| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2012 11:37:35 AM · #76 |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:40:48 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by bvy:
To talk about my photographs is to talk about me... |
Yes. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:45:53 AM · #78 |
I enjoyed his participation. Not all of his images were to my tastes. But many were spectacular and emotive to a degree I can't replicate. I respect that.
The only way I can think of browsing his images is through browsing comments/favourites he has received.
Comments received by ubique
Favourited images of ubique's
Very pleasing browse.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 11:46:10.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:51:34 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
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". |
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read the comment a few minutes ago; "If I'm trying to be a good citizen, am I duty-bound to report this comment because it makes personal references?"
I decided I'd thank you instead. May's well do it publicly, now. Thanks, pal! I'm humbled!
I know all that sounds ridiculous, but when you get into the area of proscribed speech, you can only do one of two things: in this case, prohibit all personal references, or draw arbitrary lines and make arbitrary judgments as to who's crossed over them.
I understand SC has a very tough job to do, but I think the cure's worse than the disease, frankly.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:52:29 AM · #80 |
I don't often participate in these discussions (although I often have decided opinions.)
Still, after reading the offending comment, I just can't see anything derogatory or even unkind about it.
If there are behind the scenes dramas going on, then they should be dealt with on their own terms, not
through what seems to be the forced editing of a comment which is simply negative and offered in the usual style of the commenter.
I realize Site Council has a difficult task to accomplish and with some ten years of experience, they do it well. It's difficult to turn back from decisions, and I don't expect them to do that here.
I wish this had been dealt with in a different way, if at all.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 11:54:36. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 11:59:21 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by bvy:
To talk about my photographs is to talk about me... |
Yes. |
and yes. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:05:19 PM · #82 |
I've received the following from Ubique, who of course can't post here any longer since he's terminated his membership. He's asked if I'd be willing to "host" a reply to some of what's happening in this thread:
Originally posted by ubique:
I became aware of this awkward forum thread because Mae (hihosilver) sent me a link to it. I was (am) happy to let it die its death, but I am nonetheless deeply pissed off that Shannon Calvert has made some posts implying that there was some background to the issue over my comment. He knows I can’t respond. If I could respond I’d say this to Shannon:
“This claim is entirely without foundation. The SC notice to me requiring withdrawal of the comment stated that I had “carried over from another discussion” a (softly worded) personal attack. I have never exchanged any PMs with the author of the photograph. I have commented – favorably – on a couple of her photographs. That’s all the contact we’ve ever had, as far as I recall. I have not participated in any of the recent forum threads in which she featured as an apparently demented provocateur. Any animosity was entirely a figment of Margaret’s fevered imagination (ironic, given the content of my comment and the title of the relevant challenge). Nobody from SC checked to see if this “carried over from another discussion” claim had any substance. I told the SC in my reply to their censorship notice that I could live with Margaret, but not with their decision. This implication from Shannon of some hidden agenda is offensive, wilfully misleading and disgraceful, and reinforces for me the correctness of my decision to leave DPC for the reason stated. “ |
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 12:15:26.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:13:40 PM · #83 |
No one should ever be required to edit a comment. You should start suspending accounts or banning users for behind the scene skirmishes, but once we lose the ability to be honest in a our critiques and criticism we lose what so much of us love about the site, its honesty.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:18:20 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Huh? |
This isn't exactly rocket science. User complains about a comment. If there are no ToS violations and the comment is directed at the entry, we ignore the complaint. If the comment could be construed as a personal dig at the (offended) photographer, then we ask the person making the comment to rephrase or reconsider. If the person making the comment refuses to edit, then we may (or may not) edit or hide the comment just as we would for any forum post. SC's role in this is limited to mediation, and maybe the comment could have been left as-is, but if the other party chooses to walk out rather than make any attempt at polite resolution or discussion, then that's his right. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:22:24 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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.
|
Hmn. Do I want to get ready to defend my comments as "wholly appropriate"? Maybe we should all go through our comments received: certainly we will find some "inappropriate" ones. All piss and vinegar may now be suspect. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:28:48 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Huh? |
This isn't exactly rocket science. User complains about a comment. If there are no ToS violations and the comment is directed at the entry, we ignore the complaint. If the comment could be construed as a personal dig at the (offended) photographer, then we ask the person making the comment to rephrase or reconsider. If the person making the comment refuses to edit, then we may (or may not) edit or hide the comment just as we would for any forum post. SC's role in this is limited to mediation, and maybe the comment could have been left as-is, but if the other party chooses to walk out rather than make any attempt at polite resolution or discussion, then that's his right. |
Well, perhaps his account could be re-opened so he may make his own posts and reply directly to this awkward thread (love that word!) or in private as may be his preferred discretion.
