DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Where is Ubique?!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 272, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/13/2012 01:02:12 PM · #101
.

Message edited by author 2012-06-13 13:06:53.
06/13/2012 01:05:41 PM · #102
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.


OK, I think I understand about him leaving. It's surprising what little things can turn into a big deal. We don't always make the best decisions (oddly, there have been 3 wild and crazy events just today in my life, one of which cost me a $650 cell phone, one of which cost some random idiot some teeth and a pair of glasses (I didn't do it) and one of which literally tore an entire 100 employee company in two in less than 24 hours)

What I *still* do not get - and I'm not the only one here - is how his comment was a ToS violation. According to this 'not exactly rocket science', "if there are no ToS violations and the comment is directed at the entry, we ignore the complaint."

He followed up his negative comment with the idea that his expressions would hopefully be taken in the right light since she is open to negative comments.

Obviously he was aware of her 'history' in the forums when he posted it, but I don't see anything in there that could be construed as a personal attack.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Can you show me something specific in his comment that goes against something specific in the ToS?

I'm a bit rusty on my ToS, but I don't remember seeing anything that says that sarcasm is inappropriate.

Truthfully, my eyebrow is definitely raised on the comment by MargaretN that she sent him a PM and he didn't respond. I'm not trying to pick a side here, certainly, what is done is done, but I really don't see why this issue got past that first 'if it doesn't violate the ToS' to become this little pickle.

I have made many comments that make reference to the user, not the photograph. I've even made a few that were sarcastic and even leaning towards caustic in a few cases. I've even made comments that were meant as praise, but construed as insulting.

But I do understand how those things fit into the ToS. Or so I thought..

ETA: Neil, I think 12 and 14 make sense to me for this case. Thanks for posting some recent ToS rules.

It's funny how we can think our skin is tougher than it really is and we find ourselves retaliating to things we were sure wouldn't bother us. I know that is the mistake I made earlier today and it's still stinging.

I will finish up my posts in this thread by saying I just hope that these issues were clearly highlighted from the beginning. I know how I would have reacted.. or how I think I would have reacted and I hope that Paul does the same.

Message edited by author 2012-06-13 13:15:18.
06/13/2012 01:10:45 PM · #103
Oh, for crying out loud. We didn't edit the comment and most of us didn't even see it. A photographer complained about something that may have suggested disingenuous public intent, and an SC member online at the time asked the commenter to edit. He leaves instead and there's outrage. If Margaret had left a similar comment on Ubique's entry and we made no attempt to resolve the complaint, we'd still be the bad guys.

Ubique gets people riled up in PMs quoting SC ticket conversations. Public forum storm ensues demanding SC comment. I comply and say that's it not a matter of censorship and there is more to the story than the common perception. Then Ubique sends a message feigning indignation over suggestions of a past history (none of which had anything to do with the initial comment edit request and he had already closed his account). I quote the actual exchange in defense, and that's wrong too. The torches have been lit, and it doesn't matter if there was ever really a monster. Carry on.
06/13/2012 01:13:08 PM · #104
Originally posted by scalvert:

No attempt to resolve the situation or question the edit request, just "Bye!"


why should he? he should have never been asked in the first place. if SC deemed it inappropriate they should have just removed it, made him aware that it was decided by the majority that his post was deemed inappropriate.

but instead the situation appears rushed and some member acted too quickly to try to diffuse the situation, when it probably would have blown over

now you have a mess on your hands.

06/13/2012 01:29:28 PM · #105
Originally posted by scalvert:

Oh, for crying out loud. We didn't edit the comment and most of us didn't even see it. A photographer complained about something that may have suggested disingenuous public intent, and an SC member online at the time asked the commenter to edit.


SC are not the bad guys, it's the structure that allows the initial response. He was not asked to edit the comment. He was told to edit the comment or have it removed en bloc.
06/13/2012 01:46:21 PM · #106
If Paul is going to leave this site, then please do so for the right reasons. This silly event is not the right reason to leave. That's MY opinion and I'm sticking to it.

