| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2012 10:27:07 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eschelar:
I place higher value on 1 negative, but thoughtful comment than on *50* short, happy, well-meaning, but meaning-less comments. |
Again, the validity of the criticism was not in question. |
To force Paul to change his comment to what this particular photographer wanted to hear is not in the spirit of anything I wish to be part of. Yes Ben, it's called censorship.
I agree with bvy. The original comment needs to be restored and a public apology made to ubique. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:27:18 AM · #52 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:29:02 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
To force Paul to change his comment to what this particular photographer wanted to hear is not in the spirit of anything I wish to be part of. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The same honest assessment of the entry minus the sarcastic personal jabs would have been fine |
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:31:56 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The same honest assessment of the entry minus the sarcastic personal jabs would have been fine |
|
Please illustrate. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:33:30 AM · #55 |
Doesn't get any better than this:
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:36:29 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Please illustrate. |
Probably more harsh without the parts directed at the photographer, but we wouldn't have touched a comment like this– "It's a challenge called 'Imagination' and yet IMO the winning entry exhibits none in its conception or execution, and requires none in its appreciation. I reckon any genuinely curious observer would consider your picture the antithesis of Imagination." Whether or not the comment is dissenting or what the photographer wants to hear is not our concern.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 10:37:08. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:37:02 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The same honest assessment of the entry minus the sarcastic personal jabs would have been fine |
|
Please illustrate. |
Originally posted by ubique:
Knowing that you're always declaring yourself so keen on genuine criticism rather than mere fawning as feedback, I trust that you'll be quite OK to receive an unsoftened contrary view of this picture. It's a challenge called 'Imagination' and yet the winning entry exhibits none in its conception or execution, and requires none in its appreciation. Thus of course its popular acclaim, which you recently made very plain was your goal with your DPC entries. So while I reckon any genuinely curious observer would consider your picture the antithesis of Imagination, I do sincerely congratulate you on so resoundingly achieving your objective.
Margaret, I'd not normally make such a bluntly observed assessment, but I'm sure from your many forum posts on the subject that you'd prefer that to my damning it with yet more faint praise. |
Apparently, they'd like that stripped to:
I'll offer an unsoftened contrary view of this picture: it's a challenge called 'Imagination' and yet the winning entry exhibits none in its conception or execution, and requires none in its appreciation. Any genuinely curious observer would consider your picture the antithesis of Imagination.
ETA: jejeje, Shannon beat me to it...
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 10:37:46.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:40:44 AM · #58 |
Dear Paul,
I am not a demanding person, and I will not demand or whine for your return.
Instead, please accept my polite and humble invitation to return and rise above any other petty requests you may have received here.
We all create our own experience and mine is not the same without your presence.
In this respect for you, I am not alone.
Please RSVP.
Thank you.
-Mae
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:47:00 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
 |
true |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:49:33 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bvy:
Please illustrate. |
Probably more harsh without the parts directed at the photographer, but we wouldn't have touched a comment like this– "It's a challenge called 'Imagination' and yet IMO the winning entry exhibits none in its conception or execution, and requires none in its appreciation. I reckon any genuinely curious observer would consider your picture the antithesis of Imagination." Whether or not the comment is dissenting or what the photographer wants to hear is not our concern. |
This is Paul. He's speaks to you personally. He also said "thank you" after most of his comments. I'd be thrilled with a comment like the one he left. He put thought into it. Honesty. Himself. Well we took care of that problem, didn't we?!
Not to mention... Most people hadn't even seen Paul's comment. They might never have. Its removal has given it a greater audience than had it simply been left alone. Further, it has spawned more and very real (i.e. not at all veiled) attacks and personal jabs on the photographer.
The whole thing stinks. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:51:21 AM · #61 |
I guess the problem I still see is nothing Paul originally wrote wasn't factual. Margaret did write all those things, herself, in recent forum threads. If he was taking them out of context or misconstruing her words, I could see the need to modify his original comment, but he wasn't.
CS |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:53:14 AM · #62 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:53:34 AM · #63 |
Just tremendous:
 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:57:27 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bvy:
Please illustrate. |
Probably more harsh without the parts directed at the photographer, but we wouldn't have touched a comment like this– "It's a challenge called 'Imagination' and yet IMO the winning entry exhibits none in its conception or execution, and requires none in its appreciation. I reckon any genuinely curious observer would consider your picture the antithesis of Imagination." Whether or not the comment is dissenting or what the photographer wants to hear is not our concern. |
This is Paul. He's speaks to you personally. He also said "thank you" after most of his comments. I'd be thrilled with a comment like the one he left. He put thought into it. Honesty. Himself. Well we took care of that problem, didn't we?!
Not to mention... Most people hadn't even seen Paul's comment. They might never have. Its removal has given it a greater audience than had it simply been left alone. Further, it has spawned more and very real (i.e. not at all veiled) attacks and personal jabs on the photographer.
The whole thing stinks. |
I believe it is this crituque and then this quote straight from the horses mouth that got people upset:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Oh, well, you didn't want to respond to my PM from few days ago. Pity. I will miss your comments and images.
Adieu, Paul. You picked on the wrong person.
Margaret
But we can all censorship ourselves from now on. That is how this party goes from now on.
And remember, SC has a hard job, they have their own set of rules they have to follow, even if they hate having to do it. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:57:59 AM · #65 |
This was my take on it on the last page...
Originally posted by eschelar:
It sounds like the comment was censured because of the style, not the content, but it seems that the style was intended to *soften* the comment, not twist the dagger.
