[Steve Eddy]

However, you must know you are escalating an issue here and that losing face is now pivotal.

Why do you say I'm the one escalating the issue here? It was John who couldn't take no for an answer regarding something which is neither anyone's business nor any sort of requirement of Audio Circle's posted rules.

John has asked you to do something you are reluctant to do;

Yes. And I have explained my reasons why.

I have tried to make peace;

Yes. And I appreciate that.

you have become more strident;

I don't think I've been strident at all. I have simply explained why I feel the request is unreasonable and why I choose not to comply with it.

John is being backed into a corner;  the inevitable outcome is that very soon you will leave the forum, both of you firmly holding to your ground.

Then so be it. Until someone can give me good cause to not firmly hold to my ground other than because it might get me banned, I'm afraid I'm going to continue to firmly hold to my ground.

Unless you can patch this up privately, out of sight of the membership, and capitulate somewhat to John, and simply ask him what he wants and show signs of compromise, essential in conflict resolution, then I don't see much hope.  It is now up to you to make this approach.

Why is everything being laid on my doorstep?

I received several EMails this morning from people asking me to capitulate to some degree or another on this. Not because they felt John's request was a reasonable one, but because they didn't want to see me get banned.

And while I certainly appreciate such sentiment, I think standing up for one's principles is a bit more important than whether or not I'm able to continue posting here.

Is that really the sort of environment you want to establish here? Where people capitulate not because a request is reasonable, but so they don't get banned?

I'm sorry, but that's not the sort of environment I care for so you'll forgive me if I refuse to set any sort of precedent for it.

se

[JoshK]

FWIW...

Definitions

An Industry Participant is anyone who posts on AudioCircle who has a commercial interested in an audio-related field. While this commonly someone who makes and/or sells equipment, all audio-related services are also included.

Disclosure

All Industry Participants are required to disclose their commercial interest. Disclosure ensures that everybody "knows where you are coming from."

To do this, your signature must consist of a) a short, factual, tagline, and b) the website address for your business. Your name can optionally be included also. Here are some examples:

  Dealer for Zippo, Lighto, Blammo, and other great products.
  http://www.lightthisup.com/

  Dan Cone
  The fastest subwoofers on the planet
  Fast Subwoofers

full link

1) there isn't any explicit statement about financial interest, just commercial interest.  So technically I think this applies to pro bono work too.
2) I don't think they are asking that you state with whom you do consulting work, just that you do do consulting work. 

[Steve Eddy]

That is not what you have been asked to do. It's really a very simple request: since you do contract design work in the audio industry, please modify your signature to indicate this fact.

While the request may be a simple one, I don't find it a reasonable one.

First, unless it involves a commercial interest on my part it's simply nobody's business. Second, it not involving any commercial interest on my part also puts it outside the scope of AC's posted rules, both as to their letter and to their intent.

The only activity in the audio industry I engage in for which I have a commercial interest is my company, Q, which has been disclosed ever since the industry rules were established. And I disclosed that not for fear of being banned if I didn't, but because I found it to be a reasonable request.

se

[MaxCast]

Steve, why just not add 'Manufacturer: Q and Consultant/Designer of Audio Equipment?'  Is that too much to ask?

The discussion between commercial and financial is irrelevant.  The intent of the rule includes both.

[Steve Eddy]

2) I don't think they are asking that you state with whom you do consulting work, just that you do do consulting work.

Ok. But unless I have some commercial interest in it, what business is it of anyone else? Since I have no commercial interest in it, what needful information would that provide to anyone except perhaps those who may be looking to contract with me to do some work?

se

[Steve Eddy]

Steve, why just not add 'Manufacturer: Q and Consultant/Designer of Audio Equipment?'  Is that too much to ask?

Yes.

The discussion between commercial and financial is irrelevant.  The intent of the rule includes both.

I don't see it that way. If it were to include financial interest in addition to commercial interest, then anyone who simply owns stock in any company involved in the audio industry would have to disclose that as well. Don't you think that's just a little bit silly?

se

[Daygloworange]

I think to ask someone to disclose any and all consultation work where someone does not stand to gain financially or professionally makes things very difficult. In fact, it's probably a real grey area.

Lots of "professionals" here communicate with each other, and offer each other advice, or point to resources, or networking that can help get a certain commercial product built, without being "financially" or "commercially" involved with any certain product.

There are a number of "non professionals" that aid "professionals" in the design, or testing and evaluation of commercial products.

I'm hoping that we can find a reasonable middle ground here, and not make this overly complicated, for everyone's sake.

Cheers

[MaxCast]

If it were to include financial interest in addition to commercial interest, then anyone who simply owns stock in any company involved in the audio industry would have to disclose that as well. Don't you think that's just a little bit silly?

se

Now you are being silly.  Do you think that is what is meant by the rule?

Steve, are you currently for hire for design or consulting work for any products relating to the audio industry?

Dayglow, we are not asking for "any and all" just a little bit of any.

[kyrill]

machines are worthless without laws
without rigid logics and straight cause and effects
their functions implode into nothingness

principles, surely are not meant to be bend
so they suggest to be like laws too
no exceptions, anonymous operators

But the preservations of societies, groups, families
stand on harmonious relationships
imperfect, sometimes irrational
but all harmonious
based on give and take
you give a little, you take a little
no anonymous operators who cannot see the context
no principles blind to exceptions

 perfect working systems
can only be machines
 
ah well

PS
How much machine do you want to be?

[Daygloworange]

Dayglow, we are not asking for "any and all" just a little bit of any.

MaxCast, I'm just saying that that can be a little tough to implement. I mean what constitutes involvement in a commercial product that should be worth noting in your signature?

