In response to the afore mentioned allegations I feel it is only fair
for all the parties involved for me to post the communication that
transpired between Luke and myself. Luke is operating under the
misguided impression that he somehow can dictate to RO's
administration how we should run the board.

So here it goes,

Luke sent this to Sebatron and myself.

Kurt, Sebastian --

Since you both took the time to write me, I'm responding to both of
you here
so that the discourse doesn't become splintered hereafter. You may
feel
free to share what I write with Chris Bialuski if you wish. In a
short
time, the issues became so complex, that it takes a bit of effort to
separate them and address them. Here is an attempt at that.

* Many months ago, there was an imbroglio in rec.audio.pro, due to two
of
Sebastian's neighbors who took it upon themselves (as far as we know)
to
start hyping Sebatron preamps, making themselves look like shills.
This
created a backlash. In order to prevent a premature meltdown for
Sebatron,
I offered to arrange to faciliate several reviews as a way for the
preamps
to gain notice on the North American market through both grass roots
and
published commentary. I made arrangements through Diana Black.

* I paid special attention to Scott Dorsey, whose opinions are widely
trusted. Whatever one may think, he is an influential member of the
community when it comes to answering questions such as "what is the
best
2-channel preamp under $1000?". He is understated and rarely is
superlative, however his readers understand what is implicit in his
recommendation: the few things he finds worth mentioning are probably
the
best of the bunch, considering the things he doesn't mention, and the
few
faults he finds are taken as a part of the tradeoff in the given
price-performance bracket. Also, his comments are usually
constructive in
the sense that he often contributes design improvements that are
adopted by
manufacturers. [His chinese-mic modifications were adopted by more
than one
manufacturer after they were published.]

* Earlier this summer, a couple of VMP2000e evaluation units became
available to us through Dan Valencia in cooperation with Sebatron. I
used
one on a live record with pleasing results. I would have written more
of
this, but the setup I used on location was not a fair test of the
preamps,
and my opinions would not have meant much. [They did a good job on
bass and
saxophone...good loading on both SM57 and Coles 4038...plenty of gain
for
the ribbon. But mixing through a Mackie, who knows what it really
sounds
like?]

* Subsequently, I asked Scott whether he had formed any impressions of
the
preamps, and he sent me some offhand remarks. I asked if he would
give
permission for me to put them up for discussion, and he assented.

* I went to the Sebatron forum rather than rec.audio.pro, the
Massenberg
forum, or either of Fletcher's forums, because I felt it would be most
useful to put the comments directly in front of Sebastian so that he
could
engage in a healthy dialog, and because this was a forum designated
specifically as "designer's corner", presumably where design issues
could be
discussed.

* I quoted Scott's emails to me entirely, which consisted of mostly
informal
remarks. I was in the middle of writing some qualifying text when the
thread was deleted from under me. This was followed by two angry
emails
from Sebastian, and a short exchange followed. Sebastian felt he may
have
been oversensitive, and he agreed to let the messages be reposted
without
locking or deleting the thread. Once the messages were reposted, I
again
wrote some qualifying text, but the thread was again deleted from
under me
when I tried to post, this time by Kurt Foster, citing editorial
policy.

The issues:

I acknowledge that Recording.org is a private concern and that
subscribers
agree to be subject to it's bylaws. However the case at hand involves
a
matter of moral (and practical) judgment, separate from the legal
issues.
In this case, claims such as "that's the way it is" (Kurt) or "it's my
forum" (Sebastian) are not in dispute. However these do not
constitute
moral arguments. The moral argument concerns (i) a conflict of
interests,
and (ii) the undermining of trust in Sebatron and Recording.org, and
(iii)
the undermining of the best interests of all concerned. Note this
last
point acknowledges what I think is the damage to your own interests
that you
risk, and the fact that your well being does concern me along with
everything else.

1) The first concern is the policy towards so-called "reviews".
There may
be good reasons for having a Review Editor. A RE may be responsible
for
ensuring the integrity of a review. For example, the RE may ensure
that no
conflicts of interest are present in the review (eg., the review is
written
by a relative, or by a competitor). But in the present case, the
conflicts
of interest are present in the relationships between the Manufacturer
and
the director of RO who oversees the RE and who oversees administrative
policy and bylaws. Specifically, the Director of RO is a national
sales
representative in Canada for Sebatron. This means that the RE has a
clear
conflict of interests when it comes to editorial content concerning
Sebatron.

2) There are also concerns about what constitutes a review, and
whether this
policy is (i) fair and (ii) applied fairly. It is difficult to tell
whether
the case in question fit the criteria for being a 'review', since the
RE
acknowledges that he did not read the posts in question before
deleting
them, and thus cannot be said to know whether they were in fact
reviews in
any sense. If we are to assume that they were reviews, then this
calls into
question whether the policy is applied evenly. Would any implicit
evaluation of the equipment constitute a review? Wouldn't the stream
of
positive evaluations published in Designer's Corner also constitute
reviews,
and therefore be subject to editorial certification? Or is it only
negative
commentary, or commentary *perceived* to be negative? The remarks in
question were offhand enough that they were indistinguishable from a
number
of remarks previously allowed that happened to be of a positive
nature.