The whole ORIGINAL point of this thread was to maximize the wealth of Paul's contribution to this site. Here is a reason why I'd like him to re-open his account. He wrote these words some time ago, and I treasure them when I feel discouraged. Right now, I feel discouraged. So, I invite all of you to re-read these words with me (from another older thread). I apologize for the length but for obvious reasons I did not want to edit a single letter of his post:

"You've been a bit misunderstood in this thread Mae, probably because you express yourself in such refreshingly forthright terms, and some readers not as mentally agile as yourself think you're being provocative when you're merely being curious. Maybe it happens because some readers aren't really curious about anything much. Sorry for them!

My problem in trying to answer your questions is that you ask me questions for which I have no proper answer! Or at least none that I expect would satisfy you.

Like this one:
'When exactly does a photograph transcend and blossom into the realm of art?'

and this one:
'I'm just wondering about the difference between a mentor who helps to bring out another person's vision rather than imposing their own stamp and also about the internalization effect of a mentor upon another person's vision?'

and this one (from another time):
'However, Paul, I must confess to you that your image "Mekong" completely puzzles and baffles me:
I stared and stared at this image for a long time and tried to align my inner vision so that I too may enjoy the delights of what the Jury found so enticing. I read all the notes and I'm feeling completely awkward to ask anyone to explain this image to me. So, I've resolved myself now to make peace with the pieces of this puzzle with the faith that one day the mysteries will be revealed even to one such as me.'

And then you say something like this:
'Why should the comment box fulfill any level of expectation regarding anyone's education? Why is the comment box considered the "instruction" box?
... which observation is a beacon of uncommon reason (after all, the purpose of the comment box is a question that gets 'begged' so routinely that most folks probably think you're just taking the mickey ... more pity them!).'

I don't want to sound patronising, not least because I reckon you'd see through patronising bullshit in a heartbeat, but the only advice I could ever feel comfortable giving to someone with your formidable level of curiosity and quickness of mind is that you look as much as you can at really good photographs where there is some kind of authoritative discussion of the image provided. This is a good one, and not very expensive. 500 important photographs discussed in bearable detail. I suggest that approach because I really do think that the best mentor you'll ever get is yourself. So the book's just a sort of map for self-mentoring, so that you at least stick to the roads for a while. Eventually you won't need to follow the roads at all."


Paul, you forgot to tell me about the BUMPS in the road...;-/

So, my next question to you is how do we get over them?



06/13/2012 01:48:21 PM · #107


Paul captures the soul of a moment with his images.

Paul - I hate that you're gone. I understand completely.

Message edited by author 2012-06-13 13:48:45.
06/13/2012 01:53:45 PM · #108
I'm actually surprised that a 'majority call' wasn't required for the SC member to contact ubique about changing the comment.
It was my understanding that the SC doesn't make decisions on an individual basis... are comment/thread post reports the exception to this?

Message edited by author 2012-06-13 13:54:11.
06/13/2012 01:56:49 PM · #109
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

I'm actually surprised that a 'majority call' wasn't required for the SC member to contact ubique about changing the comment.
It was my understanding that the SC doesn't make decisions on an individual basis... are comment/thread post reports the exception to this?

They must be because I had a reported post where the SC member couldn't even quote me my own post. Makes it hard to rebuttal when you don't know what they're talking about. I would find it extremely sloppy if a true council would allow such a response to be sent out.

CS

Message edited by author 2012-06-13 13:57:25.
06/13/2012 02:02:02 PM · #110
As I read this over again I thought to myself, in a fit of solidarity and perhaps mob mentality, what if everyone was to leave the
exact same comment on that photo. hundreds of improper comments to be removed and hundreds of photographers to be
admonished.

But then I realized, aside from being ludicrously baiting, it would be bullying one member excessively,
and then it hit me, it doesn't make it right, and the job isn't easy, nor the solution,
but it's not the comment or the commenter that is the issue here,
hence the statement that the merits of what was said is not in issue-
it's the history of the receiver.

