IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New TOS entry necessary?, or refine some existing TOS entry or just leave all as is?
Alexxander
post Dec 28 2009, 11:05
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 457
Joined: 15-November 04
Member No.: 18143



From explanation TOS1:
QUOTE
the Hydrogenaudio staff will attempt to keep the forum free from all objectionable content

but in TOS list there's no mention of what is considered objectionable content.

TOS5:
QUOTE
All members that post to the Hydrogenaudio community must acknowledge and discuss only acceptable topics when starting a new thread.

What is acceptable?

Personally I surely don't like to see the HA forums to be used for spreading, promoting or improving (audio) tools to easen bad practices. Statements about sound quality and posting about how to obtain protected material or bypassing protection methods are clearly addressed in TOS. But the door seems to be wide open for tools and human imagination is endless wink.gif

Any feedback is welcome.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Dec 28 2009, 12:40
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1005
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



It is Reasonable to trust the moderators to be Reasonable.
That doesn't mean you'll always agree with them.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Dec 28 2009, 15:06
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



I'm quite sure that I know what tool you had in mind. It is the EAC log faking tool.

I wonder what bad practice this tool is promoting? Sure it can make an audio rip that had errors look as if it was error-free. But who really cares? If you know your rip had errors, then you simply try to rip the CD again, maybe with another drive. No sane person would fake a log for himself and believe the audio was repaired. So the tool is not a scam, it likely works as advertised, meaning the author does not promise you things it can't do, like repairing rips that had errors.

The only thing you could say about the tool that it may be vaporware. But in that case I would say innocent until proven guilty. And even then it won't be the first time, that someone advertised his software project without delivering. AFAIK just announcing software is not against the TOS here.

Now who is really affected by this tool's supposed bad practice? We all know who it is, and we all know that we don't give a damn about those people here.

PS: Regarding a more clearer wording in the rules. I also think, like Soap said, that the moderators know best if some content is objectionable in any way.

This post has been edited by Fandango: Dec 28 2009, 15:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Dec 28 2009, 16:08
Post #4


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



QUOTE
Now who is really affected by this tool's supposed bad practice? We all know who it is, and we all know that we don't give a damn about those people here.


Fandango, I know that you have read the other topic, just wondering if you missed one of my posts:

QUOTE (Akkurat @ Dec 28 2009, 04:27) *
I'd hate to see HA spread bad practices. Where's the individual in there? E.g. HA fights against audiophile crap, how's this different? What next? An app that does fake lossless checks? Don't you think that it undermines the HA reputation of being a level-headed and a rare oasis of good info and practices? The question was/is that what kind of a place HA wants to be. Personally I don't care shit about this idiotic app.


You also seem to think about it only from individual perspective.

Bad practice: transcode lossy, edit/fabricate logs, etc., I'm sure you can figure it out if you put your mind to it. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Dec 28 2009, 16:12
Post #5


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



QUOTE
Personally I surely don't like to see the HA forums to be used for spreading, promoting or improving (audio) tools to easen bad practices.

+1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexxander
post Dec 28 2009, 16:54
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 457
Joined: 15-November 04
Member No.: 18143



QUOTE (Fandango @ Dec 28 2009, 15:06) *
I'm quite sure that I know what tool you had in mind. It is the EAC log faking tool.

I started this topic with a broader point of view. The EAC log editor was just the trigger to bring to light something I wondered sometimes in past. Should HA allow the usage of its resources for something with the intentional purpose of altering information by invented data? The real goal of an author doesn't matter, it's about principles.

@Soap's: You're right, the reasonability of the HA moderators have let to quality forums. My point is more about drawing a clearer line for what might come in the future, it can make moderation easier.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hlloyge
post Dec 28 2009, 18:01
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 695
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



Well, it is not what the moderators think about the software, it is what the world would think about this software being discussed on HA. HA always had good reputation among people as the place where you could learn good things about audio, especially encoding. Bear in mind that a LOT of people use warez, music and such. When these people notice the fake logs, they will search around and if they find the info about that software here, on this site, bad rumors will spread. You can choose to ignore this software, after all, most, if not all people here rip and encode their own CDs - but bad rumors about this site isn't something I'd personally want to read about on the 'net.
Because we may be silent about the true purpose of this software, but it is so obvious. Do you really want to be connected with it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Dec 28 2009, 18:47
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



Ok, I see the point that bad practices among music sharing communities are still bad practices, the morality of their doings aside. But since HA isn't actively evangelising those people with good practices either, although I'm sure HA is used by many of them, I don't really see the point why this suddenly becomes such a big fuss.