The alternative would be a comment with no flavoring, perhaps something like this:
"You say that you want to learn, so I find this picture totally unimaginative and poorly executed and conceived. It is totally devoid of any imagination and I cannot understand how anyone else with half a brain could see the picture as "imaginative". Since it scored so well, that says something about the people who voted. So, while many people would say your picture was amazing on a quick glance, anyone looking closer would find that your picture is completely worthless." |
This version has more of the content of the original.
But I would argue that:
1 - I don't see the personal attack against the author
2 - this version is more harsh and removes Paul's original attempt to soften his delivery
3 - there does seem to be some manner of attack against the general populace, but I don't think that qualifies as a 'personal' attack.
I actually missed this line:
"Margaret, I'd not normally make such a bluntly observed assessment, but I'm sure from your many forum posts on the subject that you'd prefer that to my damning it with yet more faint praise."
But how is this a personal attack? He is explaining the reason that he is giving such a strong comment. Clearly the person wants more direct comments. If not from the forum posts, you can also see the statement in her profile.
Mae, you can add my name to your little list and my personal invitation to critique any photos in my portfolio at any time. Unfortunately, I don't have the inclination at this time to maintain my profile, so that might have to wait for a bit until my personal life calms down a bit. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:03:28 AM · #66 |
| She'll delete that comment now like all her other outbursts and continue saying she's being attacked, incredible. I wonder what she's got planned for me. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:05:27 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by jagar:
She'll delete that comment now like all her other outbursts and continue saying she's being attacked, incredible. I wonder what she's got planned for me. |
Comment is already gone. Looks like the SC removed it.
CS |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:07:01 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by jagar:
She'll delete that comment now like all her other outbursts and continue saying she's being attacked, incredible. I wonder what she's got planned for me. |
Comment is already gone. Looks like the SC removed it.
CS |
I reported it. Thank you SC. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:08:33 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by bvy:
This is Paul. He's speaks to you personally. He also said "thank you" after most of his comments. I'd be thrilled with a comment like the one he left. He put thought into it. Honesty. Himself. |
I'd have no issue with such a comment either, and I've been on the receiving end of a number like that. However, if we receive a complaint (no matter who made it) about a comment with parts directed at the photographer rather than the entry, it's SC policy to contact the person making the comment and request a revision to resolve the situation. Apparently contrary to popular opinion, the comment does not have to be all flowers and butterflies either, as indicated by the request itself– "If you truly believe she wants the constructive criticism, just write the criticism. If you believe she's not geniune in that, then she'll report that, but we won't remove honest criticism." Ubique could have softened or even defended the comment as wholly appropriate, but instead chose to immediately close his account. Frankly, that's his problem.
Originally posted by bvy:
Not to mention... Most people hadn't even seen Paul's comment. They might never have. Its removal has given it a greater audience than had it simply been left alone. Further, it has spawned more and very real (i.e. not at all veiled) attacks and personal jabs on the photographer. |
True, and we've already removed some. Reposting Margaret's comment only fuels the mob, and serves no benefit to anyone. We're aware of the comment. Retaliation and personal attacks are not helpful. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:10:26 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Dear Paul,
I am not a demanding person, and I will not demand or whine for your return.
Instead, please accept my polite and humble invitation to return and rise above any other petty requests you may have received here.
We all create our own experience and mine is not the same without your presence.
In this respect for you, I am not alone.
Please RSVP.
Thank you.
-Mae |
You are not alone. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:15:09 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by tome:
You are not alone. |
::BEAMS::
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 11:15:41. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:19:37 AM · #72 |
Another:
I wish he'd come back :-( Add PuppyBear to Mae's list.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:22:40 AM · #73 |
There must have been some other back and forth, Pm's and conversations,
that we don't know about,that amounted to the "actions" taken by SC.
We all know the recent history, the threads, the bitterness,
the people seemingly being forced to choose sides, etc.
Through all of this, the wise peacemaker types have made us think, especially as to what "opinions" are
(vs. universal truths)and some photographers have shown emotion that I wasn't sure they had in them.
I say a lot of off the cuff and brainless things, and sometimes shoot off my mouth without thinking,
but before when I said "forced to choose sides,"let me be clear, I believe, there is only one side that is fit to be on, in fact.
(edited to make it look less like poetic verse)
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 11:26:40. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:29:31 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... However, if we receive a complaint (no matter who made it) about a comment with parts directed at the photographer rather than the entry, it's SC policy to contact the person making the comment and request a revision to resolve the situation. Apparently contrary to popular opinion, the comment does not have to be all flowers and butterflies either, as indicated by the request itself– [i]"If you truly believe she wants the constructive criticism, just write the criticism. If you believe she's not geniune in that, then she'll report that, but we won't remove honest criticism." |
Huh?
I thought we were talking about personal attacks?
Does this mean that comments should not be about the photographer at all? I just wrote a rather glowing comment to bear on an old pic of his that keeps coming back to me and I talked *about* bear and *to* bear.
If I read your post correctly, he could report my post because it included "a comment with parts directed at the photographer rather than the entry".
What's more, if I write a post to someone and give a detailed critique of my opinion on the pic, then say something like "Hey , don't take it personally, I like some of your other shots, just this one doesn't do it for me..." *THAT* is the part that is in violation of rules of conduct?
Huh? |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:30:37 AM · #75 |
| To talk about my photographs is to talk about me... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:26:17 PM EDT.