06/13/2012 02:35:42 PM · #111
Forum moderation is always sticky business. There are victims on both sides.

In this case, though, I think it was a bad call on the part of moderation. Terms of Service should always be pliable, particularly in the case of well-respected members...and while I can't attest to that personally, it seems ubique was a member of exceptional quality.
06/13/2012 02:37:13 PM · #112
Sigh.

I won't take my ball, as I like having a portfolio. It's a personal history in pictures for me.

But I may not play well with others for awhile.

And this after all the goodwill for Denielle and Shez and Doc Pete. The things we can do when we're not pouring gasoline into the fire.

And after I took a couple of evenings to comment on all of the entries in the Wide challenge because I didn't have any comments. But my comments would make Paul flinch. I'd be more critical but I haven't his skill. Ah well.

It all just plain sucks.
06/13/2012 02:42:56 PM · #113
Originally posted by SwordandScales:

Terms of Service should always be pliable, particularly in the case of well-respected members...and while I can't attest to that personally, it seems ubique was a member of exceptional quality.


That's the thing about rules, in order to be fair they have to apply to everybody Equally. If you're truly moderating you have no outside opinion and the rules will be applied equally to everybody.
Ubique may have been a beloved member of the community here, he may have been the greatest photographer since Ansel Adams in some people's mind, he may have even given you your first favorite or helpful comment.
That's not what's being discussed by the SC. They took an impartial look at the details, they came to a decision as per the ToS which is what they are supposed to do, and Ubique was the one that chose to leave.

For all of the comments against MargaretN for being "thin skinned" regarding Ubique's comment on her 'lack of imagination', i'm going to have to say i think that Ubique was also quite thin skinned quitting in such a way after being asked to remove a personal jab (perceived or real) from a comment and leave the technical aspects in tact.

Hate me if you want, i'm quite happy with my clear conscience.

Message edited by author 2012-06-13 14:43:47.
06/13/2012 03:24:38 PM · #114
Originally posted by RyanWareham:

Originally posted by SwordandScales:

Terms of Service should always be pliable, particularly in the case of well-respected members...and while I can't attest to that personally, it seems ubique was a member of exceptional quality.


That's the thing about rules, in order to be fair they have to apply to everybody Equally. If you're truly moderating you have no outside opinion and the rules will be applied equally to everybody.


Ignoring your other points, this is non-existent. Even the most objective photojournalist is a member of the greater society which he is, in some way, portraying in his photographs. To be completely apathetic would make us robots. We're not there yet, thankfully.
06/13/2012 03:26:51 PM · #115
When it comes to tickets, often we try to deal with straightforward things based on our own common sense. When I am faced with someone complaining about a comment on their image, I take this approach:

Read the comment. Visit the profiles of each person, try to read as many recent thread posts where both were involved. If the comment is an outright attack with nothing else to it, I just hide it and give a warning to the commenter. Repeat offences get harsher responses/suspensions.

Once I feel a bit informed and the comment is not an outright violation, I decide whether to contact the reporter and say "there is no violation here, sorry you felt slighted or offended, but this is a compliant comment" If I decide there is a problem with the comment, I tell the commenter what I think the problem is, or what is reported to me as the problem and I invite that person's feedback on it, as well as request to edit the comment to remove or fix the offending part. It is always open to anyone to decline that offer. If I think the comment is problematic, and the commenter refuses, I can either leave the comment as is, hide it, or edit it myself. I try hardest to leave the comment as is as often as I can, edit it as little as possible to correct the problem but leave the substance of the critique/praise, and my final and most drastic resort is to hide it myself.

I feel this is the same process followed by the SC member who responded to Paul, and unfortunately, it did not go as well as it usually does.

If the community as a whole would like a different process or additional steps, let us know and we'll try to do it.
06/13/2012 03:30:53 PM · #116
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

I'm actually surprised that a 'majority call' wasn't required for the SC member to contact ubique about changing the comment.
It was my understanding that the SC doesn't make decisions on an individual basis... are comment/thread post reports the exception to this?