I'm in favor of getting past this far more awkward (not the right word) event. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:33:55 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Huh? |
This isn't exactly rocket science. User complains about a comment. If there are no ToS violations and the comment is directed at the entry, we ignore the complaint. If the comment could be construed as a personal dig at the (offended) photographer, then we ask the person making the comment to rephrase or reconsider. If the person making the comment refuses to edit, then we may (or may not) edit or hide the comment just as we would for any forum post. SC's role in this is limited to mediation, and maybe the comment could have been left as-is, but if the other party chooses to walk out rather than make any attempt at polite resolution or discussion, then that's his right. |
He did not "choose" to walk out. Oh, maybe in a physical sense he did, but what he was asked to do here was wrong and he can't be a part of it. That really didn't leave him a choice. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:39:06 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Well, perhaps his account could be re-opened so he may make his own posts and reply directly to this awkward thread (love that word!) or in private as may be his preferred discretion. |
He is welcome to come back any time he likes. The account closure was Ubique's own demand, and reopening it would have to be his request as well. My only role in this situation was to suggest waiting a few days for him to cool off before closing the account and ask for his side of the story. The comment was edited (by Ubique) before I or most of the SC even saw it, so all most of us knew was that the comment apparently had an air of, "I'll be critical here because this is what you are pretending you want." As I suggested, there's more to the story here than the public impression that we were censoring a potentially legitimate comment as a spiteful request. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:41:31 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
He did not "choose" to walk out. |
That is precisely what he did. First reply to the ticket– "Please remove the comment. Please also remove my profile," and shortly after that, "OK I have edited it. But don't forget to now remove my profile page and close my account please." No attempt to resolve the situation or question the edit request, just "Bye!"
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 12:43:25. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:44:12 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Well, perhaps his account could be re-opened so he may make his own posts and reply directly to this awkward thread (love that word!) or in private as may be his preferred discretion. |
He is welcome to come back any time he likes. The account closure was Ubique's own demand, and reopening it would have to be his request as well. My only role in this situation was to suggest waiting a few days for him to cool off before closing the account and ask for his side of the story. The comment was edited (by Ubique) before I or most of the SC even saw it, so all most of us knew was that the comment apparently had an air of, "I'll be critical here because this is what you are pretending you want." As I suggested, there's more to the story here than the public impression that we were censoring a potentially legitimate comment as a spiteful request. |
So now that you've seen his comment first hand do you, yourself, still feel it had an air of "I'll be critical here because this is what you are pretending you want." Sorry to put you on the spot, but I really don't get what was so bad about his comment that the photographer felt it needed to be reported in the first place. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:44:41 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
He did not "choose" to walk out. |
That is precisely what he did. First reply to the ticket– "Please remove the comment. Please also remove my profile," and shortly after that, "OK I have edited it. But don't forget to now remove my profile page and close my account please." |
Shannon, I feel uncomfortable with the SC quoting Private Messages without permission. Maybe I missed it. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:48:20 PM · #92 |
Well, ya gotta admit here, Scalvert is between a rock and hard place here.
I think the best course of action is to actually have MargaretN come here and explain why it was reported, what she felt was out of line, what she found so offending and outstanding that she did this and to reply with her to him with her non veiled threat to him.
That way, we can all understand and we see her side of the story. And we will know what, not, to put in comments to her.
