Posts by Bradley Doyle36

Gerald Thompson62 said:I’m all for mods staying neutral. Once a moderator jumps into a debate, you basically lose the right to disagree—you can't exactly push back against them without consequences.

Beyond that, the rules don't seem to apply equally to everyone.

For instance, if someone calls you a fascist and you just point out they're being toxic, their post stays up while yours gets flagged or deleted entirely...

Mods will swoop in and hand out penalties without any explanation—no reason given, nothing.

Honestly, people would contribute to way more threads if certain mods didn't shut down any "alternative" viewpoints. At the end of the day, if you want to actually participate here, you end up sticking to a few trivial topics. If you drive away all the high-quality users (and I don't mean myself, but there are some truly great folks here), you'll be left with nothing but trolls.

Discussions get cut short, posts vanish, and you're left with a conversation that makes zero sense.

Here’s another example: in threads specifically marked "NO COMMENTARY," the "commentators" aren't getting their posts removed. If a thread is designated as commentary-free, that's exactly what the mods should be enforcing.

They're missing right where they're needed most, and they're meddling right where they shouldn't be, which just ruins the whole discussion.

In reality, that isn't quite how things work on this forum. Since we are specifically discussing federal regulations here, one only needs to follow a couple of threads regarding the coronavirus where he participates to see that his neutrality is far from absolute, given the types of comments he allows on his own posts.
So, while you feel he is too harsh on dissenters, I personally find him a bit too lenient, though I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 🤷

Furthermore, the rules don't seem to be applied equally to everyone.

If someone calls you a fascist and you respond by pointing out their malice, their post stays up while yours gets a warning or is deleted entirely...

Could we see an actual example of that? If what you've written is accurate, then we are looking at moderator bias, though I suspect there might be more to the story than what is being presented.

Just another 👍 slap on the wrist with a tiny little fence around it; honestly, this kind of thing needs to happen more often.
Whenever I feel like reading absolute nonsense, I head straight over to the conspiracy theory threads.
There is a specific topic here for everyone, but let’s be real—not every topic is meant for everyone.

Casey Bennett said:As far as sides go, Switzerland is my middle name. I couldn't care less about which side anyone takes, but I am very interested in ensuring that this discussion stays strictly within the forum rules.

Are you serious? So these rules actually protect the people who were caught by radar, while leaving those who only got a partial citation hanging? I’ve never gotten that impression before. The version of Switzerland you're describing sounds like a very strange place indeed.

When someone—in this case, you—starts throwing a little shade or being condescending toward a topic, that’s a direct violation of our community guidelines. I don't intend to let that slide. There is a clear line between having a healthy debate and just being a jerk, and we need to keep things respectful here.

Looking at my stats, I’m averaging about 0.32 posts per day. Over the last two months, I’ve put exactly seven posts on this subforum—six of which were practically back-to-back. If you add in the ones that were deleted, you could probably count them all up on one hand.
Could you walk me through the process of how I can gradually steer a conversation away from the main topic again?

I don't intend to drag this debate out any further. Ultimately, it’s up to you how this whole "threat" plays out.

Honestly, it all seems to come down to whatever mood you happen to be in at any given moment. Based on what I’m reading here, it feels like I’m supposed to play a guessing game just to figure out how you’re feeling from one day to the next, or which side of the fence you're standing on. To be perfectly blunt, I really don't have the energy for that. Since you hold the moderator position, perhaps you could focus on moderating the subforum instead of making us all guess whether you're currently feeling more like Mercury or something else entirely.

And let’s not forget that post from just two days ago:

Google said:Even Bradley Doyle36 deserves a penalty when he earns one. Sure, he can be provocative, but he generally keeps things civil and intelligent—which is a far cry from your approach. You tend to resort to personal attacks and constant sniping at the moderators. Take this current situation, for example. Even if I were to issue you a warning right now, which honestly feels warranted, I doubt you’d truly grasp why you're being singled out while he isn't.

Just so I don't end up getting flagged for topics that we could just as easily discuss elsewhere... you'll have to admit, I haven't actually brought them up before. To be honest, I lost my train of thought—look, I'm all for some healthy ad hominem jabs at John or poking fun at the moderators, but let's keep things civil and intelligent. 👍

Casey Bennett said:the biggest troublemakers have been in the penalty box for quite a while now.

That doesn't change the fact that I am—along with one other person—one of the biggest contrarians here right now.

The truth is, you know how to subtly troll and provoke people, triggering a wave of much harsher responses. As a result, those who don't respond to you as gently as you'd like end up getting hit, while you (quite often) manage to fly under the radar. It is time to put an end to this and take decisive action.