3) The RE acknowledges that only positive reviews are published, and
he
cites practices of trade magazines such as Mix, EQ. He says that it
would
be "suicidal" to publish negative reviews, although he doesn't make
the
reasons for that clear. I presume that the potential withdrawl of
advertising dollars would make publishing such reviews a risky
proposition.
The claim is that "if the gear isn't good, we simply don't write about
it".
If this could work in practice, it might be possible to allay concerns
about
ethics, but to do so requires vigilance. But the process breaks down
in a
few places. [And we note the widespread perception that so-called
"reviews"
in the trade press are really just glorified sales-brochures, and that
this
is why a number of people come to USENET and Scott Dorsey for what
they feel
is a more even-handed and trustworthy opinion.]

a) The Director of RO has a business relationship with the
manufacturer
involving a significant stake, which calls into question matters of
editorial judgment concerning that manufacturer's products at RO.
b) RO provides a forum for the discussion of that manufacturer's
products
under the heading of "Designer's Corner". This gives the clear
impression
that issues of *design* may be discussed there, and this in turn gives
the
impression that the forum is not intended as a presales or post-sales
marketing support facility. And so the users of the forum come to
expect a
certain degree of journalistic integrity and fidelity in the way the
forum
is administered. This is much different from the editorial issues
involving
you E magazine publications. This would lead one to assume that
commentary
involving remarks about circuit design and manufacturing issues from
qualified persons would be appropriate there.

4) What was in fact posted was an even-handed (and offhand) commentary
on
the design and manufacturing issues. Positive (but not superlative)
comments were made regarding the basic circuit design, including the
preamp
block and the solid-state follower/line-driver. Positive (but not
superlative) comments were made about the overall sound. Negative
comments
were made about the selection of input transformers, and suggestions
were
made about possible substitutes. Constructive comments were made
about how
to save money in manufacturing so that a bigger power supply (with a
custom
transformer) could be integrated, allowing a tube-follower circuit
(this
making for an all-tube topology). None of these comments were outside
of
what the public perceives to be the purpose of the forum. Nor did
these
comments constitute a negative "review". Scott is highly understated,
and
his audience reads accordingly.

5) The decision to remove the comments posted (the second time)
undermines
the public's trust in Sebatron and in Recording.org. The close
business
relationship between Sebatron and the director of Recording.org gives
the
impression that the remarks were deleted because they were not
favorable to
the manufacturer, and that this in turn was an endangerment to joint
business interests. Indeed, this is corroborated by Sebastian's own
remarks. While policy may have permitted you to do this, this was a
serious
mistake on your own behalf, because:

a) Your readership feels disappointed in you, and cannot trust that
the
glowing tributes that they read on Recording.org are not selected to
manufacture a false image for public relations. They cannot help but
feel
that all critical discourse is being suppressed to prevent prospective
buyers from being discouraged, and similarly, to promote the appeal of
the
product for prospective buyers. You've created the impression that
you have
something to hide.
b) You've also denied yourself the advantages of an open discourse on
the
subject in creating a negative impression about yourselves. Scott's
remarks
were not damaging to Sebatron. The remarks were in a form familiar to
Scott's readers, and they were favorable towards many aspects of the
product--enough so that significant sales could have been generated
this
way, had suspicion not been created through untowards interventions.
You
missed terms like "could be GREAT", "sounds good", "is okay", all of
which
are favorable to sales.
c) Also, through open discourse, you could have generated more
interest
through an interesting discussion of the actual *design*, which is
presumably why "Designer's Corner" is called "Designer's Corner" and
not
"presales and postsales support". For example, Scott said that the
input
transformer was his major problem. Sebastian could have said (ex
hypothesi)
that he selected that transformer because of the way it empirically
sounded
to him, which he took to be prior to issues of whether the transformer
could
pass a good square wave". We would have been interested if there had
been
further experiments with variations on the transformer. [After all,
people
make a practice out of changing out opamps on Syteks and Presonus
units, and
the like.] Perhaps Sebatron could have given good reason for his
design
choices; he could say that he was after a certain *unique* sound that
necessitated some of his design decisions. There's no reason to think
that
he and Scott couldn't have had a productive and interesting exchange,
and
that this would have drawn increased interest and *respect* for the
designer. If Scott's suggestions had been any good at all, then it
would
have been a boon to the designer.
d) All this could have been conducted with any embarrassment or
fallout.

6) It should be clear to you that I was not acting against the
interests of
anyone involved. All that was required was a little finesse to
produce
sales. Scott's opinions were a subtle bonus, warts and all, if
handled
correctly. It should also be clear that I was posting what I thought
was
consistent with what "Designer's Corner" was intended for, and that I
was
not trying to provoke negative sentiments about the product in
question. I
personally like the preamps insofar as I am acquainted with them to
date. I
find the overall concept interesting enough to be worth digging
further
into, and I truly believe that out of an open discussion could come a
truly
GREAT product, one that will keep Sebastian productively engaged in
producing creative designs in the future.