They must be because I had a reported post where the SC member couldn't even quote me my own post. Makes it hard to rebuttal when you don't know what they're talking about. I would find it extremely sloppy if a true council would allow such a response to be sent out.

CS


I will admit I was the SC in that exchange, Chris (as you know of course, and now everyone does). I didn't have the quote handy because I was just gathering information about the situation, and in the end (for everyone's peace of mind) I did "edit" Chris' comment to add "he's just kidding" to the post. I'm glad Chris didn't leave because of it.

If I was going to make you change it or remove it, I would have posted a link to your comment directly so that you could see exactly what I was talking about, but as I was just asking you a general question about something with some reference to that post, I took the few minutes I had to fire off the ticket rather than sit down, gather all relevant links and send a more "formal" email to you.
06/13/2012 04:30:38 PM · #117
Originally posted by frisca:

When it comes to tickets, often we try to deal with straightforward things based on our own common sense. When I am faced with someone complaining about a comment on their image, I take this approach:

Read the comment. Visit the profiles of each person, try to read as many recent thread posts where both were involved. If the comment is an outright attack with nothing else to it, I just hide it and give a warning to the commenter. Repeat offences get harsher responses/suspensions.

Once I feel a bit informed and the comment is not an outright violation, I decide whether to contact the reporter and say "there is no violation here, sorry you felt slighted or offended, but this is a compliant comment" If I decide there is a problem with the comment, I tell the commenter what I think the problem is, or what is reported to me as the problem and I invite that person's feedback on it, as well as request to edit the comment to remove or fix the offending part. It is always open to anyone to decline that offer. If I think the comment is problematic, and the commenter refuses, I can either leave the comment as is, hide it, or edit it myself. I try hardest to leave the comment as is as often as I can, edit it as little as possible to correct the problem but leave the substance of the critique/praise, and my final and most drastic resort is to hide it myself.

I feel this is the same process followed by the SC member who responded to Paul, and unfortunately, it did not go as well as it usually does.

If the community as a whole would like a different process or additional steps, let us know and we'll try to do it.


Thank you for your response. I don't know how we could determine what the community as a whole would like to see change, but I do believe that in this case a more collaborative SC effort might have ended this story differently.
In general, if someone were to be reprimanded I would have assumed that more than one SC member would be involved in the decision. I believe that's the case with DQ, yes?
06/13/2012 04:46:10 PM · #118
Originally posted by PennyStreet:


In general, if someone were to be reprimanded I would have assumed that more than one SC member would be involved in the decision. I believe that's the case with DQ, yes?


The thing of it is, nobody was really being "reprimanded". SC was trying to be evenhanded by applying the same standard it always does. I was asked to modify a comment once myself, and did so immediately. I've been a forum moderator elsewhere, I know it's a difficult and thankless task. It would be unbelievably cumbersome to have to convene some sort of quorum every time a member gets his/her knickers in a twist about something that was said, it's just not practical.

In the specific event, I just don't think the post warranted any action at all. But I'm not SC, it's not my call. If I were in Paul's shoes I'd have made the appropriate modifications, perhaps a little crankily, and moved on. But I'm not Paul, and he did what he felt he had to do.

I'm sure, in hindsight, SC would have acted differently had they known this would have happened, but to them it seemed like a routine feather-smoothing mission, and by the time it went off-track it was too late to do anything.

Sigh...

R.
06/13/2012 04:49:41 PM · #119
Originally posted by frisca:

I'm glad Chris didn't leave because of it.

I'll make you regret writing this.

CS
06/13/2012 05:00:19 PM · #120
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

... I do believe that in this case a more collaborative SC effort might have ended this story differently.
In general, if someone were to be reprimanded I would have assumed that more than one SC member would be involved in the decision. I believe that's the case with DQ, yes?

