Policy- remind me please

[CHasR]

'twould be hard to find amongst the thousands of posts:

Is there a definite C&F policy regarding posting about 'pipemakers' who make practically worthless instruments?

I mean, wouldnt the community as a whole (especially newbies) be better served by knowing which 'pipemakers' consistently produce rubbish?

OR should all such statements be, once and for all, communicated ONLY in private messages? yes or no?

[Dale]

I'm always perfectly ok with people expressing their opinions on the board. I have objected, however, to overly global language like "these are rubbish." Better to say, even, "These are rubbish and here's why..." and then follow with some specifics.

[Dale]

The familiar Pepsi illustration, posted in Announcements.

"I do not like Pepsi. It think the bubbles are disagreeable and there is a slightly sharp sensation at the back of one's palate. I prefer the taste of Diet Coke, and this is what I encourage my friends to buy."

vs.

"Pepsi is complete crap, clearly made by drunkards and con men. Anyone who would pay 75 cents for a can of it would have to be a fool. And anyone who would try to sell the crap on ebay is either a thief or is trying to unload a vile elixer that no one in their right mind would want."

First example: Ok
Second: Not Ok.

[Dale]

One more thought.

I'd also have no objection to a series of polls.

Like this:

If you own, have owned, or have sufficient experience playing, or attempting to play pipes made by the following maker, please indicate your opinion about the quality of the instrument.

1. Joe Blow

[] Very favorable
[] Somewhat favorable
[] So-So
[] Somewhat unfavorable
[] Very unfavorable


If folks want to do that kind of thing, let me know and I'll work with some of you to work on the process.

I'd insist, though, on moderator assistance in creating those polls so they'll be uniform and fairly worded.

[CHasR]

thanks Dale

[Brazenkane]

I love that avatar D.

[djimbo]

At first glance it sounds like a good idea, BUT some opinion may be from maker's early efforts.
Someone struggling with a makers chanter from twenty years ago may have a very different experience to someone with his/her latest efforts.
Other opinion may be from work incorrectly attributed to a particular maker.
I suspect a poll such as this could have unforeseen and unfair negative effects.

Interesting example though, I preferred the 'Not OK' one who, whilst stating his case robustly, seemed to have a better grasp of grammar.

their is a slightly sharp sensation at the back of one's palate

[Uilliam]

OK Chas ye have the floor Who ye gonna wipe wi it?
"....Aaand step forward please the 1st Contender for the Plook on the Plinth Award "
Does this include reedmakers? for if it be so then I would like to nominate me, consistantly making rubbish reeds...Aff to make a few more for the fire.
Slán Go Foill
Uilliam

[Dale]

At first glance it sounds like a good idea, BUT some opinion may be from maker's early efforts.
Someone struggling with a makers chanter from twenty years ago may have a very different experience to someone with his/her latest efforts.
Other opinion may be from work incorrectly attributed to a particular maker.
I suspect a poll such as this could have unforeseen and unfair negative effects.

Interesting example though, I preferred the 'Not OK' one who, whilst stating his case robustly, seemed to have a better grasp of grammar.

their is a slightly sharp sensation at the back of one's palate

As I get older, I fairly routinely accidentally substitute "their," "there," and "they're," even though I'm completely clear about the rules for each. But, not to worry, I never tire of people pointing out that error to me.

[Joseph E. Smith]

'twould be hard to find amongst the thousands of posts:

Is there a definite C&F policy regarding posting about 'pipemakers' who make practically worthless instruments?

I mean, wouldnt the community as a whole (especially newbies) be better served by knowing which 'pipemakers' consistently produce rubbish?

OR should all such statements be, once and for all, communicated ONLY in private messages? yes or no?

Define "practically worthless", and does it coincide with other's definitions?

Semantics, perhaps. But IMO, taking the time to really think about such posts and their effect and then constructing them appropriately is at the heart of the matter. Simply bashing someone or their work because it does not meet someone's personal standards of quality is not acceptable by my reckoning.

