Double Bass SAD! Ken Smith Fiasco!!!

[drurb]

No - the argument is that maybe people with more knowledge and experience should be given a bit more respect and maybe a bit more leeway...?

Yes, perhaps a bit. The crux of the matter is just how much. Some, myself included, feel that Ken ran out the rope on his leeway. That being said, I would like to repeat that I DID value Ken's substantial contributions. If he would like to return and communicate in a civil fashion, I would welcome him. Truly.

Well - now the sarcasm is in danger of obscuring the argument - but at the last you come back to an important point!

Does the opinion of an inexperienced person have equal weight to soembody who has been at the top of their profession for decades - surely this is wrong in every sense!!??

So - if you were looking for bass playing or building advice/lessons/teacher in the real world - you wouldn't go to an inexperienced person and say : "well their opinion is as valid as anybody elses' - so I have no need to pay top dollar"!!??

So why so we do this in cyberspace - why is somebody who knows nothing about the subject allowed to have equal weight on their opinion as the person at the top of their profession - it makes no sense!!

The opinion of someone with lesser experience and or expertise does not carry equal weight. As has been stated in this thread alone many times, if profiles are filled out (which they should be) or the thread contains enough detail, most of us can and should consider the source and weight the opinions accordingly. This can and should be done just as I'm sure we all do in daily face-to-face conversations with others.

This is not a classroom with the experts up front and everyone else at their individual desks such that the experts control who has the floor. These forums are more akin to everyone sitting around a table and chatting, hopefully in a friendly manner.

You are free to make inquiries regarding one's experiences so you can weight his/her opinions and contributions in a manner that you see fit. No one should be prevented from speaking. If people speak nonsense, they will soon be found out. Then you can ignore their writings.

What should not occur is situation where a group of experts denigrate or dismiss out of hand the thoughts and opinions of those with lesser experience, based not on the content of their contribution but based on their age or breadth of experience. To do so is a sure sign of insecurity.

Finally, in a situation where an inexperienced individual and or newbie speaks nonsense, the consummate expert should teach, not disparage.

 

[drurb]

Well that's the easy approach - but is it what we really want - does it give us the forum we want, or just a lowest common denominator/...?

I dare say that, yes, that is what the vast majority want! We do not want an imposed respectability scale. We want the mods to ensure civility and then we can judge the content of posts for ourselves. If experts do not like this mode, they can always write books!

 

[PB+J]

It's hard for me to see how looking for someone who can play well, write well, and be civil is looking for the lowest common denominator--surely that's aspiring pretty high?

I fail to see why being a good player, or even a great player, and being civil and reasonable is mutually exclusive

 

[drurb]

It's hard for me to see how looking for someone who can play well, write well, and be civil is looking for the lowest common denominator--surely that's aspiring pretty high?

I fail to see why being a good player, or even a great player, and being civil and reasonable is mutually exclusive

+1

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

It's hard for me to see how looking for someone who can play well, write well, and be civil is looking for the lowest common denominator--surely that's aspiring pretty high?

Well my point was that you are not going to get that elusive vision of perfection!

What you are going to get are people who can play nice, bite their tongue, write blandly; while missing out on all the "characters" who actually make life interesting!!

 

[drurb]

Well my point was that you are not going to get that elusive vision of perfection!

What you are going to get are people who can play nice, bite their tongue, write blandly; while missing out on all the "characters" who actually make life interesting!!

I don't think that's the case at all. It is not "all or nothing." We can enjoy the "characters who make life interesting" just fine without condoning uncivil, mocking, and disparaging posts.

 

[paul]

This thread has turned into an interesting debate. I'm usually open to new ideas, but on this issue I am firm: I'm not about to apply our forum rules on a sliding scale, based on the degree of experience of a member. Sorry Bruce. One of the greatest things about the internet is the empowerment of the 'lowly' individual (TIME Magazine's "YOU"). Having a class of elite exempt from the forum rules is not a healthy proposition for an internet forum.

Ken Smith spent a lot of time on these forums and offered a lot. But he had his posting disabled for one specific reason. Our core usage agreement is not something I'm going to play favorites with. Showing a base of respect for all users, not posting hurtful or hateful remarks, is something I firmly believe all, whether newbie or pro, are capable of, and I certainly think it's not too much to ask.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

A good boss, clergy or teacher earns that respect for each and every person, every single day. But the anonymous nature of forums gives a minority permission to act like jackasses - and they do.

This is a minority of people, but it ruins the experience for all and drives away those whose life has been dedicated to the art.

Yup - this is the point, this is where forums like this differ from real life...

So - in real life somebody acting like a jackass would be shamed and wouldn't dare show their face again.

Here - they can just avoid swearing or being directly abusive and they can keep coming back time afte time until they get their way - the lowest common denominator wins!

 

[drurb]

Yup - this is the point, this is where forums like this differ from real life...

So - in real life somebody acting like a jackass would be shamed and wouldn't dare show their face again.

Here - they can just avoid swearing or being directly abusive and they can keep coming back time afte time until they get their way - the lowest common denominator wins!

Not at all. It is the force of argument that should shame a "jackass" and not a pre-ordained rule of exclusion. That's more like real life! You are correct, however, that those individuals can just keep posting so long as they are civil. You can judge the content of their writings for yourself but please do not impose your judgment on others.

 

[drurb]

This thread has turned into an interesting debate. I'm usually open to new ideas, but on this issue I am firm: I'm not about to apply our forum rules on a sliding scale, based on the degree of experience of a member. Sorry Bruce. One of the greatest things about the internet is the empowerment of the 'lowly' individual (TIME Magazine's "YOU"). Having a class of elite exempt from the forum rules is not a healthy proposition for an internet forum.