There are always two sides of the story.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 12:48:59. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:50:12 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Well, perhaps his account could be re-opened so he may make his own posts and reply directly to this awkward thread (love that word!) or in private as may be his preferred discretion. |
He is welcome to come back any time he likes. The account closure was Ubique's own demand, and reopening it would have to be his request as well. My only role in this situation was to suggest waiting a few days for him to cool off before closing the account and ask for his side of the story. The comment was edited (by Ubique) before I or most of the SC even saw it, so all most of us knew was that the comment apparently had an air of, "I'll be critical here because this is what you are pretending you want." As I suggested, there's more to the story here than the public impression that we were censoring a potentially legitimate comment as a spiteful request. |
That is because a SC member ordered the comment to be edited or that it would be removed en bloc. It is this structure, and lack of leadership/oversight, of the concept of Site Council that results in these problems. This is a comment to the structure and function of Site Council, not the members. I don't want this to become a battle against individual members of SC.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 12:51:23. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:50:30 PM · #94 |
So MargaretN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>THE FLOOR IS YOURS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Help us understand your position please. And I am asking because I think it is important to understand your side of things |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:52:37 PM · #95 |
| Juliet, that won't help. It's beyond Margaret; it's a matter of censorship, and what the membership of DPC will tolerate. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:52:57 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Well, perhaps his account could be re-opened so he may make his own posts and reply directly to this awkward thread (love that word!) or in private as may be his preferred discretion. |
He is welcome to come back any time he likes. The account closure was Ubique's own demand, and reopening it would have to be his request as well. My only role in this situation was to suggest waiting a few days for him to cool off before closing the account and ask for his side of the story. The comment was edited (by Ubique) before I or most of the SC even saw it, so all most of us knew was that the comment apparently had an air of, "I'll be critical here because this is what you are pretending you want." As I suggested, there's more to the story here than the public impression that we were censoring a potentially legitimate comment as a spiteful request. |
That is because a single SC member ordered the comment to be edited or that it would be removed en bloc. It is this structure, and lack of leadership/oversight, of the concept of Site Council that results in these problems. This is a comment to the structure and function of Site Council, not the members. I don't want this to become a battle against individual members of SC. |
Exactly. That's what's scary. Where was the urgency? Censorship is not something to be undertaken lightly. I could understand the need for immediate response if the comment in question were truly offensive, scatological, profane, whatever. But this comment was none of those things.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:56:03 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Juliet, that won't help. It's beyond Margaret; it's a matter of censorship, and what the membership of DPC will tolerate. |
One has to learn from the beginning to see the ending, so I think it would help. To understand why it started and then how it snowballed into this, is the right thing
But maybe I am wrong. |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:57:59 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Well, perhaps his account could be re-opened so he may make his own posts and reply directly to this awkward thread (love that word!) or in private as may be his preferred discretion. |
He is welcome to come back any time he likes. The account closure was Ubique's own demand, and reopening it would have to be his request as well. My only role in this situation was to suggest waiting a few days for him to cool off before closing the account and ask for his side of the story. The comment was edited (by Ubique) before I or most of the SC even saw it, so all most of us knew was that the comment apparently had an air of, "I'll be critical here because this is what you are pretending you want." As I suggested, there's more to the story here than the public impression that we were censoring a potentially legitimate comment as a spiteful request. |
Do you mean you notified him to change his post before you or the other SC members even saw and read it? |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 12:58:47 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Juliet, that won't help. It's beyond Margaret; it's a matter of censorship, and what the membership of DPC will tolerate. |
One has to learn from the beginning to see the ending, so I think it would help. To understand why it started and then how it snowballed into this, is the right thing
But maybe I am wrong. |
Sure, it's good to see as many facets of the issue as possible.
And I'm sure we'll hear from Margaret. But it's 3:00am where she lives, so it might be a few hours.
:) |
|
|
|
06/13/2012 01:00:11 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Juliet, that won't help. It's beyond Margaret; it's a matter of censorship, and what the membership of DPC will tolerate. |
All democracy and free speech aside: Remember, DPC is a MODERATED forum. It has forum rules, which apply to image comments as well. The moderators make their best judgement calls. If a user quits as a result of our efforts to enforce the rules, we can't really do anything about it (though I should point out we tried).
Full set here, starting with #11:
11. Do not attack other users. This includes "calling out" specific comments or commenters in a hostile manner. Personal attacks are never appropriate in a constructive discussion. If you disagree with another participant, address their points without attacking them personally. Be aware that others may have differing opinions of a personal attack, so use care when posting. Please note that this includes publicly "calling out" commenters (whether by name or not) in a hostile way.
12. Do not bait or provoke other users. This does not promote civil discussion and will not be tolerated.
13. Assume good faith. When replying to a post, your reply must assume that the original poster's message was intended to be constructive and follow the rules. It's difficult to convey facial expressions or tone of voice over the forums, so a post that appears offensive may be well intentioned. If you cannot assume the original poster acted in good faith, report the post in question, and do not reply at all.
14. Above all, play nice. Be aware that the above rules are not all-inclusive. If you stir up trouble to prove a point, or engage in a pattern of disruptive behavior, we will address your actions, even if those actions do not violate any specific rule listed here. We will also handle any issues not specifically covered by the rules on a case by case basis.
Message edited by author 2012-06-13 13:02:19. |
|