I also think it is time to review this policy: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=10315 as it has recently been brought up.

At the top of the C&F index page there is a solitary bar entitled "Announcements". Board policies are outlined here and they should help us in how we approach posting topics and what to avoid.

[CHasR]

Semantics, perhaps. But IMO, taking the time to really think about such posts and their effect and then constructing them appropriately is at the heart of the matter. Simply bashing someone or their work because it does not meet someone's personal standards of quality is not acceptable by my reckoning.

I agree 100%, and it's not my intention to bash people....
(although Uilliam, I have to admit its tempting)
BUT STILL:
imo the benefits far outweigh the consequences, if consistent shoddy workmanship is exposed.

I'm aware of the ramifications, and of the fact that there are many different cases /levels/ situations of discontent and rebuttal.

to elaborate on Dale's idea, open a poll, (one poll per maker? one post per maker with a poll inside?,) and lock it for responses.
that way, in an anonymous fashion, pipemakers can be 'rated' fairly, by pipers themselves? or is this open for too much abuse?

[djm]

I don't believe you can have an open poll without people being able to write to the thread as well.

You will always have subjective comments, as everyone here has different tastes, expectations, and experience with UPs. It is this wide variance that will always bring out comments that Joseph does not want to hear.

I think it is a case of all or none, and the moderators have chosen none.

djm

[CHasR]

I don't believe you can have an open poll without people being able to write to the thread as well.

You will always have subjective comments, as everyone here has different tastes, expectations, and experience with UPs. It is this wide variance that will always bring out comments that Joseph does not want to hear.

I think it is a case of all or none, and the moderators have chosen none.

djm

right, then! that settles it...Let's continue to slather consistently inept 'pipemakers' in private, and leave it to the sheer luck of the would-be-piper to ask around the thin global film of uilleann experts to find a skilled, reputable craftsman that can produce the goods.
thanks djm

You will always have subjective comments, as everyone here has different tastes, expectations, and experience with UPs.

Of course, you're absolutely right...but when a (non-south asian)pipemaker consistently turns out instruments that are incapable of playing a simple scale ( no matter what reed/rush/tape/wax/carving/ combination of remedies are tried, by someone who has sucessfully sovled such problems before),

..dontcha think that goes beyond a simple matter of subjective tastes?

[Joseph E. Smith]

I don't believe you can have an open poll without people being able to write to the thread as well.

You will always have subjective comments, as everyone here has different tastes, expectations, and experience with UPs. It is this wide variance that will always bring out comments that Joseph does not want to hear.

I think it is a case of all or none, and the moderators have chosen none.

djm

right, then! that settles it...Let's continue to slather consistently inept 'pipemakers' in private, and leave it to the sheer luck of the would-be-piper to ask around the thin global film of uilleann experts to find a skilled, reputable craftsman that can produce the goods.
thanks djm

It isn't a case of all or none, it's a case of posting about such things fairly and in a constructive manner. Dale's post above sums it up pretty much dead on...

...

"I do not like Pepsi. It think the bubbles are disagreeable and there is a slightly sharp sensation at the back of one's palate. I prefer the taste of Diet Coke, and this is what I encourage my friends to buy."

vs.

"Pepsi is complete crap, clearly made by drunkards and con men. Anyone who would pay 75 cents for a can of it would have to be a fool. And anyone who would try to sell the crap on ebay is either a thief or is trying to unload a vile elixer that no one in their right mind would want."

First example: Ok
Second: Not Ok.

These two examples seem pretty cut and clear to me.

[Joseph E. Smith]

If anyone needs help or advice in constructing such posts, there's no reason that we (the Mod Squad) cannot be approached. Contrary to recent mythology, I am pretty approachable as are the other Mods and the "Oppressor" himself (Dale) is very approachable.

It isn't about censorship, it's about posting things the correct way.