DQ's don't require the same kind of timeliness that dealing with comments already visible to the public need ... while I might have phrased the request to edit the comment a bit differently, remember that it was in fact a request, one which Paul (the other one) could have reasonably refused/argued about with some justification. To completely replace the comment and leave strikes me as a bit extreme -- and since the issue seems to have to do with whether or not someone truly wants to hear constructive criticism, I find his reaction somewhat ironic.

There is no doubt that the first line of his original comment, however cleverly and subtly phrased, was meant to be a personal dig at the photographer ("You say you want ..." really means "I think you lie when you say that ..."), and was officially a violation of the forum rules as posted by Neil. Simply removing that line would not have compromised the integrity of the artistic criticism, and thus is not "censorship" to me.
06/13/2012 05:07:22 PM · #121
Originally posted by GeneralE:

("You say you want ..." really means "I think you lie when you say that ..."),.


Does it? (and I'm not being facetious here, I really don't know) - I would have thought it meant "I'll give it to you bluntly since you asked for the honest feedback"
06/13/2012 05:07:40 PM · #122
Originally posted by tnun:

I didn't want to say it, but now I must: ubi ubique?

^^ lol

What an amazing artist--
06/13/2012 05:16:26 PM · #123
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

("You say you want ..." really means "I think you lie when you say that ..."),.


Does it? (and I'm not being facetious here, I really don't know) - I would have thought it meant "I'll give it to you bluntly since you asked for the honest feedback"

Well, I guess that's how the photographer read it, and since it's (intentionally) ambiguous, it's reasonable to expect that some proportion of the public (remember people just browse the site and probably look at the top-ranked photos most) would read it the same way. The point is that that part of the statement is/was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the actual comments about the photo, and I don't find requesting its removal/modification to be out of line with our standard policies.
06/13/2012 05:35:22 PM · #124
The fire is turning to embers as this next chapter of DPC Drama comes softly to a close. After reading this thread and following other threads where offenses took place and people were attacked and others joined the party, the thing that is missing most from these events is grace, humility and forgiveness.

Grace, undeserved favor. Despite our best attempts at tact and diplomacy we often offend others with our speech.nWhen someone feels they have been offended by another it is wholly appropriate for the offended party to go to the offender and bring the issue up. What is the response of the offender to the offended party? Grace. "I'm sorry I have offended you, will you forgive me?" That very act can serve to extinguish the spark of offense.

Humility. How easy it is to act out in selfish pride and demand our right to speak freely. How hard it is to consider others more than ourselves and temper our speech in favor of peace. Pride comes before the fall. The humble will be lifted up.

Forgiveness. The act of denying your right to execute justice. When the offending party practices grace the right response by the offended party is forgiveness. "Thank you for acknowledging that your words felt hurtful to me. I no longer see this incident in the same way and I won't pursue the matter any further. I forgive you."

Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control... Let your good spirit be evident to all!


06/13/2012 05:45:35 PM · #125
Originally posted by EL-ROI:

The fire is turning to embers as this next chapter of DPC Drama comes softly to a close. After reading this thread and following other threads where offenses took place and people were attacked and others joined the party, the thing that is missing most from these events is grace, humility and forgiveness.

Grace, undeserved favor. Despite our best attempts at tact and diplomacy we often offend others with our speech.nWhen someone feels they have been offended by another it is wholly appropriate for the offended party to go to the offender and bring the issue up. What is the response of the offender to the offended party? Grace. "I'm sorry I have offended you, will you forgive me?" That very act can serve to extinguish the spark of offense.

Humility. How easy it is to act out in selfish pride and demand our right to speak freely. How hard it is to consider others more than ourselves and temper our speech in favor of peace. Pride comes before the fall. The humble will be lifted up.

Forgiveness. The act of denying your right to execute justice. When the offending party practices grace the right response by the offended party is forgiveness. "Thank you for acknowledging that your words felt hurtful to me. I no longer see this incident in the same way and I won't pursue the matter any further. I forgive you."

Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control... Let your good spirit be evident to all!


Lovely post.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:56:23 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 05:56:23 AM EDT.