Steve Eddy has provided that he is a "manufacturer" in his signature. That's a pretty broad scope, when technically he manufactures IC's. He could have consulted on the "Ingot" over beers with his buddy at a local pub for all we know....

Over the last few weeks I've "consulted" with a few people with commercial products being designed. I did the same at RMAF.

I don't now consider myself a "consultant", or " audio design consultant". Maybe an " non profit industrial design consultant", but not the other 2 definitions I've given.

I mean I don't want this to get to be an issue of legal definitions.

Cheers

[Bob in St. Louis]

you do do consulting work.

OH! This is "do do" allright! 

  what needful information would that provide to anyone except perhaps those who may be looking to contract with me to do some work?

There you go Steve.... USE it for that.
A win-win situation for everybody: John gets his signature requirement, you get some ad time.
Done. Everybody wins. Everybody's happy. We all go back to listening to music.

Bob

p.s. Or, I could just shut up and go away.   

[alan m. kafton]

I feel I need to step in and make some salient points.  I am primarily a manufacturer, but regularly act as a dealer and representative for many products. My website shows (mostly) what I do for a living. I also am a dealer for Q, Steve Eddy's company. Excepting for certain contract work from time-to-time, Steve is primarily a cable manufacturer, which he has always disclosed. I know these facts because I do business with him on a frequent basis. I also consult with him on various matters, and I ask his advice on various matters regarding my business.

The fact of the matter is that many of us in the biz regularly discuss a myriad of issues with other colleagues on a regular basis. And we do so, usually without financial compensation. Sometimes we do get compensated, but we are not in the business of "consulting". What has been stated is that Steve performed some industrial design work on one product (the Anvil), which primarily involves aesthetic design, not electronic design. This is a product that he has had no involvement with beyond his initial design work, and further is not promoting in any case. Why? It's not his product. Steve does NOT design transformers. Mike LeFevre does.

The overall point is that many of us in the industry perform many tasks, including design advice and other "consultation", some of which includes some work (on a periodic basis) that might get us paid for that periodic work. But that work ends with the particular task we were hired to perform. We have no further interest, certainly financially. And that's where the rubber meets the road. This is the case for Steve as well. It is NOT his regular trade, one of the reasons he rightfully doesn't need to disclose the particulars. He gained no further benefit in the Anvil which he helped to design. That is also past-tense....it is a prior business relationship, NOT an ongoing one.

He is in the audio business, and has properly disclosed that. I think that the moderator(s) would do well to carefully read Daygloworange's post, and try to avoid the hair-splitting on this issue. Anyone can read the various posts in this thread (and others) and be clearly informed about Steve's regular business activity. If a new reader sees that Steve is in the audio business, he or she can easily presume that he wears many hats (as we all do)....it is wholly unnecessary and inappropriate to disclose each and every relationship.

[Steve Eddy]

Now you are being silly.  Do you think that is what is meant by the rule?

Actually I think owning stock in a company involved in the audio industry is closer to a commercial interest than the contract work I have done since your stock's value is determined in large part by the company's sales. When I do a contract job, I get paid and that's the end of it no matter how many Ingots Mike may sell.

Steve, are you currently for hire for design or consulting work for any products relating to the audio industry?

Let me put it this way. I do not actively seek such work nor do I advertise myself for doing such work. The contract work I have done has been things that simply come about on their own over the years.

The Ingot is a good example.

Some years ago I made a funky little passive preamp for using on my test bench. It did have a certain aesthetic to it that I thought was kind of cool so I posted some photos of it on Audio Asylum.

Some time later, Mike had already determined that he wanted to do a passive preamp using an input transformer coupled to a resistive attenuator and needed a chassis design to put it in. While he was perusing threads on Audio Asylum, he came across my post with the passive preamp photos. He rather liked the basic design and subsequently contacted me and asked me if I could design a chassis for him.

se

[alan m. kafton]

He rather liked the basic design and subsequently contacted me and asked me if I could design a chassis for him.

This statement essentially proves that this was a one-off project, in addition to the fact that Steve did not solicit the work. Steve is not in the audio consulting or design business. Can the matter rest now?

[MaxCast]

He rather liked the basic design and subsequently contacted me and asked me if I could design a chassis for him.

This statement essentially proves that this was a one-off project, in addition to the fact that Steve did not solicit the work. Steve is not in the audio consulting or design business. Can the matter rest now?

I sure hope so.

But Steve, you did not answer my second question.

BTW, check out my new sig  aa

[alan m. kafton]

BTW, check out my new sig

Too funny!

"I did not have sex with that....audio designer"

      

[Steve Eddy]

There you go Steve.... USE it for that.
A win-win situation for everybody: John gets his signature requirement, you get some ad time.

That's all well and good except for the fact that I don't solicit for such work. Just the odd job that happens to come about on its own is all I care to deal with.

se

[Steve Eddy]

But Steve, you did not answer my second question.

Unless it's a question I didn't happen to notice, I've answered all your questions as best I can. Which question are you referring to?

BTW, check out my new sig  aa

Ha! Perfect.

se

[MaxCast]

If it were to include financial interest in addition to commercial interest, then anyone who simply owns stock in any company involved in the audio industry would have to disclose that as well. Don't you think that's just a little bit silly?

se

Now you are being silly.  Do you think that is what is meant by the rule?

Steve, are you currently for hire for design or consulting work for any products relating to the audio industry?

Dayglow, we are not asking for "any and all" just a little bit of any.

The one in red.   

[AKSA]

I'll be closing this thread very soon;  this is getting nowhere fast.

Steve has stated his position, others too, it's a standoff, so I'll shut it down at the end of the day.

Cheers,

Hugh