Suddenly people worry that HA might be called names in those communities? There are four possible standpoints I see here: be positive towards their requests for help (for example stop pretending they "own" the original CD all the time), be neutral to them (ignore, assume they "own" the CDs, and in extreme cases close threads), be negative (support subversive tools), or let people discuss whatever they like here as long it doesn't lead to legal problems for the site (I mean real world laws, not ToS). All of which I am indifferent towards, by the way. I don't really care, as long as it doesn't give HA a bad name in the general public. Being more open didn't damage Doom9's success either, for example. But of course, it's up to the owners of HA.

Then I don't know what the motivation was behind re-opening that thread. It certainly wasn't that fact that the tool was mainly targeted at cheaters or vandalists among illegal file sharers, nor the fact that it lies about the extraction method.

I can only guess that it was decided that it's not a problem because it poses no threat towards law abiding people who only rightfully rip their own CDs. And most of all it doesn't compromise EAC's functioning or André's work in any way. EAC doesn't become an unsecure ripper simply because someone replaced log editing in a text editor with automation. You have to think this thought about "reputation" all through: what you are saying is that EAC's sole reputation depends on people who use or promote the ripper as a tool for illegal file sharing! Which is non-sense. AFAIK, EAC wasn't created with the intention to please illegal file sharers, but to aid people with damaged CDs.

Anyway, to get away from this specific tool. A better ToS #2 should, no, requires a clear definition of what a "bad practise" actually is. Or else it wouldn't be much different from the current rule. Exchanging or augmenting "objectionble content" with "bad practise" is pretty useless.

This post has been edited by Fandango: Dec 28 2009, 18:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Dec 28 2009, 19:16
Post #9


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



QUOTE (Fandango @ Dec 28 2009, 19:47) *
Suddenly people worry that HA might be called names in those communities?
...
I don't really care, as long as it doesn't give HA a bad name in the general public.

I'm amazed that you can't see that it very well could (IMHO would) give a bad name in general. EDIT: And it's not about this one recent tool which sparked this topic.

QUOTE (Fandango @ Dec 28 2009, 19:47) *
And most of all it doesn't compromise EAC's functioning or André's work in any way. EAC doesn't become an unsecure ripper simply because someone replaced log editing in a text editor with automation. You have to think this thought about "reputation" all through: what you are saying is that EAC's sole reputation depends on people who use or promote the ripper as a tool for illegal file sharing! Which is non-sense.

I call your text nonsense. WHO has said that it compromises EAC's functioning, makes it "unsecure" or its reputation is ruined?!? Please don't twist things around.

This post has been edited by Akkurat: Dec 28 2009, 19:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Dec 28 2009, 20:41
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



I've not really been following things much recently, but I would have thought, if there are bad practises being discussed on this forum, it would generally be a minority advocating them, and a huge majority pointing out the flaws in the logic. I can't see how this reflects badly on HA. I'm sure there must be instances that I can be pointed to to prove me wrong.

My point being: discussing bad practise is not the same as advocating it; hopefully we may be the place that explains to the curious exactly why bad practises are bad.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Dec 28 2009, 23:36
Post #11


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



Yes, I agree. But it would be quite funny if HA would house and distribute e.g. "make fake log" app and then discusses and warns that it's a bad practice and not recommended. Take the app out of that picture and leave the discussion, then it's ok, nothing wrong with that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 29 2009, 02:19
Post #12





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Well it seems the app has been pretty well rejected by those contributing to the discussion and the author successfully made to look like an idiot, at least from my POV. I think this should be enough. There's really no point in extending his 15 minutes of notoriety, is there?


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2014 - 16:35