conveniences that would contradict what you stated about not wanting to improve things that aren't necessarily problems. Are you still using the first guitar, microphone, etc. that you ever got? Do you have a cable modem, DSL or wireless internet in your home? Do you have a cell phone-- if so is it the most spartan, bare bones model that they offer? Why would you even need that? Have you ever upgraded from one computer to another before the first one broke down? etc. etc. It's the American Way.

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

would say that there is not "no cost" involved in this. For example, we've already been spending time and intellectual effort discussing this (when I should really be out mowing the lawns or something), and if a change is to be made to the forum, someone has to do something. But I agree that it is not a major cost.

However, my reference to 'cost effectiveness' was probably not quite the right term to use, because my main concern was at what I believe to be the biggest hurdle to the idea, which is the difficulty in establishing compliance. If we ask people to do something, and we can't tell whether or not they're doing it, then I'm not convinced of the value of asking them in the first place.
If we then seek to introduce something (though I don't know what this is) to establish compliance, the penalties involved with this (cost, time, intellectual effort, whatever) may not be worth the benefits obtainable from doing it.

Perhaps other forums have done this successfully. You mentioned Gearslutz. I will now drive down another avenue and say that if these other forums have done it, well, best luck to them, and if I want to hear what specialists and experts and company representatives have to say, then I'll go there. Is there any need for this forum to replicate what's already available?

I should tell you, though, that I am not opposed to change. When I used to work in a 'normal' job, my motto used to be "if it ain't broke, break it", and I was always seeking out new and better ways of doing things. However, I did pick my targets, so it wasn't simply "change for change's sake". And with all these changes, there was an underlying drive to decentralise and to distribute power and responsibility downwards and outwards. I have a highly jaundiced view of authoritarianism, centralised control and regulation, but a profound respect for the capacity of people to be rational, autonmous beings if given the chance to do so.

The effort would simply be transferred from vilifying manufacturers or other folks with commercial affiliations on the part of moderators and other members who join in on the witch hunt to putting into policy that they disclose their affiliations as part of membership sign up and policing the exceptions when people who do have such affiliations fail to disclose them and it emerges that they clearly do have such ties. I'm talking about conservation of energy via conversion.

[mshilarious]

I have signatures blocked because they are annoying. My professional affiliation is in my profile. The only way to implement your suggestion is to require all users to be non-anonymous (nonymous?), which I highly doubt will ever happen here.

Therefore, I would not be in support of it. If somebody is pimping or spamming, I will smack them hard, signature or not.

[kojdogg]

Originally Posted by mshilarious

Therefore, I would not be in support of it. If somebody is pimping or spamming, I will smack them hard, signature or not.

I have tremendous respect for you in regards to this and know that you walk the talk. I still think that there is an inherent conflict of interest in this as you can shape the way that some of your competitors are portrayed and perceived-- though I do understand that this only applies in situations where they "break the rules," however you are have significant latitude in interpreting and enforcing the rules. Again, I don't think that you're abusive with this, but to me, IMHO, the conflict is there.

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by kojdogg

I have tremendous respect for you in regards to this and know that you walk the talk. I still think that there is an inherent conflict of interest in this as you can shape the way that some of your competitors are portrayed and perceived-- though I do understand that this only applies in situations where they "break the rules," however you are have significant latitude in interpreting and enforcing the rules. Again, I don't think that you're abusive with this, but to me, IMHO, the conflict is there.

I agree. In fact that is pretty much what I said when I told them I should not be a mod. Nevertheless, they wanted someone to address these issues, and few others volunteered. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it . . .

Really though, the signature rules are so lenient that any manufacturer that feels like it can de facto spam by just posting helpful-but-neutral stuff in the body of their post, and having their big fat commercial signature right underneath. Totally 100% permissible. That is one reason I don't tolerate commercial speech inside the body of the post; that's just getting greedy. That's also why I don't want a signature myself; it would destroy the sliver of credibility I have left.

Anyway, just because somebody else sells (or more to the point, mods) a mic, I don't think that makes them a direct competitor. I have zero interest in modding mics, and the modded mic products end up at a much higher price point than me, literally 10x more. Until I have to start moderating Behri or Samson or Nady or Karma reps, I think the conflict is minimized.

And in that case, I would ask the other mods to review the post in question and act according to their judgment. For all the major issues, we reach a consensus in advance of action already.

[kojdogg]

My point about disclosure of signatures is that it is something that seems to have worked in other places with great success in the ways I described above. If the Audiofanzine folks want to keep this an inherently different place, that is, of course, their prerogative. When I read their open call for moderators, it seemed like the spirit of what they wanted to control was the kind of spammers who are pushing ED meds, human-goat pornography, and discount consumer electronics from SE Asia, but of course, I have had no personal interaction with them on this or any other matters of concerning this board. I don't know of any other board with similar focus and content that has vilified and outlawed manufacturer participation the way it has been here.

I can certainly understand that the moderator role creates some uncomfortable situations and that you can't control when those situations arise. The only thing someone could hope control in those cases are whether they get involved or not.

In any case, I appreciate you weighing in. Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts on this.

[mshilarious]

Well I don't think it's quite that open on other boards. I believe GS requires that manufacturers buy banner ads in order to have free rein on posting. That's probably not 100% correct, but there is some policy there. PSW requires all members to be non-anonymous. Taperssection has a retail forum, and generally tolerates manufacturers pitching their wares elsewhere on the site. Still, the most blatant of the vendors draw criticism.

The ethos against spam here comes from the members, not the mods or the owners. I could have suggested allowing manufacturers to post in the manner they do on GS. I didn't, because I think it's inappropriate. But even if I had, I would have been tarred and feathered by the members. And I personally can't do the hard sell anyway.