Ken Smith spent a lot of time on these forums and offered a lot. But he had his posting disabled for one specific reason. Our core usage agreement is not something I'm going to play favorites with. Showing a base of respect for all users, not posting hurtful or hateful remarks, is something I firmly believe all, whether newbie or pro, are capable of, and I certainly think it's not too much to ask.

Hallelujah! The facts and well-reasoned philosophy return.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

Not at all. It is the force of argument that should shame a "jackass" and not a pre-ordained rule of exclusion. That's more like real life! You are correct, however, that those individuals can just keep posting so long as they are civil. You can judge the content of their writings for yourself but please do not impose your judgment on others.

So as I said the lowest common denominator wins - they can hound a useful member of the community out by swamping them with posts - as long as they abide by the posting rules...

As I said to me this is the wrong way round!

If this were a "civil writing" forum - then your prime criteria should be that!

At a Bassist forum - surely it should all be about the experience, achievements etc in that field - not anything else?

As I have seen somewhere else : "Pedants Rule OK!" ...?

[PS EDIT - the debate has moved on and this doesn't apply to the KS issue but is a more general point]

 

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Imagine TB without Paul W., Bob B, Arnold, Jeff Bollach, etc, etc, etc. Not something I want to do.

Surely, Ken Smith could be a bit abrasive at times, but I believe it was just part of the package.

In any field the desire exists for the most experienced in that field to share their knowledge and experience. Often, the teacher does it on a volunteer basis.
Naturally, the student sometimes is put off by the teaching methods. 'Why don't you explain it this way?' 'But why?''But why?'
If the teaching is in the context of a public or private school, the administration will question teaching methods. 'We would like you to adopt newer methods'.

The young, I'm 45, don't give the benefit of the doubt to the Ken Smiths of the world like we should. I got into it with Ken a few times and I regret it. But we moved on. I always valued his experience. He earned the right to tell it as he saw it.

I'm not begging anybody to come back, but just trying to give some perspective.

I once heard that Albert Einstein wasn't qualified to teach High School math because he didn't have a teaching certificate. What a shame.

If we don't make some allowances for those who can actually teach us something here, what's the point?

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

I once heard that Albert Einstein wasn't qualified to teach High School math because he didn't have a teaching certificate. What a shame.

If we don't make some allowances for those who can actually teach us something here, what's the point?

This is exactly my point - I can appreciate Paul's position - but it just all seems to be the wrong way round - so to take this example : I'd rather have had the chance to talk to Einstein, than a dull teacher who followed the rules/curriculum slavishly!

 

[drurb]

So as I said the lowest common denominator wins - they can hound a useful member of the community out by swamping them with posts - as long as they abide by the posting rules...

As I said to me this is the wrong way round!

If this were a "civil writing" forum - then your prime criteria should be that!

At a Bassist forum - surely it should all be about the experience, achievements etc in that field - not anything else?

As I have seen somewhere else : "Pedants Rule OK!" ...?

What you propose is basically elitism and not an open forum. That's not what paul wants and, for what it's worth, it is not what I and many others want. As I keep saying, each member can and should weight the content of the posts. A useful member cannot be "hounded out" unless he/she allows him/herself to be.

A true expert will soon establish himself via the content of his/her posts. It really doesn't matter how many "garbage" posts you think there are. You can simply dismiss their content based on your own judgment. What I do not want is for you or anyone else to substitute your judgment for mine in that regard. You are correct that the only criteria for posting here are rules regarding civility. IMO, that is as it should be. Clearly, you want some other test based on some subjective notions of expertise. When you have your own site, you are free to impose such a test. paul, and I surmise most of this community, does not want that.

 

[drurb]

This is exactly my point - I can appreciate Paul's position - but it just all seems to be the wrong way round - so to take this example : I'd rather have had the chance to talk to Einstein, than a dull teacher who followed the rules/curriculum slavishly!

The test you propose is antithetical to your own position.
Look at history. How did Einstein become the force that he did? It was on the basis of the content of his scientific presentations and peer-reviewed publications in what were basically open forums that did not impose some sort of formal test of expertise. The sort of tests for which you are advocating would have excluded Einstein. In fact, Germany did so on the basis of his ethnicity. (No, I am not suggesting that the tests you favor are anything akin to that.)

So let's keep TB open. Maybe we'll find our next bass-Einstein-- relatively speaking.

 

[Huy Nguyen]

I don't think that's the case at all. It is not "all or nothing." We can enjoy the "characters who make life interesting" just fine without condoning uncivil, mocking, and disparaging posts.

+1. I think that the issue that brought about Ken's departure also involved a member who was once before insulted, or found something that Ken wrote insulting. I think, yes, Ken's contributions were valuable but I there were plenty of times he wasn't as tactful as he should've been. It's not the content, it's the style. And saying that "you're a New Yorker/East Coaster and that you can't change" is a lame defense.

After a while, you can't help make judgements about a guy's rude behavior even if it's not directed at you. Eventually, someone/everyone flies off the handle and people start leaving and not paying for their memberships or what not.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

So let's keep TB open. Maybe we'll find our next bass-Einstein-- relatively speaking.

Or maybe he'll be passed by, in favour of somebody who can write well and be nice to others....

 

[drurb]

Yes, like many things, it comes down to a trade-off. In this case, the balance is between how much lack of civility up with which you are willing to put in order to gain a certain amount of useful content. paul made his choice-- a proper one, IMO. Ken exercised his options as he saw fit.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

I think, yes, Ken's contributions were valuable but I there were plenty of times he wasn't as tactful as he should've been. It's not the content, it's the style.

So you are basically saying we should value style over substance - that's exactly what I am saying is wrong with all of this!

 

[drurb]

So you are basically saying we should value style over substance - that's exactly what I am saying is wrong with all of this!

No, he didn't say that at all in context.