What you are trying to tell me is that you realize I receive far more aggressive replies than what I actually write. I can express my views politely and stay within the bounds of normal discourse, but apparently, there are those who don't know how to do that. They react by being rude and vulgar—sorry, "not responding very gently," as you put it—and then they "suffer" for it. So, your suggestion is that it would be better if I just disappeared? That is fascinating.

And if I am not mistaken, you are the radar, because you are the one maintaining order. If I am flying under it, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is. Furthermore, you might want to consider why the penalty box isn't being offered to those poor souls who are suffering because of me—those who clearly cannot seem to slip past your radar.

Oh, and apparently, I am the ringleader. It is a good thing I am not the biggest contrarian then.

I hope I was clear.

You were. You were clear about the fact that you have picked a side, which we have touched upon before. If it is in your interest to listen to physical nonsense and mockery of actual science and "theory" simply because a "subjective impression" is everything to you, then yes, you were clear. This bothers me, and I believe I have every right to say so—especially since people come to this forum for advice, and I am merely trying to help them avoid wasting their money.

The only question left is what exactly you want from me. Should I act like everyone else? Should I just call them idiots, throw in a few curse words, and provide arguments only when the mood strikes me? Or is there something else? I am no longer sure. Do you have any guidelines on how to behave that aren't considered "provocative," since that apparently violates the rules?

It is more important that I don't fly under the radar; it is better to be clearly above it so I don't face the penalty box. I'm sure that will make this forum a much better place.

I would much rather you just be honest and say, "it would be more peaceful without you," and ban me immediately. Then you can enjoy all the luck in the world moderating discussions about USB cables that clutter the stage and let the C-tier users breathe. But please, do not lecture me about the poor souls who suffer because of me.

Google said:...After Bradley Doyle36 first attempts to hijack or jump onto the moderator role, partial bans will follow.

I am certainly not claiming to be innocent—quite the opposite, actually—but I am trying to understand why I'm being threatened with a partial ban. It feels as though I’ve been labeled the primary antagonist of this subforum. 🤷

If anyone could provide some clarification, I would truly appreciate it, as I am a bit confused by the situation. Thanks.

Since I’ve been mentioned, I might as well jump in and clear the air. 😁

To look at a specific example, this all really kicked off with this post by Megan Green72. It was a comparison between Sony and Samsung—and given how much tension has existed in that corner of the forum for a while now, it sparked a massive debate over whether Sony actually justifies its premium price tag. Part of the reason things got so heated is because Megan Green72 wrote it (I’m fairly certain if anyone else had posted it, we wouldn't have seen such a fierce reaction), which led to some raised voices. Personally, though, I didn't see any heavy insults or trolling. Considering everything that has happened over the last two years and how the discussion eventually wrapped up (actually quite peacefully), it all seemed pretty normal to me. 🤷

Regarding partial blame and past mistakes, I believe that if Megan Green72 deserves it, then so do all of us who participated in those debates. You only need to look at this topic where the moderator introduced herself and how quickly that thread went south. There is no point in listing every single name or label we were tossed around with, but it must be admitted that we never held a grudge. It isn't my style to resort to crude language, but you can certainly insult someone in other ways, which I have done quite often in discussions when I felt an interlocutor deserved it. In fact, if we are being honest, I think Megan Green72 was the least insulting among us and focused the least on ad hominem attacks, but that is just my subjective assessment. 😁

Megan Green72's biggest "crime" is simply being as stubborn as a mule when she thinks she is right; she will never turn the other cheek. She won't tolerate being underestimated, whether it concerns age, expertise, or intelligence, and she won't stand for what she perceives as injustice. To be blunt, the forum would certainly have been much quieter over the last two years without her, but on the flip side, I think that section of the community has actually benefited. Longtime Hi-Fi enthusiasts are much more careful about what they write now, and there is far less misinformation circulating than there used to be. Ultimately, she was the first and only one brave enough to poke the hornet's nest that none of us—myself included—dared to touch, and she brought actual science into the conversation, which in my opinion is a good thing. To take on the entrenched old guard, you need guts, and Megan Green72 had them, unlike the rest of us. I am not saying she hasn't earned a few warnings or bans (she certainly has), but pinning all the blame on her as the sole culprit doesn't seem particularly fair. 🤷

As for me, I would always rather read one post from Megan Green72 than five others (with rare exceptions like Myth or Donkey 😉). In my view, a Hi-Fi/Video forum without her wouldn't be the same, and frankly, it wouldn't be any better either.

Casey Bennett said:edit: I am currently discussing an alternative option with Tiki. If we can reach an agreement, we might find a solution that keeps everyone happy. Just a little more patience, please.

Alright, I will hold off on replying to the post until we have a clearer picture of what's happening. Thanks.

Casey Bennett said:Look, I'll meet you halfway and start an "objective" thread for us.
Go ahead, please.

I don't think anyone here actually intends to post there—if we wanted to, we could have just started our own thread ourselves.