7) Unfortunately, you have shaken up the trust of a number of people
(some
of your subscribers wrote of this to me), and it has become fairly
widespread. This is something that I did not start, nor can I
control. But
it is in your power to control it. What I'd suggest is the following:
a) Instate a policy of open discussion in the Designer's Corner
forums, and
restrict editorial control to off-topic postings, and hate messages.
b) Adopt a more careful and balanced policy that distinguishes
comments on
design issue from reviews.
c) Allow some of Scott's later remarks to be posted there.
d) Sebastian should invite Scott to dialog on *design issues*,
whereupon any
misinformation can be corrected all at one time, and whereupon some
benefit
for all may come from it. Sebastian can stand on his own merits I'm
sure,
and has no real need to limit people from being exposed to open dialog
on
his products. He only stands to benefit. Scott is dependable enough
to
engage in good faith and with good fidelity.

If you were to do some of these things, and do them quickly, then some
kind
of respect will likely be restored. Otherwise, I suspect that the
spin from
this will be damaging, and it will be very hard to dispell the rumors
that
Recording.org is tainted with conflicts of interest which detract from
the
editorial quality and journalistic integrity that the management
wishes to
promote, and the perception thereof.

Luke

I then replied to Luke;


Luke,

That is a lengthy dissertation. I will try keep my comments a bit
shorter.

(1) RO had nothing to do with the SPAM attack you spoke of. Please
don't attempt
to penalize us for it. It is irrelevant to this discussion. We are
discussing
events at RO.

(2) I am the editor of the Reviews process. I have nothing to do with
Sebatron
or Sebatron Canada or any other manufacturer and I receive no
compensation for
doing reviews either from RO or the manufacturers. There is no
conflict of
interest, no matter how much people who don't like the reviews I write
or
comments I make on the BB, try to imply there is. Please don't make
the mistake
of following that line of thought as it is erroneous. Many
publications place
reviews on products they also advertise. This is not a new practice
and as long
as there is a separation of the reviews department and the advertising
department, there is no conflict. This is why I have full control over
reviews
at RO. I do not "clear" anything with Chris or anyone else. I have
full control.

(3) The reason bad reviews are a suicide move is the minute any
publisher places
negative reviews, the supply of gear from that company is stopped.
Word of mouth
spreads quickly through the manufacturing community and eventually all
supply,
from all manufacturers, is cut off. That is the sad truth. Perhaps if
Scott were
a little more observant of this, he could get gear directly from the
manufacturers instead of having other people wangle pieces from
dealers through
friends. I enjoy being getting pieces directly from Millennia, Yamaha,
Studio
Projects, Sebatron, JLM, SPL, ADK, to name a few and I am not willing
to
jeopardize this ability to satisfy someone else's sensibilities of
"fairness".
Of course there are some who want to see mud slinging. Everyone is
drawn to the
"train wreck". I don't choose to cater to that.

(4) The Designers corner is a place for manufacturers to interface
with the
public. In order to get these manufacturers to be willing to do this,
we have
had to guarantee their security. This means we have given them Carte'
Blanche',
to delete anything they may perceive and harmful to the promotion of
their
products. The Internet is a powerful tool and if it is not handled
correctly, it
can do as much damage as good. Every time someone posts "I think such
and such
sucks", a link is created. Word of mouth is the most powerful
advertising tool
available these days. So much, that many advertisers are turning to it
instead
of more traditional media with "man on the street" campaigns. One
negative
comment can resonate on the Internet for years.
If Scott himself, wishes to come to RO and post comments in threads he
is free
to do that. We are not trying to control content or thought. But "Pre
Reviews"
and the like are not accepted. No one gets to "drop a turd" and then
walk away
and second hand posts such as yours are no more than hearsay and
unacceptable in
my pov. The only reason I got involved at all, was the attempted
posting of a
review on the BB. As I stated, the BB is not the correct place for
that and
there is a process that all articles like that, must go through.

So while I appreciate your suggestions, I think we will continue down
the path
we have chosen ourselves.

Once again, I am willing to publish Scott's review after he is
finished it, if
he will submit it for my review and allow Sebatron to approve it. I
would also
welcome his reviews of other pieces of gear. Second opinions would
also be
great! I might even arrange for him to receive some gear for review,
if things
worked out in a way that I felt comfortable doing that. However, I
will not
publish negative comments regarding any gear other than the
occasional, "I wish
they had used such and such or done that and that" or "A power
indicator lamp
would be nice". But these kind of comments should be followed up with
an
opportunity by the manufacturer to respond, and in many cases they may
change
the design to remedy the perceived problem. But inaccuracies such as
tube types
and erroneous comments regarding the transformers (which in the case
of the vmp
were done that way intentionally) should not be permitted. This is why
these
things need to be edited.

This got a bit longer than I wanted. I am interested in hearing your
comments,
Kurt


I hope that this clears the water. I stand by the comments in this
communication and the actions taken at the board. If Luke, and anyone
else wish's to change the policies at RO, they are welcome to make an
offer to purchase it! Thanks for reading, Kurt