Just so we're clear—purely for the sake of following the rules—is that really the only topic we're allowed to discuss and write about?

Rather than breaking down your post piece by piece, let's wait and see what Bradley Doyle36 has to say about this. His perspective matters a lot more than our back-and-forth.

Roger Sanchez29 said:The "objectivists" have their own dedicated thread now. It just doesn't seem to interest anyone else because they can't go in there to troll or stir up trouble.

Well, there you have it. They finally opened a thread and told us we could all head over there to chat. They actually titled it "audiophile corner." They even went out of their way to explain that this space was created so they could "socialize and express their own viewpoints." Naturally, they view anyone with a different opinion as an outsider, and in their eyes, being an outsider makes you a non-audiophile. Isn't that just thoughtful of them?

Looking at it from a distance, I honestly find myself wondering why we haven't found it interesting. 🤷

Casey Bennett said:Could you tell me if there is any single aspect of blind testing that hasn't been thoroughly picked apart already?

Well, just yesterday we learned (at least I did, let's not generalize) that human beings simply aren't capable of listening to and comparing three consecutive sounds in a sequence.
Beyond that, there is clearly an interest in this subject, otherwise people wouldn't debate it so much. And for a debate to happen, there have to be two sides.

And is it the one and only topic allowed for discussion over there?

Of course not. I see plenty of other topics being discussed—I've personally stuck to threads about spikes and Chromecast. I try my best not to offer advice on subjects where I don't have expertise.
However, it does seem that A/B testing is the one and only topic where discussion is effectively off-limits.

The ban isn't permanent or set in stone. My goal is to let passions cool down and to filter the forum membership a bit.

No, I really don't want that. I believe I've already explained my reasoning in the thread you started.

That ban isn't permanent or carved in stone. I want passions to settle and to filter the forum users a little.

I'm afraid the only way to settle those passions is through consistent enforcement against bad manners. Whether you intended it or not, it seems you've stepped into the role of judge and penalized only one side.
If you think that will filter the forum users, you aren't entirely wrong. Most people who refuse to listen to how cables make a massive difference—since hi-fi is a subjective hobby—will likely just leave the forum altogether.🤷

Casey Bennett said:If this debate over blind testing actually focused on the subject matter rather than devolving into personal attacks and insults, we wouldn't be facing any bans.

Is breaking down full articles really not enough? And if things turn toxic with insults and fighting, shouldn't there be specific sanctions for that behavior? A moderator's role should be to maintain order and peace, not to ban discussions on a topic—especially one so closely tied to this subforum, given how many articles have been written about it in the American audiophile community.

I agree that those who favor objectivity deserve their own space, just as those who value subjectivity do. As for why a dedicated thread doesn't exist yet, only those of you actively participating in this subforum would truly understand.

It's because most people find that kind of discussion both reductive and pointless. If I want to engage in a real debate—which I believe is the whole point of this forum—I’ll seek out someone with an opposing viewpoint rather than just listening to an echo chamber of people agreeing with me. Wouldn't you agree? 🤔

There is a "New Topic" button on every subforum. You are more than welcome to click it and start a thread exclusively for your group, and I will ensure it remains as peaceful as the threads used by your counterparts.

Why would we need a separate thread? All our topics are right here on this subforum, except for the one single thread where we all agreed to stay silent.

Since this thread is already active, I’ll jump in here rather than starting a whole new topic just to ask for some clarification regarding this ban:

I believe you might have cut off your message there! Please feel free to share your thoughts whenever you're ready. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say. kaže:
Effective immediately, there is a complete gag order regarding any discussion of the blind ABX. This restriction applies to all related topics and will remain in effect until further notice.

I am certain that in the near future, we will find ourselves once again reading those same old retrospectives about how specific cables make a massive difference in sound quality. When such a post inevitably pops up, what kind of response do we really expect to see from this community? Should we simply ignore it and roll our eyes at what we clearly consider bad advice, or should we join in on the recommendation of those (let's be honest) overpriced cables?

To be honest, I don't see how banning discussions about the very testing methods used by the scientific community actually improves this forum. It doesn't spark better debate, nor does it help us uncover any real truths regarding audio components. Unless the goal is to act as a self-appointed judge or to drive people away from the community, such a rule seems counterproductive. As it stands, this policy only penalizes one side of the argument, effectively handing a victory to those who dismiss anyone advocating for ABX testing as mere trolls.
It is worth noting that there is one specific subject where "objectivists" simply have no standing to weigh in or offer commentary. That particular area remains entirely open to any form of artistic expression one might choose to pursue.

Patrick King7 said:I’ve never actually run over an animal myself, but that’s probably because I grew up in 🙄 🤔. It’s happened more than once 🙄. Though, it wasn't quite the same thing 😳.

It’s a shame... you would have walked away with a much higher score if you had used a combo. 😢